Advice

"Wise men don't need advice, fools won't take it." -Ben Franklin (allegedly)
People and advice. Can be a volatile combination. Often people are terrible at taking it, even worse about giving it and downright ornery when you don't take it. I am offering some observations and some commentary on this common topic of conversation.

Have you ever noticed how quickly people offer advice, even when it is not solicited? People offer advice for all kinds of reasons. Maybe they were asked for the advice. They, may think they have something valuable to contribute to one's situation. They may get a sense of self importance from being "in the know." Offering advice may give them some kind of validation of their own past trials and tribulations. For some it may completely altruistic, i.e. they truly just want to help.

Then there is the person receiving the advice. So often the receiver has in the front of their mind "this person cannot possibly understand my situation. I am so unique that no one has ever experienced this." The fact is, most likely, you are not that unique. OR, more accurately, you are unique, just like everyone else. In other words, there are not a lot of truly unique, never-before-seen experiences out there. As for your everyday trials, most likely, someone you know has been there. Also, we tend to devalue the wisdom that experience brings. We feel like someone is just preaching to us or is just enjoying themselves talking. Then the receiver completely discredits the advice.

Finally, my favorite is the reaction of the giver after the taker didn't listen to them. "Well, I told them what to do. I don't know why they didn't listen," typically in a very high and mighty tone. I am very guilty of this. I told them exactly what to do and they didn't do any of it. Now look where they are (and boy don't people hate being told "I told you so"). I sometimes forget that I got that wisdom by screwing up. I discount the lesson of pain. Without pain it is very difficult for some people to learn a lesson. I want to help them avoid pain but I forget how it helps.

So why do I write about this? Well, I am in the advice business. People frequently ask my opinion on things. Most of the time I give pretty sound advice. I also see friends do things in my field of expertise that do not seek my advice. I see them do it wrong all too often (not that I am right 100% of the time, but there are some basic things I ALWAYS do right and many Realtors do not). I want to give my advice, not to get their business necessarily but to help them out of their personal tight spot. I know that my advice, especially unsolicited, will be construed as attempted business stealing but I still feel compelled to give it. Most of the time I do not but I really want to. Can anyone else relate to this? I find it so hard to keep my mouth shut.

Team Edward/Team Jacob

Humans are funny. We like to "pick sides." We like to be on the winning side--unless there's a compelling underdog. This phenomenon transcends gender, age, generation, ethnicity, race and every other category you can think of. It is obvious in the most trivial things and in the life and death situations. And what's even more crazy, we get REALLY passionate about it. We make t-shirts (team Edward or team Jacob), shed tears, make signs (picture every rally, demonstration, etc.), riot (so many big cities after a major sporting event) and even take up arms. Why do we as humans do this?

I think it feels good to belong to something. It is good to be important and it is great to feel "right." It's also fun to be "in the know" and in the "in crowd." So when the Titans win the Super Bowl, I feel great because I've always been a fan and I feel like I am a part of their success (I'm not, by the way). When people join "Team Jacob" they publicly profess their opinions about a wildly successful story line. They proclaim that they would have chosen Jacob over Edward. This frames them as sympathizing with the tragic hero. The lovable underdog (pun intended) that has a seriously messed up problem with love.

Sometimes the side choosing is for a little more of a significant cause, like politics (I know, the significant tag is arguable). We have a passionate opinion about the right way to do something. We look for a leader to represent our opinion and then throw our support behind that leader. And we get pretty dang passionate about it. We forget that the other side is made up of fellow humans who have passionate opinions just like us. We forget that, ultimately, both sides are attempting to do what they feel is "right." We marginalize the human and push the opinion to the forefront. This makes it easy for us to justify our unacceptable actions as just the means to get our "right" point across.

What is my point? Simple, before you get so wrapped up in being right, don't forget that you are human and so is the other side. Be civil. Be compassionate (not just passionate). Be nice! Also, take a moment to think about your opinion. Is it really as important as your pending actions are going to paint it?

Covenant Marriage Law

I read a story the other day where Alabama is contemplating a "covenant marriage option." Basically, when you get your marriage license in Alabama, you can opt for a "covenant marriage." This option would not allow you to divorce for "irreconcilable differences" or to have a "no-fault divorce." This means that the only way to divorce is to have a very, very good, provable reason. I am intrigued by this proposal.

First, let me say that I believe marriage already IS a covenant. I also believe the government should have very, very little to do with marriages. I know they have intertwined themselves in the process through tax codes and priveleges for couples. I don't think they should. God established marriage as a covenant. There are lots and lots of scriptures that describe His plan for marriage. That said, at its core, all a marriage really is is a promise between two people to be true to each other, love each other, and share a life together. How you interpret the specifics is going to be shaded by your religious (or lack of religious) beliefs. I happen to believe that anything that strays from God's very specific plan is not, in fact, a true "marriage", regardless of what you call it. That said, the government does not have the authority to discriminate. When they started giving incentives for marriage, they opened up a can of worms. That is just my opinion.

So, should there be a law that gives you the option for a marriage that is harder to break? The proponents think it will force people that go for that option to work through the tough times. You can't just end the marriage when it gets tough. What are the risks? What if you opt for the covenant marriage and then discover your spouse had something hidden? You have to prove it in order to get away from them. This means more court cases. At least with a no-fault divorce, the divorce itself is relatively easy (settlement of assets and child custody may not be, but the divorce is). How much more complicated will it be for a covenant marriage to be ended? Perhaps this is a moot point. Perhaps there won't be any covenant marriages broken. I don't know. Perhaps the private investigator business will boom in Alabama!

On the flip side, I applaud Alabama for trying SOMETHING to secure the family. There is overwhelming evidence that both parents at home gives children a tremendous advantage in many areas of development and achievement. That said, if the parents are terrible for each other, still choose to have a kid, raise that kid in a home filled with discord and arguments because the mom can not actually "prove" the husband is lousy, is that really better than a no-fault divorce? I don't know. All I do know is that Alabama is at least trying to strengthen the family. They have at least taken a step to fight for what is good. AND they didn't do it in such a way as to be oppressive. You have the OPTION to get into this agreement. You do not HAVE to do it. It shouldn't cost much, if anything, to implement up front (just may cost after a while with increased court time, unseen as of now). Why not give that option?