The Third Party Vote: Optionality

Just a short one today. I'm trying to cultivate the discipline of writing more.


I have written quite a few posts (they remain perennially the most popular entries on the blog) about the Myers-Briggs personality profile and being an INTP. It's 2020 now, and personality tests are not a trendy topic compared to when I started writing here, but I have found they continue to be a topic of interest on instagram, which has many channels devoted to MBTI.

Apparently there is a smaller but dedicated Korean MBTI community?

One stereotype of INTPs, frequently mentioned in those instagram posts on the topic, is that INTPs lack motivation. More specifically, the motivation is all focused on information gathering, and not on "getting out there and doing things." As far as I can tell this is true; I find myself naturally drawn to gathering and systematizing information to further complete a "theory of everything," which feels like an autotelic and all-absorbing occupation, whereas I often have to make to-do lists and try to cultivate good habits and drink coffee and cue up the right playlists at the right times to spur myself on to being productive and making progress on other kinds of goals. (Such as anything involving paperwork)

So coming from someone who struggles less to see things worth doing and more in summoning the willpower to accomplish some subset of them, a technique I find helpful is the one I want to explain briefly in this post.

An Embarrassment of Motivational Riches

There's a lot of good self-motivation material out there for free nowadays. If the motivation you lack can truly be supplied by anything external to yourself, YouTube has hundreds of hours of different styles and flavors of gifted speakers and accomplished people urging you to get out there and do something, to get up off the mat and overcome whatever is holding you back, to break your larger goals down into small enough steps that you can get started immediately, etc.

I enjoy a good Tom Bilyeu or Jocko Willink interview myself, and have gleaned some valuable puzzle pieces about how life and people work from some of the very accomplished people featured there, which I find ways to apply to my ministry work. (While recognizing the goals being discussed on that and other channels are usually very "this-worldly," if an observation is true then it's true, and truth works cross-platform)

In terms of self-motivation, self-improvement, "hustling/getting after it" and that whole milieu, Solomon tells us that chasing after material wealth isn't worth it; not only because a love for money can lead to all kinds of evil, but that it's simply not worth exhausting yourself for a lifetime for what you can't take with you and what other people may spend badly after you're gone.

(Yet that truth doesn't conflict with the true observation that "A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit." Scripture also informs us that, generally speaking, when the righteous are diligent, they will also be prosperous, and this is considered a good thing, and society as a whole benefits.)

However many people have goals other than wealth; you may need motivation to work off that extra quarantine weight, to get skill certification and move into a new career path, or simply to accomplish that thing you've put off for two years already. But what about when that motivation is balanced more or less equally by our lack thereof?

"The Third Party Vote"

The 2016 election was a surreal experience, perhaps even more so to watch from overseas. One interesting thing to watch on FB was how people who were not excited about either choice mostly fell into two camps: either "lesser of the two evils" or "if we'd all just vote third party, it would solve this." Both camps had weak points which the other side pointed out, but the third party advocates were tenacious and I expect to see some of them back soon for election season 2020.

In trying to motivate ourselves to do a difficult or unpleasant task, we tend to fall into a similar dilemma. Not moving towards our goal is a bad option, but the effort or drudgery or willpower-expenditure involved is demotivational. We thus are trapped between two things we don't want: not making any progress, and some amount of suffering required to make progress.

In this situation, with one vote for progress yet one vote against it, we can benefit from a third vote. In this case, not a vote for a third party, but a vote by a third party. There is a third party involved in the decision, and we seldom give them a vote.

That third party is us, after we've made that progress and arrived at a different place. The you that has run the miles or applied for the grant or rearranged the shop or memorized the scripture passage. The you that now has increased optionality because you've put in the work to get there.

Give the third party involved in your decisions a vote...

Optionality, and the Coronavirus

Optionality is a topic I have not discussed at any length on the blog, though it is an integral part of the theory of Antifragility which I have mentioned quite a few times.

I will probably do a whole post on optionality in the future. For now let's consider it at a basic level--having worked to have more options at your disposal.

