16.11.19 11:14최종 업데이트 16.11.19 11:19 김종성(wanderingpoet)
© 2016 OhmyNews
| 안철수가 노무현에게 배워야 할 한 가지 (1) | 2016.03.08 |
|---|---|
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
Dr. Caleb Alexander knows how easily older people can fall into so-called polypharmacy. Perhaps a patient, like most seniors, sees several specialists who write or renew prescriptions.
“A cardiologist puts someone on good, evidence-based medications for his heart,” said Dr. Alexander, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness. “An endocrinologist does the same for his bones.”
And let’s say the patient, like many older adults, also uses an over-the-counter reflux drug and takes a daily aspirin or a zinc supplement and fish oil capsules.
“Pretty soon, you have an 82-year-old man who’s on 14 medications,” Dr. Alexander said, barely exaggerating.
Geriatricians and researchers have warned for years about the potential hazards of polypharmacy, usually defined as taking five or more drugs concurrently. Yet it continues to rise in all age groups, reaching disturbingly high levels among older adults.
“It’s as perennial as the grass,” Dr. Alexander said. “The average senior is taking more medicines than ever before.”
Tracking prescription drug use from 1999 to 2012 through a large national survey, Harvard researchers reported in November that 39 percent of those over age 65 now use five or more medications — a 70 percent increase in polypharmacy over 12 years.
But older people don’t take just prescription drugs. An article published in JAMA Internal Medicine , using a longitudinal national survey of people 62 to 85 years old, may have revealed the fuller picture.
More than a third were taking at least five prescription medications, and almost two-thirds were using dietary supplements, including herbs andvitamins. Nearly 40 percent took over-the-counter drugs.
Not all are imperiled by polypharmacy, of course. But some of those products, even those that sound natural and are available at health food stores, interact with others and can cause dangerous side effects.
How often does that happen? The researchers, analyzing the drugs and supplements taken, calculated that more than 8 percent of older adults in 2005 and 2006 were at risk for a major drug interaction. Five years later, the proportion exceeded 15 percent.
“We’re not paying attention to the interactions and safety of multiple medications,” said Dima Qato, the lead author of the JAMA Internal Medicine article (Dr. Alexander was a co-author) and a pharmacist and epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “This is a major public health problem.”
She was stunned to discover, for instance, that the use of omega-3 fish oil supplements had quadrupled over five years. Her research suggests that almost one in five older adults now takes them.
Users probably believe fish oil helps their hearts. But Dr. Qato pointed out fish oil capsules lacked regulation and evidence of effectiveness, and can cause bleeding in patients taking blood thinners like warfarin(brand name: Coumadin).
Though drug interactions can occur in any age group, older people are more vulnerable, said Dr. Michael A. Steinman, a geriatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who wrote an accompanying commentary.
Most have multiple chronic diseases, so they take more drugs, putting them at higher risk for threatening interactions.
The consequences can also be more threatening. Say a drug makes older patients dizzy.
“They’re more prone to fall, because they don’t have the same reserves of balance and strength” as the young or middle-aged, Dr. Steinman said. “And if they do fall because they’re dizzy, they’re more likely to get hurt.”
Some common combinations that cropped up in the study and could spell trouble: aspirin and the anti-clotting drug clopidogrel (Plavix), both blood thinners that together increase the risk of bleeding with long-term use; aspirin and naproxen (Aleve), over-the-counter drugs that when combined can cause bleeding, ulceration or perforation of the stomach lining.
Dr. Qato recalled reviewing the medications of a 67-year-old man taking both the cholesterol drug simvastatin (Zocor) and the blood pressuremedication amlodipine (Norvasc) — the most common combination of interacting drugs that emerged in her study.
Statins, along with their cholesterol-lowering properties, can causemuscle pain and weakness; Norvasc heightens that risk. A different blood pressure drug — there are many alternatives — would be a safer choice, Dr. Qato said. Yet almost 4 percent of the older adults in her study took both drugs.
Moreover, though her patient wasn’t experiencing problems, he was also taking garlic and omega-3 supplements, which can interact with prescription medications.
“Did you tell your doctor you were on them?’” Dr. Qato recalled asking. “He said, ‘No, why should I? If it was important, why didn’t he ask me?’”
A reasonable question. A recent study in JAMA Internal Medicine, however, found that more than 42 percent of adults didn’t tell their primary care doctors about their most commonly used complementary and alternative medicines, including a quarter of those who relied most on herbs and supplements.
