The Psychology of Dealing With a Highway Cop

I was reading Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas today, when I came across this passage about how to deal with a highway traffic cop:

"Few people understand the psychology of dealing with a highway traffic cop. Your normal speeder will panic and immediately pull over to the side when he sees the big red light behind him. . . and then we will start apologizing, begging for mercy.

This is wrong. It arouses contempt in the cop-heart. The thing to do--when you're running along about a hundred or so and you suddenly find a red-flashing CHP-tracker on your trail--what you want to do then is accelerate. Never pull over with the first siren-howl. Mash it down and make the bastard chase you at speeds up to 120 all the way to the next exit. He will follow. But he won't know what to make of your blinker-signal that says you're about to turn right.

This is to let him know you're looking for a proper place to pull off and talk . . . keep signaling and hope for an off-ramp, one of those uphill side-loops with a sign saying "Max Speed 25" . . . and the trick, at this point, is to suddenly leave the freeway and take him into the chute at no less than a hundred miles an hour.

He will lock his brakes about the same time you lock yours, but it will take him a moment to realize that he's about to make a 180-degree turn at this speed . . . but you will be ready for it, braced for the Gs and the fast heel-toe work, and with any luck at all you will have come to a complete stop off the road at the top of the turn and be standing beside your automobile by the time he catches up.

He will not be reasonable at first . . . but no matter. Let him calm down. He will want the first word. Let him have it. His brain will be in a turmoil: he may begin jabbering, or even pull his gun. Let him unwind; keep smiling. The idea is to show him that you were always in total control of yourself and your vehicle--while he lost control of everything."

I am not sure if I would take his advice, but it was fun reading.

A Rich Man, a Beggar, and the Patriarch

My friend, Mark Carter, preached Sunday at the church I sometimes attend. He continued on the topic of The Kingdom of God, which he had first started when he was here in August.

As he went through the passage of Scripture found in Luke 16:19-31, he recounted the story of how the lives of a rich man and a beggar were intertwined. The rich man lived in luxury, while Lazarus the beggar lived at his gate in constant want. See, this rich man was a man of influence. He was somebody. People took notice when he entered a room. Lazarus was a forgotten man that society valued about as much as a bag of trash awaiting collection. Yet, as we continue on, Luke 6:22 tells us,

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.”

Here, the message Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount is brought to life as he who society did not value and the rich man disdained –he wouldn't even give Lazarus the scraps from his table- is given a place of honor in heaven next to the patriarch, Abraham. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3)

As Mark continued his sermon, I could see more and more how western Christianity has become so inverted from what Jesus taught. Society values wealth, influence and power, and, sadly, this same kind of thinking has infiltrated the Church. One of the most insidious teachings in the Church today is the so-called leadership principle of “influencing the influencers,” as taught in John Maxwell’s book, “Developing the Leader Within You.” In the business world, we call this brown-nosing or sucking up, because that is what people do when they want something from you, or want to get ahead. When I read The Beatitudes, which can be found in Matthew 5:1-11, I find a Christianity not at all about wealth, influence or power. In fact, Jesus lays out an ethics that espouses the exact opposite. It is a kingdom based on meekness and mercifulness and self-sacrifice even in the face of persecution and ridicule. And these are the kingdom principles by which we should attempt to live each day, even if we do so imperfectly.

To bring this back to the Rich Man and Lazarus, who would you take notice of if you passed both on the street? To put it in a modern context, if the superintendent of schools walked into your church and was followed in by a down-on-her-luck mother of three dirty children, which one would you greet first and befriend? Who would you invite to your home to share a meal? Which of the two would you hope and pray returned the next week? Would you even notice the poor mother at all? If we take a close look at how Jesus did ministry, we find that he devoted his attention to the poor and infirm and those society deemed outcasts - a prostitute, a tax collector, an adulterous woman. He invested himself into a group of uneducated, working-class fishermen -a bunch of nobodies- and these men changed the world. Maybe, just maybe, we could learn something from him.