The coronavirus situation has caused untold economic damage and personal suffering in the US, partly because of a lack of optionality. Setting aside conspiracy theories to the contrary, the US healthcare system wasn't prepared to handle this kind of pandemic, and thus could only react in an extreme way (since nothing was in place to react at varying levels of extremity as appropriate), yet that meant both federal and state governments could only scramble to obtain resources for this kind of extreme reaction, for which there was no SOP (standard operating procedure) already in place. Hospitals couldn't obtain the supplies they needed and were under contrary instructions on what to do. It was most crudely effective shock test to the system imaginable (one the system failed badly) and yet new revised figures emerging all suggest it was a merciful one.

By contrast the optionality provided by things like more local manufacture of health supplies, a pandemic SOP and agreed-on chain of command, experience of previous pandemics, a smaller population size with fewer international points of entry, etc. helped Taiwan respond to the virus quickly and effectively. It is to be hoped that with the experience of 2020, the US federal and state governments, as well as the American populace, will know better how to respond. Some optionality will have been earned through experience, though at immense cost.

Optionality shows up in people's individual responses to the pandemic and quarantine as well. Some people with sufficient savings were in a position to "pivot" and use the unexpected time at home profitably, whereas those who depended on a weekly income were sorely hurt by the mandatory business closures and shelter-in-place orders. As the weeks drag on, some have even re-opened their shops in defiance of state governments, trying to provide for themselves and their employees with no other source of income. Their situation didn't leave them with any other options.

We can see examples of optionality in scripture, and the woman described in Proverbs 31 is an impressive example:

"She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come." (v25) 

She can laugh because she has worked hard, become a strong person, and knows she has options regardless of what may come. This is not only a question of material security because of all her "side gigs" (weaving, etc) as they'd say on some of those YouTube channels. Her hard work and the strong character she has developed, not to mention her position in the community and acts of charity, all work to secure her against future hardship. One given example is that she is not afraid of a cold winter, for she and her children already have warm clothes (v21-22).
I'm sure with little effort you can imagine various modern parallels. What does "laughing at the days" to come look like in 2020? Among other things, it certainly means setting your faith on a firm foundation and investing effort in doing lots of those things that are difficult, un-fun, yet give you good optionality in the future when you'll probably need it.

Conclusion: Vote for Optionality!

I said at the beginning that this would be short, and I'm rapidly failing to achieve that goal. So, let's wrap things up by combining this concept of optionality with the idea of a third vote: When caught in that balanced-dilemma moment of trying to decide whether or not to tackle a task you don't feel any motivation to complete, rather than just comparing the yes vote of our current level of motivation against the no vote of the effort and/or hardship involved and letting things stagnate there, try giving a third vote to that future self, who is in a place of better optionality due to your invested effort and time. If it's 2 vs 1, do it. You will thank yourself retrospectively from the future.

Is the Problem Planned Parenthood, or You?

This Topic...

Generally speaking I keep this blog politics free. However I don't consider abortion to be a political issue but a moral and spiritual one which plays out symptomatically on the political field due to its nature. It's a huge problem here in Taiwan as well, where even a higher percentage of babies are aborted than in the U.S.

I'm seeing a lot of disputed figures being thrown around regarding the Planned Parenthood debacle, of which I'm sure most people reading this will be aware. "The facts" in this case seem to differ depending on who is citing them, to an even greater extent than usual, and everyone from Congressmen on the Right to FB friends on the Left seem to stumble as they pick their information based on ideologically friendly sources which are focused on polemic over accuracy.

But while anyone with a functioning conscience rightly recoils in horror at what was going on with what they call "tissue donation" (like calling what the Nazis did "mortality research"), to me the most troubling aspect is that what they are doing is apparently legal. Regardless of whether Planned Parenthood is federally defunded or not, that must change. One of the sickest aspects of the whole affair is that Planned Parenthood defended themselves not by explaining that of course they weren't carving up living babies in the womb for their parts, but by clarifying how they were handling the funds involved in doing so. Yet as obvious as it seems to me and many of you that such things should be considered unspeakable atrocities, let alone very illegal, many people rise up bristling in anger when one suggests it. Why is that?

1. The Underlying Issue

The philosophical flashpoint around which the whole issue revolves is the question of personhood. Even a lot of abortion advocates believe human life begins at conception. They don't consider it murder to end that life, however, because they consider it human life in merely an abstract sense, not a person deserving of rights and protection in our society. To them, tending also to be involved in women's movements, a woman is a person, in fact a person of a social class that has been previously mistreated and deserves special protection, and the "fetus" is not. Therefore subjugating a woman's rights to that of an unborn lump of tissue is wrong in several ways at the same time, in their eyes, and they react to that prospect with rage and indignation which they consider righteous.