Usually, that was because the physicians didn’t ask and the patients didn’t think they needed to know; in a few cases, doctors had previously discouraged alternative therapies, or patients thought they would.
And they might, especially for older patients with complex regimens. “I’m not a big fan of supplements,” Dr. Alexander tells patients taking lots of vitamins, supplements and herbal remedies.
“I think the vast majority of evidence raises serious questions about their effectiveness or, in some cases, their safety. They’re less well regulated than prescription medications. I think you’d be better off stopping them.”
Patients often resist, he said, and “they’re the captain of their own ship.” So he explains the risks and benefits, and negotiations ensue.
Often, though, patients don’t know that a daily aspirin, Prilosec OTC or fish oil can interact with other drugs. Or they’re confused about what they’re actually taking.
Dr. Steinman recalled asking a patient to bring in every pill he took for a so-called brown bag review. He learned that the man had accumulated four or five bottles of the same drug without realizing it, and was ingesting several times the recommended dose.
Ultimately, the best way to reduce polypharmacy is to overhaul our fragmented approach to health care. “The system is not geared to look at a person as a whole, to see how the patterns fit together,” Dr. Steinman said.
In the meantime, though, patients and families can ask their physicians for brown bag reviews, including every supplement, and discuss whether to continue or change their regimens. Pharmacists, often underused as information sources, can help coordinate medications, and some patients qualify for medication reviews through Medicare.
“We spend an awful lot of money and effort trying to figure out when to start medications,” Dr. Alexander said, “and shockingly little on when to stop.”
| Study Finds Growing Reason to Be Wary of Some Reflux Drugs (0) | 2016.03.30 |
|---|---|
| Elizabeth Holmes idea made real life (0) | 2014.11.12 |
| Pharmacist License requirement via State (0) | 2014.01.27 |
| 약개발의 신개념 biobetter - 제약 현실의 안타까움 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
| 파이토케미칼 - 현대의학과 한의학의 만남, 새로운 건강의 방향 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
Maybe you have seen television ads starring the beefy, affable comedian and actor known as Larry the Cable Guy.
In his sleeveless shirt and gimme cap, he’s driving a monster truck or streaking along on a jet ski, pausing to chomp on a turkey drumstick or a barbecued rib, all the while proclaiming his love for America and for Prilosec OTC to fight “frequent heartburn.”The caution that the drug should be taken for no more than 14 days, and not more often than every four months, appears briefly on-screen. If you blink or go fetch your glasses, you’ll miss it.
Todd Semla has noticed the ads, too, and he’s not a fan. “I don’t see Larry the Cable Guy saying, ‘If you take this drug often, your kidneys may be affected or you could break a hip,’” said Dr. Semla, a pharmacist at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, and past president of the American Geriatrics Society.
Since their introduction in 1990, the drugs collectively known as proton pump inhibitors (common brand names: Nexium, Prevacid, Prilosec) have become among the most frequently prescribed in the country; as the Cable Guy points out, they are also available over the counter. They suppress stomach acid more effectively than a previous class of drugs called H2 blockers (Zantac, Tagamet, Pepcid).
They have also given users reason to be wary. In recent years, scores of studies have reported associations between prescription P.P.I. use and an array of health problems, including bone fractures, low magnesium levels, kidney injuries and possibly cardiovascular drug interactions.
They are also linked to infections, like the stubborn Clostridium difficile and pneumonia. Reducing the acidity of the stomach, researchers believe, allows bacteria to thrive and then spread to other organs like the lungs and intestines.
The latest findings, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, point to increased risk of chronic kidney disease among users, which is particularly worrisome.
“You can treat and hopefully cure infections,” said Dr. Adam Schoenfeld, an internal medicine resident at the University of California, San Francisco, and an author of an accompanying editorial on the drugs’ adverse effects. “Fractures can heal, though they can be catastrophic events for older people. But chronic kidney disease doesn’t go away.”
The new study, by a Johns Hopkins team, compiled years of data from two sources: a community sample of 10,482 adults in four communities in North Carolina, Mississippi, Minnesota and Maryland (average age: 63) and a cohort of nearly 250,000 patients in a rural Pennsylvania health care system. Those who took prescription proton pump inhibitors were 20 percent to 50 percent more likely to develop chronic kidney disease than nonusers, said the senior author, Dr. Morgan Grams, a nephrologist and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins.
