The Group Mind

How a survival exercise can save today’s church

My friends know I’ve recently been on a training exercise up in Redmond, WA. In Redmond we did several team building exercises. One of which was a survival exercise. Could your team survive a plane crash in the cold terrain of rugged Canada?

You and your teammates survive a plane crash. You salvage 15 items from the plane. You must rate the items in order of importance first individually then as a team. After you complete the exercise, you will compare your ratings against the experts to see if you lived or died.
So we went about quietly rating our items. Then it was time for the team to get together and work out the team ranking.

My team first wanted to try to walk out like many others. But after talking about the risks and challenges involved, we came to a consensus that it was safer to try to make camp and wait it out. In our plane crash scenario it’s important to understand there was no one “in charge” of our band of survivors. Even the captain of the plane was supposedly dead. So the only power that could be exerted initially in the exercise was that of leadership and charisma. So we as a group came to a decision. And no one was around to tell us how to make that decision.

How we came to the decision to stay was interesting in itself. During the initial chaos someone came up with the idea that we should find out if anyone had any survival training. Two people spoke up but only one was heard. The one that wasn’t heard interestingly had the best training and ultimately the best individual score. This is important.

In a fair system you might simply average the scores each item received and go with that. That would give each person equal input into the decision process. Or we could vote on it. And choose as a group to go with the vote. We might find out who the most likely expert is and just agree to go with the experts choices.

So we each argued some more passionately then the others about why our choices were in essences better then everyone else’s choices. In the end we came up with a list that no one was happy with but everyone agreed to follow.

You might find the results interesting. One might have thought the team expert who ended up having the best individual score would have beaten the team score. But he did not. It wasn’t even close. Our unhappy team did survive because we choose to stay verses attempting a walk out. And we did good enough on our ranking.

Lessons learned out of this exercise were in our face. Had we all took the time to really understand who in our group had the expertise we would have fared much better. That is not to say we should have abdicated our decision making to him. Because clearly as a group we were better than he was alone. In addition he should have made himself heard. Only half the blame goes to the group for not listening to him. The other half is his for not stepping up.

The other big lesson was that the group mind is smarter than the average of the component minds. Had we just taken an average, we would have died. And the two people with the previous training, (a previous boy scout and a Norwegian trained soldier) would have been the only two to survive.

So how does this apply to the church? The church in the U.S. is primarily run in an authoritarian style. There is usually someone at the top that is paid to be the expert. And that expert makes the decisions the others generally agree to follow mostly without question. Because if you question you can be thrown out of the church (or otherwise ostracized.)

But in our exercise two points contrast with the U.S. church of today. For one the real expert wasn’t the most charismatic on my team. In today’s churches the “successful” ones are often headed by the charismatic types. There is no way that one man can be the expert in all aspects of church. And secondly even if he is an expert in one thing or another, does that mean that he is more expert then his entire congregation? Probably not.

In fact as the group gets bigger and more minds are available the level of expertise of the group can grow dramatically if it is molded to do so.

The pastor is most often like the most persuasive in our team exercise. People listen to him. For whatever reason, he has the skill of working with people. His job is not to make all the decisions. But to make certain the group mind can work effectively. To make sure the real experts are heard. And to work on connecting people in such a way that the best results and outcomes are achieved as often as possible.

There is an exception to the group mind theory. And that’s when the group is just plain wrong. It’s rare but it does happen. See the Israelites leaving Egypt for several examples. But that’s another blog.

Peace

I Believe in Tithing!

This originally was a comment to Brant Hansen's blog here. You should read it.

I've been out of the traditional church for about 15 years or so. I have at times thought tithing was a bad thing. It's certainly not supported by the New Testament. And you basically have to extend the Aaronic priesthood and the tribe of Levi into the post Jesus era in some mutated way to justify it.

BUT if you go to a church building you should pay to support the building and those that are doing the teaching. If I were going to college I would be expected to pay tuition. That money would go to pay the professors and the electric bill etc. There's nothing wrong with paying for services rendered.

I still won't be going to a church building anytime soon. I've decided I've had enough education and it's time for me to live in the real world. Perpetual education yields an over educated student and an unproductive citizen.

It's too bad more men don't take responsibility for their family's spiritual education. We'd need a lot less buildings. It would be incredibly more efficient.

Wife is calling me for dinner. I've got to go wash my hands...