Now if you believe living people have souls, as all Christians do, and that life begins at conception, then you must logically believe that either there is a human soul united to a fertilized egg at the moment of conception, or that there is a human life with genetic information already supplied by both parents to which a soul is united at some unknown point in the womb. (Scripture does not offer specifics, though logic suggests conception as the most plausible option)

In either case, there is not some kind of benchmark for the progress of physical and mental formation that can serve as a definitive precursor to personhood. I personally believe the human soul exists from the outset, as the physical person and mind designed to match perfectly with it develop in the womb and beyond (Psalm 139:13-16). And if the soul exists from conception, then we must call it a person from that point, even if the fullness of personhood has not yet manifested itself. It has not yet done so in a toddler or teenager either, for that matter, but is a continual process from conception to death and beyond. We are people from the very beginning, and becoming more human all along. (Indeed, the fullness of our humanity as God intended it will not be known until we taste life after death. Only Jesus is truly, fully human, the Firstborn from among the dead.)

If, however, you do not believe living people have souls, and thus consider personhood to require having attained a certain level of physical development with a certain level of brain function, etc., you will be open to persuasion regarding exactly what point personhood is achieved. Certainly an unaware, tiny mote of tissue is not going to seem like a person yet. Even an embryo which is aware of outside stimuli, has taken on human appearance, and recognizes the voices of its parents might not make the cut. Some people, like the infamous Peter Singer and others, take this even farther and suggest birth should not necessarily confer personhood either, since new babies are not fully sentient, brains still rapidly developing, and aren't really people yet according to their stricter definition. (Since most people think emotionally more than rationally, they consider this "horrible" without ever stopping to realize it's just an extension of their own definition of personhood. Where do you draw the line? If nothing is sacred, why should the mere act of passing through the birth canal be so special that it suddenly confers full personhood that did not exist two minutes earlier? Because we adults can see the baby now? Because the amniotic fluid is now replaced by the thinner fluid of our breathable atmosphere?That seems quite arbitrary with regards to the child itself.)

A soul waits as its body and mind develop

2. The Great Impasse

So we have a conundrum. People who believe in the human soul and people who reject that concept are going to have a deep and fundamental disagreement on abortion, which is exactly what we see. It's easy to point to the more strident and offensive members of both sides (though you'll note the millions of deaths are all on one side), and claim that's who you are fighting against. It's easy to throw out various scientific data as well. But the issue at heart is not of science, but of philosophy and faith, because questions like "When is a human a person?" "Do humans have souls?" cannot be answered by scientific inquiry.

Since people do have souls, abortion in most cases should be outlawed as murder, as the developing embryo is a person. Indeed, if human life begins at conception, as a plurality on both sides of the controversy acknowledge, and if the soul is present from that point, then even emergency contraception, the so-called "morning after pills," etc., may represent the forcible separation of both parents' genetic information from the soul, which counts as ending a life. (It has been pointed out that many fertilized eggs fail to implant on their own. Well yes... in our world today, all souls experience physical death via natural causes at some point. But acting intentionally to ensure that this takes place sooner rather than later is called... murder)

However, you are probably not going to convince many people who believe neither in God nor the human soul that the developing human is a person at such an early stage of development. Not necessarily because it conflicts with their own interests, though this is often the case, but also because the very nature of the question of the existence of a soul makes it a foundational aspect of one's worldview. In other words, both believers in and doubters of the soul would be required to destroy and then rebuild most of their ideas about humanity to admit they are wrong.

So you will have, and do have, the Church grieving an ongoing, legal, mass infanticide while Humanist groups deny anything of the sort is taking place, or that it would be wrong if it were (because if there is no God, human society collectively figures out what is good for humanity).

3. What Can Be Done?

Currently, it appears there are only two options for stopping this generational slaughter:

1) You manage to be loud enough and insistent enough to get it banned despite many people not agreeing with your basic logic behind the ban. We do live in a squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease democracy now, for better or worse (mostly worse), so that approach can work if enough people get stirred up. That's exactly what has happened with some Republican congressmen on this issue just recently; enough of their base were fired up enough about the horrible, true revelations regarding some of Planned Parenthood's activities that they felt the pressure to take action on it and vote against the spending bill on that issue alone.