Like the rest of these drug studies, this one demonstrated an association, not a direct cause. But in the Pennsylvania sample, the researchers documented a dose effect: The risk of chronic kidney disease rose 15 percent among those taking the drug once a day, but 46 percent in those taking it twice daily, compared with nonusers. “That leads us to believe there’s a causal effect,” Dr. Grams said.
Relative risk statistics sometimes seem to exaggerate the dangers of a drug or an illness, if they were low to begin with. But “kidney disease is quite common, particularly among older adults,” Dr. Grams pointed out. And the P.P.I.-using population is vast, she added. “When you have 15 million people using these drugs, even relatively rare adverse effects can affect a lot of people.”
Older people should probably pay special heed. They are more likely to have reflux, Dr. Semla said, in part because the muscle that prevents stomach acid from rising into the esophagus weakens with age. Older adults are therefore more likely to take these drugs, and also more vulnerable to the diseases and disorders associated with them, especially with long-term use.
All of this led an American Geriatrics Society panel last year to add proton pump inhibitors to the list called the Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults, citing the risk of bone loss and fractures and C. diff infection.
The Food and Drug Administration has also issued several safety announcements about these drugs’ association with C. diff, fracture riskand low magnesium, linked to kidney disease and other ailments.
So you’d think use of proton pump inhibitors would be declining. It’s not.
“Despite this information, those drugs are extremely overprescribed,” Dr. Schoenfeld said.
From 1999 to 2002, 9 percent of people ages 55 to 64 reported using a prescription gastric reflux drug (including non-P.P.I.s) in the previous 30 days, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
Ten years later, the proportion had risen to 16 percent. Among prescription medications, only cardiac and cholesterol drugs were more commonly used by adults ages 55 to 64.
Proton pump inhibitors can be crucial medications, doctors hasten to point out, for those with peptic ulcers or for intensive care patients, among others. They’re also the most effective option for severe reflux. But whether over the counter or prescribed (prescriptions can involve higher doses), they are usually recommended for short-term use.
Yet “there are definitely older people who’ve been on these for 10 or 20 years,” Dr. Schoenfeld said. Perhaps the medication was prescribed during a hospital stay, then never discontinued. Or a patient took a nonprescription version for a bout of indigestion, felt better and therefore kept taking it, though the initial problem may have long ago disappeared. Doctors, too, often fail to question extended use, Dr. Schoenfeld said.
Regularly reviewing all medications, prescription and over the counter, at office visits might help reduce this overuse. Dr. Schoenfeld recommends tapering off a proton pump inhibitor to see if it’s still needed, or switching to one of the less potent H2 blockers, which don’t appear to entail the same risks.
Better yet, nonpharmacological approaches can often reduce heartburn and other reflux-related problems. Losing weight helps; so does limiting certain medications, like aspirin. Dr. Semla suggests raising the head of your bed so stomach acid has a harder time climbing.
Moreover, “if people eat a lot of fatty, greasy foods or drink a lot of alcohol or caffeine, those are all triggers for heartburn,” Dr. Schoenfeld said. It probably also helps — “people are going to hate me” — to cut back on chocolate.
“With time or with dietary changes,” he said, “a lot of these symptoms would go away on their own.”
Listen up, Cable Guy.
| 터무니 없는 과다복용 (0) | 2016.04.24 |
|---|---|
| Elizabeth Holmes idea made real life (0) | 2014.11.12 |
| Pharmacist License requirement via State (0) | 2014.01.27 |
| 약개발의 신개념 biobetter - 제약 현실의 안타까움 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
| 파이토케미칼 - 현대의학과 한의학의 만남, 새로운 건강의 방향 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
 | |
| ▲ 야권통합 제안에 다른 생각하는 안철수-김한길 국민의당 안철수 공동대표와 김한길 상임선대위원장이 4일 오전 서울 여의도 당사에서 열린 선대위 회의에 참석하고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 유성호 | |
| 뉴스룸의 기막힌 의도, 청와대 상대하려면 이정도는 돼야 (0) | 2016.11.19 |
|---|---|
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위한 더불어민주당 의원총회에 김종인 대표, 이종걸 원내대표가 참석해 국기에 대한 경례를 하고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위한 더불어민주당 의원총회에 참석하기 위해 김종인 대표가 도착하고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위해 열리는 더불어민주당 의원총회에 이종걸 원내대표가 참석해 회의 시작을 기다리고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위한 더불어민주당 의원총회가 김종인 대표, 이종걸 원내대표 등이 참석한 가운데 열리고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
| 뉴스룸의 기막힌 의도, 청와대 상대하려면 이정도는 돼야 (0) | 2016.11.19 |
|---|---|
| 안철수가 노무현에게 배워야 할 한 가지 (1) | 2016.03.08 |
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
It’s lonely at the top, and being one of the rarest and most strategically capable personality types, INTJs know this all too well. INTJs form just two percent of the population, and women of this personality type are especially rare, forming just 0.8% of the population – it is often a challenge for them to find like-minded individuals who are able to keep up with their relentless intellectualism and chess-like maneuvering. People with the INTJ personality type are imaginative yet decisive, ambitious yet private, amazingly curious, but they do not squander their energy.