How to make the Gubernator the POTUS

Many wide eyed republicans have often wished to make Arnold Schwarzenegger the President of these United States. Unfortunately Arnie wasn't born in America. As such he is constitutionally disqualified from the office. Here's the text:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It seems a little strange that we can have a 35 year old we can't have someone who's managed the world’s 8th largest economy in the world. Playing with the 35 year old theme a bit, I wondered how it would sound if the constitution were amended to say you needed to be a US citizen for 35 years instead. Here is what I came up with:

No person except a citizen of the United States for 35 years shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who have not been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It still means 34 year olds can't be president. But it also opens a window of opportunity for our friend Arnold.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in 1947 and became a naturalized citizen in 1983. So let's do the math. 1983+35=2018. He would be eligible to run in the election due to be held November of 2020. He'll miss the 2016 election by a couple of years... So how old would Conan be when he took office in January of 2021? 74. Just two years old than McCain...

Peace

Open Letter to Recruiters

This was originally posted on My Linked in Power Forum. So it's taken somewhat out of context but you'll get the gist.

This is more like an open letter to the recruiting industry. Lately I have noticed that more and more recruiters are asking for more and more from me before they will even show my resume to their client. Here is my answer.

1.) No, I will not rewrite my resume to fit the needs of your client. My resume is something that I have been working on for years and is my marketing piece. I will however take your suggestions on improving my resume. I appreciate your insight and experience but I feel no obligation to put my resume in your format or answer extensive questionnaires for the privilege of being submitted to your client. If that makes me loose an interview here or there I’m OK with that. If you lose a quality candidate are you OK with that?
2.) No, you may not have references before you set up an interview. This is just silly. If I gave out references to everyone that ever asked, my references would stop saying nice things about me because their phone would be ringing off the hook! My references are doing me a favor by taking your call. I would be doing a disservice to them if I asked them to take the number of calls your industry is asking me to ask them to take. I prefer if you make reference checks after the first interview. In my line of work it usually takes several interviews before an offer can be made so you can wait till after the first one. I might be persuaded to let you check my references after you setup the first interview but before it takes place. Under no circumstances will I let you bug my colleagues before you even submit my resume to your client!
3.) No, I will not fill out your application prior to the first interview. This is mostly HR departments or internal that do this and not traditional 3rd party recruiters. I understand that your application is important to you. But you would not believe the hours I have spent filling out applications that go into a black hole. I don’t expect to hear back from you. I don’t expect to be told why I was not considered. I don’t expect any feedback that is at all useful to me.

Folks it’s all about return on investment. My time is valuable to me. I know that my time is not nearly as valuable to anyone else as it is to me. But I am responsible to managing my time. No one else is. If you can get less qualified or more desperate candidates to jump through all your hoops more power to you. But I get the sense every time I speak with one of these people that they think they are doing me a favor. I got that sense from some of the responses to my last post too.

Yes you are getting paid by your client to fill a position with an adequate candidate. I understand you don’t work for me. And it’s not your job to get me a job. Frankly no recruiter has ever gotten me a job. I got me every job I’ve ever had. Sometimes recruiters were used as an advertising and screening mechanism by the employer along the way. But the recruiter did not impress the employer in the interview process. I did.

I get the feeling that more and more 6 figure candidates will revolt as time goes on. This will make good old fashion networking more and more important.

-John

You can read this and other controversial minutia on my blog at http://www.disorganizedreligion.us

Who McCain Should Choose as his Running Mate

This is a quickie analysis of some of the obvious A list people McCain could choose as his running mate and who would be the best among them.

First let’s take Lieberman. Joe Lieberman ran with Al Gore against Bush and lost. He is a long time "friend" and fellow Senator with McCain who has been courted by Republicans for some time. He uses this against his Democrat brothers to get his way since the Democrat majority in the senate is so slim. McCain might need something to make a historic Hillary/Obama ticket to excite America to vote for him. Adding a Democrat to the Republican ticket might just be what the electorate ordered. Americans generally hate the partisanship of politics and this would be a clear signal that McCain was about something different. It could however backfire on him. He is already on this ice with conservatives. Selecting Lieberman as a running mate just might be the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. If conservatives stay home because they are pissed off, Hillary wins. It may be that McCain doesn't need so much jazz to stop a Hillary/Obama ticket. There may be enough people voting against them (as opposed to voting for someone else) that McCain just needs to play it straight to win. In the end Lieberman is just too risky to be selected.

Huckabee may be a likely choice. He has some baggage (pastor in chief image) that has kept him from doing better in the primaries thus far. He may also be even more liberal than McCain. But McCain may have to choose him if Romney does well enough on Super Tuesday. Adding Huckabee's delegates and strong showing in the southern states maybe the deal with the devil McCain needs to make in order to own the ticket. You can bet Huckabee isn't joining a Romney ticket for sure. No Baptist pastor is going to give a Mormon his blessing to run for president. That may be enough to force Huckabee to endorse McCain just so he decides McCain wins instead of Romney. Depending on how hardball Huckabee plays he could just say if I'm not the VP I won't endorse anyone and you can fight for my delegates. If that happens you might see Mitt Romney win because of McCain's disfavor amongst the Republican elite. Super Tuesday will tell.