So this approach has been tried, does work to some extent, and as abortion becomes more and more emotionally distasteful with new technology that allows people to see just how human preborn humans look and act (and are), there may be some traction. Also, many political approaches have foolishly taken an "all or nothing" approach in the past. It doesn't make any sense to reject bans that make exceptions for rape, etc., as "compromised" when what you have now is nothing. Saving some babies now would be an excellent first step towards saving the rest.

However, this kind of ban is a shaky victory, which usually doesn't last. It's achieved with the aid of public sentiment, which can just as easily swing back in the other direction years later, and the Church is not nearly as good at being loud and insistent as many secular advocacy groups. We are about Christ's business, or should be, and while the people of any free nation should be concerned with its right governance, that is not the primary responsibility of the Church. Which leads me to the second method...

2) You convince the majority of people, or an influential enough plurality, that people really do have souls. Then, convinced that preborn humans are people too, a ban on killing pre-born people would logically follow. Most people aren't trained to think logically, but they're pretty good at being uncomfortable when something seems morally iffy. If they even strongly suspect an unborn baby is a soul waiting to be born, abortion is going to sound alarmingly like what it actually is.

This talk of the soul would have been more difficult in the age of Modernism, but with Post-Modernism we have found that as our understanding of the universe increases, some things we were sure about before become less certain. We used to "know" there can't be an immortal soul because we couldn't ping it with any scientific instruments and get a measurable response back (actually even that may not be strictly true); now people are much more open to things being out there that are accessible in ways which present difficulties for the scientific method. (not to speak of the current prevailing deterministic materialism in the world of scientific academia which they stubbornly conflate with science itself--an unwitting tribute to philosophy)

So though many gallons of Church ink have been spilled bewailing generations educated to believe there is no absolute truth, at the same time post-modernist ideas have actually removed some significant barriers to evangelism. The Church could be making great headway if we began to engage our culture from our real position of richness in Truth and epistemological strength in Christ and the Scriptures, instead of turning it on its head and trying somehow to be of the world but not in it.

This, as it turns out, is the approach Christ has already commanded us to be working on. Christians should start sharing the gospel and truths of Scripture with their non-believing friends and neighbors (not simply trying to get them to visit the church and then relying on their pastor to explain these things), and with passion and positivity, speaking the clear truth with love, explain our belief in the human soul, of our creation in the Imago Dei, the Image of God, and how every life is precious in His sight, and should be in ours too. And our actions had better line up with our words.

4. Redefining Pro-Choice

Is it difficult to have those kinds of conversations? Usually yes. There is no clear segue from "So did you catch the game last night?..." to "...and that's why human life is intrinsically valuable," but even in the few years I spent as an engineer in the work force before venturing forth on long term cross-cultural missions, we managed to end up having conversations like that around the water cooler quite a few times. (It helps if you pray specifically that God will allow you opportunities to share, and are intentional about it)

But honestly... with our brothers and sisters being martyred in the Middle East and elsewhere (even in this latest Oregon shooting, it looks like), and legal induced abortions in the U.S. having passed the 50,000,000 mark since Roe v. Wade, can you really explain to God that you are too busy, aren't adequately prepared, or are too fearful of other people's opinions to even make the attempt to communicate His truth to a declining culture, one person at a time?

If so, then stop complaining about Planned Parenthood, because the problem is you.

Evil will always be around until final judgment, but being "the good man who did nothing" is your own choice. Don't be that person, choose life, and life abundantly. That's what could turn things around; Christians choosing action over inaction; choosing not to retreat from an increasingly insane culture but to engage the people around them with the love of God and truth of the Word in the context of their own daily lives. Choosing to recognize we are all called to live for God and not to merely fit Him into the reasonable and appropriate crevices in our status-and-comfort-chasing lives.

Planned Parenthood and their advocates believe that with no God, human society determines what is right and wrong, and who is necessary and who is expendable. They provide the services which take this decision and enact it by means of a whole range of options, from smiling early prevention to gruesome live dismemberment.

They are busy acting on those beliefs.
Are you busy acting on yours?