With a natural thirst for knowledge that shows itself early in life, INTJs are often given the title of “bookworm” as children. While this may be intended as an insult by their peers, they more than likely identify with it and are even proud of it, greatly enjoying their broad and deep body of knowledge. INTJs enjoy sharing what they know as well, confident in their mastery of their chosen subjects, but owing to their Intuitive (N) and Judging (J) traits, they prefer to design and execute a brilliant plan within their field rather than share opinions on “uninteresting” distractions like gossip.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
A paradox to most observers, INTJs are able to live by glaring contradictions that nonetheless make perfect sense – at least from a purely rational perspective. For example, INTJs are simultaneously the most starry-eyed idealists and the bitterest of cynics, a seemingly impossible conflict. But this is because INTJ types tend to believe that with effort, intelligence and consideration, nothing is impossible, while at the same time they believe that people are too lazy, short-sighted or self-serving to actually achieve those fantastic results. Yet that cynical view of reality is unlikely to stop an interested INTJ from achieving a result they believe to be relevant.
INTJs radiate self-confidence and an aura of mystery, and their insightful observations, original ideas and formidable logic enable them to push change through with sheer willpower and force of personality. At times it will seem that INTJs are bent on deconstructing and rebuilding every idea and system they come into contact with, employing a sense of perfectionism and even morality to this work. Anyone who doesn’t have the talent to keep up with INTJs’ processes, or worse yet, doesn’t see the point of them, is likely to immediately and permanently lose their respect.
This isn’t to be misunderstood as impulsiveness – INTJs will strive to remain rational no matter how attractive the end goal may be, and every idea, whether generated internally or soaked in from the outside world, must pass the ruthless and ever-present “Is this going to work?” filter. This mechanism is applied at all times, to all things and all people, and this is often where INTJ personality types run into trouble.
INTJs are brilliant and confident in bodies of knowledge they have taken the time to understand, but unfortunately the social contract is unlikely to be one of those subjects. White lies and small talk are hard enough as it is for a type that craves truth and depth, but INTJs may go so far as to see many social conventions as downright stupid. Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in INTJs as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
INTJs are defined by their tendency to move through life as though it were a giant chess board, pieces constantly shifting with consideration and intelligence, always assessing new tactics, strategies and contingency plans, constantly outmaneuvering their peers in order to maintain control of a situation while maximizing their freedom to move about. This isn’t meant to suggest that INTJs act without conscience, but to many Feeling (F) types, INTJs’ distaste for acting on emotion can make it seem that way, and it explains why many fictional villains (and misunderstood heroes) are modeled on this personality type.
INTJs are defined by their confidence, logic, and exceptional decision-making, but all of this hides a turbulent underbelly – their emotions. The very notion of emotional expression is synonymous with irrationality and weakness to many INTJs, a display of poor self-governance and fleeting opinion that can hardly stand up to the enduring light of factual truth.
People with the INTJ personality type take pride in remaining rational and logical at all times, considering honesty and straightforward information to be paramount to euphemisms and platitudes in almost all circumstances. In many ways though, these qualities of coolness and detachment aren't the weapons of truth that they appear to be, but are instead shields designed to protect the inner emotions that INTJs feel. In fact, because their emotions are such an underdeveloped tool, INTJs often feel them more strongly than many overtly emotional types because they simply haven't learned how to control them effectively.
This is a challenging paradigm for INTJs to manage, especially younger and more Turbulent types who are already less confident than they would like to appear. These feelings are contrary to INTJs' idea of themselves as paragons of logic and knowledge, and they may go so far as to claim they have no emotions at all. This does not mean that people with the INTJ personality type should be seen as, nor should they aspire to be, cold-blooded and insensitive geniuses living by the mantra that emotions are for the weak. INTJs must understand that this isn't the case, and isn't ever going to be.