Deconstructing the Possibility of all Meaningful Discussion

Deconstruction is defined by Merriam-Webster as "the analytic examination of something (as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy."

I think that does well to define deconstruction, so let me employ it in the matter of debate and discussion, and the difficulties in actually having any meaningful discussion.

Deconstructing the possibility of all meaningful discussion

Opinion and fact soon become so intertwined that every utterance causes any meaningful discussion to spiral into a menagerie of histrionics, inane conspiracies, and utter exasperation. Even if it were possible to keep opinion and fact separate, it would be impossible to determine what is truly fact, outside of certain events such as, "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Though, it must be said that one can only hope that some scribe didn't write the date down wrong. Yet, whatever the case, one can be glad that it was 1492, because 1493 would not rhyme with "Columbus sailed the ocean blue." I think we can all agree that rhymes are of great benefit in understanding the various nuances of history, mathematics and the various sciences.

A fair hearing, a fair shake, an understanding smile, and tolerance of differences in thought and beliefs

One's beliefs are not absolute truth, but he holds onto them so dogmatically that he fails to consider them critically. Every individual is different, and carries with him his hopes, fears, and prejudices. These individual psychological factors are the predisposed, instinctual foundations of the psyche, and form the collective consciousness of humankind. The collective consciousness is what we call 'conventional wisdom' and the like, however, it is only the average of things. The average can never tell the entire truth; rather, it can only give us a snapshot of civilization at any given moment. It is useless however, for the average is skewed by the opposite extremes and the fat middle, so it really does little to tell the story of humankind, or to enhance discussion. So, as you can see, facts are utterly useless, because we see them through our own subjective lenses (minds eye). Therefore, it is pointless to employ facts in discussion. Subjective truth will always destroy fact.

Now, it is unfortunate, but most discussion ends up becoming nothing more than a histrionic tossing of accusations, innuendo, and deliberately misleading shibboleths. Have you ever watched CNN or Fox News? You know what I mean then, eh? When one cannot support his position with cogent and logical arguments, he tends to wrap himself in emotionally charged rhetoric meant to confuse the issue instead of enlightening it. As you can see, the heart overrules the head more often than not, and, it would seem that is how most people would prefer it. Therefore, any discussion will end in a hurling of insults, quips and one-liners.

Immovable points on a straight line

To put thought into a discussion requires effort and a willingness to consider other viewpoints, and to concede the point when your counterpart makes a logically coherent argument. It requires laying down one's sword and shield and coming to the table empty-handed and with an open-mind. Instead, participants in any particular discussion are normally encamped at certain positions and the refusal to consider alternate viewpoints makes discussion futile. They choose to occupy positions even when those positions become untenable. For them, to decamp from a deeply held belief is tantamount to retreat. It is his certainty of his rightness, or righteousness for some, which forms a barrier to true intellectual discovery and exploration. In short, it must be said that all positions, thoughts, and opinions are subjective in nature, therefore, any meaningful discussion is irrelevant because it is all relative anyway.

ADDENDUM

I'm posting this in order to avoid any misunderstanding on my views regarding objective (absolute) truth and subjective truth:

I do believe in absolute, or, to use a better term, objective truth. However, I believe truth can only be known subjectively. It is the individuals relationship and understanding of truth. For instance, taken objectively the claims of Christianity are absurd, but can be understood, though perhaps not fully, only once the individual becomes engaged to it in some way.

Kierkegaard writes extensively on this subject in his work "Concluding Unscientific Postscript." He does not deny objective truth, but maintains that it can only be known and possessed subjectively.Here is an excerpt from "Concluding Unscientific Postscript:"

"1. The subjective existing thinker is aware of the dialectic of communication. Whereas objective thinking is indifferent to the thinking subject and his existence, the subjective thinker as existing is essentially interested in his own thinking, is existing in it. Therefore, his thinking has another kind of reflection, specifically, that of inwardness, of possession, whereby it belongs to the subject and to no one else...."