That leaves choosing Mitt Romney. If McCain wins decisively on Tuesday, or if he can broker a deal that doesn't include the VP seat with Huckabee, Mitt might be the perfect (hair) candidate to fit the bill. Let's face it. America (USA) is not a Christian country anymore. A Mormon VP is just not that big a deal. Heck Huckabee get's challenged on religion more than special underwear Romney. By selecting Mitt, McCain might unruffle some of the conservative feathers that are out there. The two together would have a strong Republican mandate by consolidating the two strongest vote getters in the primaries. McCain would still do well against Hillary and I think Mitt would trounce Obama in a debate. The two of them would show strong on national security and the economy. What's not to like? Mitt said he wouldn't do it but he would if McCain asks.

I know there are others out there. But when you select a VP, he has to be ready to be president. Who else is ready? You don't want a child as your VP nominee. They are going to have that on the Democrat side with Obama. One of the keys to winning this election is to show experience on your side. I guess you could take a hard look at Newt Gingrich. He's been prancing around the press for the past few years. He's a true Reganite. Maybe maybe. Who knows...?

I Gave Money to Mitt Romney. I Gave Money to Huckabee. But I Voted for McCain.

From the beginning, my concern has primarily been to get a Republican elected. Any republican is better than any Democrat. My key issue is that of social abortion. I think using abortions as a means of birth control is just plain evil. Democrats have a litmus test when selecting or approving judges. That is will they support Roe v Wade or not. Since life is not defined in the constitution and judges have invented a "right" of privacy many judges have taken to legislating from the bench. A democrat is going to appoint judges that do just that. At least with a Republican you have a chance at getting a judge that will judge and not legislate. The point being that whoever can beat Hillary (or perhaps Obama) is my candidate.

At first I thought McCain was unelectable. He doesn't have the party elite supporting him and the guy always looked like an angy white man. Have you ever seen someone so white? He frankly scared me. But the guy learned to smile. And in no small part to that smile he started racking up the delegates.

Up to Florida it was clear it was either going to be Mitt Romney or McCain as nominee. If the economy was the most important thing to you, you choose Mitt. For everything else most people choose McCain. I've been listening to the other pundits about McCain's supposed anti-conservative record. I find it somewhat lacking to be true. The guy has a perfect record voting for life. Most of the time he votes to cut taxes. And he fights to cut government spending. The two things he supposedly is bad on is immigration and campaign finance reform.

McCain Feingold has loop holes. That's bad. So what? I mean what other bill got passed that even attempted campaign finance reform? The American people hate the fact that special interests have so much power in the country. Some argue if the government would just get out of our personal lives (shrink government) that money would automatically have less of an impact. But the argument is circular because you can't get government out of our lives until you limit the effect that money has on how law makers choose to expand or contract the size of government.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm
Regarding immigration, it's a complicated and emotional issue. I may not agree on every aspect of his immigration policy but we have do have several things in common. 1.) Stop or at least severely slow the number of illegals coming into America. 2.) We won't be able to find and deport all the illegals so we need a practical plan that get's them paying taxes instead of getting a free ride on our entitlements. 3.) This country has had waves of immigration throughout its history. (INHO It's a little disingenuous to be so protectionist now.) 4.) McCain voted Yes to making English the official language, voted yes on building the border fence.
Q: Will you pledge to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty?
A: Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty. But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. We need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law; they need some of our love and compassion. I want to assure you that I'll enforce the borders first. We'll solve this immigration problem.
Immigration is a hard problem. He sounds like a guy that is really trying to solve it while at the same time being a compassionate Christian. What's so bad about that?
To wrap it up, McCain has the best shot at stopping a Democrat in November. He has proven he can work across the line with Democrats and even attract some of them to his side (i.e. Lieberman.) He has a strong showing among independents. He'll either appoint pro-life judges or constructionists. Romney will have a much harder time beating Hillary. Huckabee just doesn't have a shot at winning the nomination. (not this year anyway...)

-Peace

My 4 Year Old Understands Compassion

Some of you know my wife has seizures. She has them about once a month. She has the kind where you fall down and convulse and stuff. She is usually back to normal the next day. It can be very stress full on us as a family. Our daughter is 4 now. She knows that mommy has seizures. It's amazing how calm she is. We send her away of course when it starts happening. I check on her frequently the hour after an "event." My wife has told me twice now how gentle our daughter is after my wife has a seizure. I was just surprised that at 4 she could be so compassionate.