More mature and Assertive INTJs find more useful ways to manage their feelings. While they will never be comfortable with a truly public display of emotions, INTJs can learn to use them, to channel them alongside their logic to help them achieve their goals. While seemingly contradictory, this can be done in several ways.
Firstly, INTJs are goal-oriented, with long-term ideas founded on sound logic. When something does cause an emotional reaction, good or bad, that energy can be used to further those goals, aiding rational and pre-determined plans. Secondly, emotions are figurative canaries in the coal mine, indicating that something is off even though logic can't see it yet. These feelings can help INTJs to use their logic to ask questions they may not have thought to ask. "This is upsetting. Why? What can be done to resolve it?"
In this way, emotions are not INTJs' way of addressing a decision, but rather an indication that a decision needs to be addressed. INTJ personalities' Thinking (T) trait acts as a protective big brother to their Feeling (F) trait – seeing that something has upset the less able sibling, it steps in to take action, letting logic do the talking and resolving the condition rather than complaining about its consequences.
There comes a time though, when logic is simply the wrong tool for the job, when there just isn't a rational solution to a problem, and it is in these situations that INTJs must use their Feeling (F) trait most clearly. INTJs would do well to practice this from time to time, or at least be aware of it, because however they may try, it is impossible to truly separate emotion from the decision-making process. The fact is that INTJs do feel, and deeply, and this makes them better, not worse.
In romance, people with the INTJ personality type approach things the way they do with most situations: they compose a series of calculated actions with a predicted and desirable end goal – a healthy long-term relationship. Rather than falling head over heels in a whirlwind of passion and romance, INTJs identify potential partners who meet a certain range of pre-determined criteria, break the dating process down into a series of measurable milestones, then proceed to execute the plan with clinical precision.
In a purely rational world, this is a fool-proof methodology – but in reality, it ignores significant details that INTJs are likely to dismiss prematurely, such as human nature. INTJs are brilliantly intellectual, developing a world in their heads that is more perfect than reality. People entering this world need to fit this fantasy, and it can be incredibly difficult for INTJs to find someone up to the task. Needless to say, finding a compatible partner is the most significant challenge most INTJs will face in life.
Sentiment, tradition, and emotion are INTJs' Achilles Heel. Social standards like chivalry are viewed by INTJs as silly, even demeaning. The problem is, these standards have developed as a means of smoothing introductions and developing rapport, of managing expectations, the basis of personal relationships. INTJs' propensity for frank honesty in word and action tends to violate this social contract, making dating especially difficult for them.
As they mature, INTJs will come to recognize these factors as relevant, incorporating pace and emotional availability into their plans. But the meantime can be dangerous, especially for more Turbulent INTJs – if they are shot down too many times they may come to the conclusion that everyone else is simply too irrational, or simply beneath them intellectually. If cynicism takes hold, INTJs may end up falling into the trap of intentionally displaying intellectual arrogance, making solitude their choice rather than happenstance.
The positive side of INTJs' “giving up” is that they are most attractive when they aren't trying to be attractive, working in a familiar environment where their confidence and intelligence can be seen in action. Allowing others to come to them is often INTJs' best strategy, and if they perceive a potential to the relationship, they will spare no effort in developing and maintaining stability and long-term satisfaction.
As their relationships develop, INTJs' partners will find an imaginative and enthusiastic companion, who will share their world and at the same time grant a huge degree of independence and trust. While INTJs may never be fully comfortable expressing their feelings, and may spend more time theorizing about intimacy than engaging in it, they can always be relied upon to think out a mutually beneficial solution to any situation.
But when it comes to emotional satisfaction, INTJs are simply out of their element. Not every partner has the sort of fun INTJs do in addressing conflicts and emotional needs as puzzles to be analyzed and solved. Sometimes emotions need to be expressed for their own sake, and putting every outburst under the microscope isn't always helpful. If this becomes habit, or INTJs think it may, they are capable of simply ending the relationship, rather than dragging things out.
INTJs are bewilderingly deep and intelligent people, bringing stability and insight into their romantic relationships. They prize honest, open communication, and all factors of the relationship are open to discussion and change, but this must be reciprocated. INTJs do what they think is right, and sometimes that comes across as cold – it's important to know that INTJs don't make these decisions lightly. They spend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to understand why and how things go wrong, especially if they've devoted themselves to the relationship, and they certainly hurt deeply when things fall apart.
The challenge is finding partners who share those same values – though Intuitive (N) types are uncommon, they may be a must for many INTJs, as sharing this trait creates an immediate sense of mutual belonging. Having one or two balancing traits, such as Extraversion (E), Feeling (F), or Prospecting (P) can help to keep a relationship dynamic and growth-oriented by keeping INTJs involved with other people, in touch with their emotions, and open to alternate potentials.
People with the INTJ personality type tend to have more success in developing friendships than they do with romantic relationships, but they none-the-less suffer from many of the same setbacks, substituting rational processes for emotional availability. This intellectual distance tends to go both ways, making INTJs notoriously difficult to read and get to know, and making INTJs not want to bother reading anyone they think isn't on their level. Overcoming these hurdles is often all but impossible without the sort of instant connection made possible by sharing the Intuitive (N) trait.
INTJs tend to have set opinions about what works, what doesn't, what they're looking for, and what they're not. These discriminating tastes can come across as arrogant, but INTJs would simply argue that it's a basic filtering mechanism that allows them to direct their attentions where they will do the most good. The fact is that in friendship, INTJs are looking for more of an intellectual soul mate than anything else, and those that aren't prepared for that kind of relationship are simply boring. INTJs need to share ideas – a self-feeding circle of gossip about mutual friends is no kind of social life for them.
Further, having more than just a few friends would compromise INTJs' sense of independence and self-sufficiency – they gladly give up social validation to ensure this freedom. INTJs embrace this idea even with those who do fit into their social construct, requiring little attention or maintenance to remain on good terms, and encouraging that same independence in their friends.
When it comes to emotional support, INTJs are far from being a bastion of comfort. They actively suppress their own emotions with shields of rationality and logic, and expect their friends to do the same. When emotionally charged situations do come about, INTJs may literally have no clue how to handle them appropriately, a glaring contrast from their usual capacity for decisive self-direction and composure.
When they are in their comfort zone though, among people they know and respect, INTJs have no trouble relaxing and enjoying themselves. Their sarcasm and dark humor are not for the faint of heart, nor for those who struggle to read between the lines, but they make for fantastic story-telling among those who can keep up. This more or less limits their pool of friends to fellow Analysts (NT) and Diplomat (NF) types, as Observant (S) types' preference for more straightforward communication often simply leaves both parties frustrated.
It's not easy to become good friends with INTJs. Rather than traditional rules of social conduct or shared routine, INTJs have exacting expectations for intellectual prowess, uncompromising honesty and a mutual desire to grow and learn as sovereign individuals. INTJs are gifted, bright and development-oriented, and expect and encourage their friends to share this attitude. Anyone falling short of this will be labeled a bore – anyone meeting these expectations will appreciate them of their own accord, forming a powerful and stimulating friendship that will stand the test of time.
Parenting, like so many other person-to-person relationships, is a significant challenge for INTJs. Being so heavily invested in rational thought, logic, and analyzing cause and effect, INTJs are often unprepared for dealing with someone who hasn't developed these same abilities who they can't simply walk away from. Luckily, INTJs are uniquely capable of committing to a long-term project, especially one as meaningful as parenthood, with all the intellectual vigor they can muster.
First and foremost, INTJ parents will likely never be able to deliver the sort of warmth and coddling that stereotypes say they should. INTJs are rational, perfectionistic, often insensitive, and certainly not prone to overt displays of physical affection – it will take a clear and conscious effort on their part to curb and adapt these qualities to their children's needs, especially in the younger years. If they have an especially sensitive child, INTJs risk inadvertently trampling those sensitivities or coming across as cold and uncaring.
Even less sensitive children will need emotional support from time to time, especially as they approach adolescence – INTJs, even more so than other Analyst (NT) types, struggle to manage their own emotions in a healthy way, let alone others'. As a result, INTJs tend to avoid “unproductive” emotional support, instead taking a solutions-based approach to resolving issues. This is where INTJs are strongest – assessing a dilemma to find the underlying cause and developing a plan to solve the problem at its source.
INTJs also recognize that life is often the best teacher, and they will tend to be fairly liberal, allowing their children to have their own adventures and make their own decisions, further developing these critical thinking skills. This isn't to say that INTJs parents are lenient – far from it – rather, they expect their children to use their freedom responsibly, and often enough the weight of this expectation alone is enough to lay out understood ground rules. When they need to though, INTJ parents will communicate openly and honestly with their children, believing that knowing the truth is better than not knowing, or worse yet, simply being wrong.
If their children are receptive to this approach, INTJ parents will find themselves respected and trusted. INTJs are excellent communicators when they want to be, and will frame problems as opportunities for personal growth, helping their children to establish their own brand of rational thinking and independent problem-solving skills to be applied to more and more complex situations as they grow, building their confidence as they make their own way. INTJs' ultimate goal as a parent is to ensure that their children are prepared to deal with whatever life throws their way.
All this is the exertion of INTJs' core philosophy of intelligent self-direction, and in this way they try to mold their children in their own image, working to create capable adults who can go on to use their own minds, solve their own problems, and help their own children in the same way when the time comes. INTJs understand that this can't happen if they shield their children from every source of ill and harm, but believe that if they give their children the right tools, they won't have to..
Professional competence is often the area in which INTJs shine most brilliantly. Their capacity for digesting difficult and complex theories and principles and converting them into clear and actionable ideas and strategies is unmatched by any other type. INTJs are able to filter out the noise of a situation, identifying the core thread that needs to be pulled in order to unravel others' messes so that they can be rewoven into something at once beautifully intricate and stunningly simple in its function.
The real challenge for INTJs is that in order for their innovative (and to less insightful individuals, seemingly counter-intuitive) ideas to be heard, they need to have a friendly ear to bend, and developing an amiable rapport with authority figures is not exactly in INTJs' list of core strengths. In their early careers, INTJs will often have to suffer through menial tasks and repeated rejections as they develop their abilities into a skillset that speaks for itself.
INTJs tend to prefer to work alone, or at most in small groups, where they can maximize their creativity and focus without repeated interruptions from questioning colleagues and meetings-happy supervisors. For this reason INTJs are unlikely to be found in strictly administrative roles or anything that requires constant dialogue and heavy teamwork. Rather, INTJs prefer more "lone wolf" positions as mechanical or software engineers, lawyers or freelance consultants, only accepting competent leadership that helps in these goals, and rejecting the authority of those who hold them back.
Their independent attitude and tireless demand for competence mean that INTJs absolutely loathe those who get ahead by seemingly less meritocratic means like social prowess and political connections. INTJs have exceptionally high standards, and if they view a colleague or supervisor as incompetent or ineffective, respect will be lost instantly and permanently. INTJs value personal initiative, determination, insight and dedication, and believe that everyone should complete their work to the highest possible standards – if a schmoozing shill breezes through without carrying their own weight, they may find INTJs' inventiveness and determination used in a whole new capacity as the winds turn against them.
As their careers progress further and their reputation grows, so will the complexity of INTJs' tasks and projects. INTJs demand progress and evolution, new challenges and theories, and they often accomplish this by pushing into more active strategic positions. While they don't care for the spotlight, INTJs do enjoy controlling their ideas, and will often expand into low-profile but influential roles as project managers, system engineers, marketing strategists, systems analysts, and military strategists.
But really, INTJs' vision, creativity, and competence in executing their plans make them viable in just about any career that requires them to think about what they're doing. While some careers, such as low-level sales and human resources, clearly do not play to their strengths, INTJs are able to build a niche into just about any institution, including their own, that they put their minds to.
Above all else, INTJs want to be able to tackle intellectually interesting work with minimal outside interference, no more, no less. Time-consuming management techniques like trust-building getaways, progress meetings, and drawn-out, sandwiched criticisms are only going to annoy INTJs – all they need, be they subordinate, colleague, or manager, is to meet their goals with the highest standard of technical excellence and to be surrounded by, if anyone at all, people who share those values.
On paper this makes them appear to be exemplary employees, and in many ways they are, but there are many types, especially those with a combination of the Observant (S) and Feeling (F) traits, who will find a work (or any other) relationship with INTJs extremely challenging. INTJs have a fairly strict code of conduct when it comes to their work, and if they see coworkers valuing social activities and "good enough" workmanship over absolute excellence, it will be a turbulent environment. For this reason, INTJs tend to prefer to work in tight, like-minded groups – a group of one, if necessary.
INTJs are independent people, and they quickly become frustrated if they find themselves pushed into tightly defined roles that limit their freedom. With the direction of a properly liberal manager, INTJs will establish themselves in a position of expertise, completing their work not with the ambition of managerial promotion, but for its own intrinsic merit. INTJs require and appreciate firm, logical managers who are able to direct efforts with competence, deliver criticism when necessary, and back up those decisions with sound reason.
Note that it is INTJs' expectations of their managers that are being defined here, and not the other way around, as with some other personality types. Titles mean little to INTJs – trust and respect are earned, and INTJs expect this to be a two way street, receiving and delivering advice, criticisms and results. INTJs expect their managers to be intelligent enough and strong enough to be able to handle this paradigm. A silent INTJ conveys a lack of respect better than all their challenges ever will.
Active teamwork is not ideal for people with the INTJ personality type. Fiercely independent and private, INTJs use their nimble minds and insight to deflect personal talk, avoid workplace tension, and create situations where they aren't slowed down by those less intelligent, less capable, or less adaptable to more efficient methods. Instead, they will likely poke fun by forcing them to read between the lines and making them deal alone with work that could have been easier if they'd only taken INTJs' suggestions.
INTJs are brilliant analysts, and will likely gather a small handful of trusted colleagues to involve in their brainstorming sessions, excluding those who get too hung up on details, or who otherwise have yet to earn their respect. But more likely, INTJs will simply take the initiative alone – INTJs love embracing challenges and their consequent responsibilities, and their perfectionism and determination usually mean that the work comes out clean and effective, affording INTJs the twin joys of solitude and victory.
Though they may be surprised to hear it, INTJs make natural leaders, and this shows in their management style. INTJs value innovation and effectiveness more than just about any other quality, and they will gladly cast aside hierarchy, protocol and even their own beliefs if they are presented with rational arguments about why things should change. INTJs promote freedom and flexibility in the workplace, preferring to engage their subordinates as equals, respecting and rewarding initiative and adopting an attitude of "to the best mind go the responsibilities", directing strategy while more capable hands manage the day-to-day tactics.
But this sort of freedom isn't just granted, it's required – those who are accustomed to just being told what to do, who are unable to direct themselves and challenge existing notions, will have a hard time meeting INTJs' extremely high standards. Efficiency and results are king to INTJs, and behaviors that undermine these conditions are quashed mercilessly. If subordinates try to compensate for their weakness in these areas by trying to build a social relationship with their INTJ managers, on their heads be it – office gossip and schmoozing are not the way into INTJs' hearts – only bold competence will do.
Few personality types are as mysterious and controversial as INTJs. Possessing intellect and strategic thinking that allow them to overcome many challenging obstacles, INTJs have the ability to both develop and implement a plan for everything, including their own personal growth.
Yet INTJs can be easily tripped up in areas where careful and rational thinking is more of a liability than an asset. Whether it is finding (or keeping) a partner, making friends, reaching dazzling heights on the career ladder or adapting to the unpredictable, INTJs need to put in a conscious effort to develop their weaker traits and additional skills.
What you have read so far is just an introduction into the complex concept that is the INTJ personality type. You may have muttered to yourself, "wow, this is so accurate it's a little creepy" or "finally, someone understands me!" You may have even asked "how do they know more about me than the people I'm closest to?"
This is not a trick. You felt understood because you were. We've studied how INTJs think and what they need to reach their full potential. And no, we did not spy on you – many of the challenges you've faced and will face in the future have been overcome by other INTJs. You simply need to learn how they succeeded.
But in order to do that, you need to have a plan, a personal roadmap. The best car in the world will not take you to the right place if you do not know where you want to go. We have told you how INTJs tend to behave in certain circumstances and what their key strengths and weaknesses are. Now we need to go much deeper into your personality type and answer "why?", "how?" and "what if?"
This knowledge is only the beginning of a lifelong journey. Are you ready to learn why INTJs act in the way they do? What motivates and inspires you? What you are afraid of and what you secretly dream about? How you can unlock your true, exceptional potential?
Our premium profiles provide a roadmap towards a happier, more successful, and more versatile YOU! They are not for everyone though – you need to be willing and able to challenge yourself, to go beyond the obvious, to imagine and follow your own path instead of just going with the flow. If you want to take the reins into your own hands, we are here to help you.
| 안철수가 노무현에게 배워야 할 한 가지 (1) | 2016.03.08 |
|---|---|
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
The third Democratic contender, Martin O’Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had — governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore — than for president.
Mrs. Clinton is a strong advocate of sensible and effective measures to combat the plague of firearms; Mr. Sanders’s record on guns is relatively weak. Her economic proposals for financial reform reflect a deep understanding of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act, including the ways in which it has fallen short. She supports changes that the country badly needs, like controls on high-frequency trading and stronger curbs on bank speculation in derivatives.
Mr. Sanders has scored some rhetorical points against Mrs. Clinton for her longstanding ties to Wall Street, but she has responded well, and it would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that case, given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the business establishment.
One of the most attractive parts of Mrs. Clinton’s economic platform is her pledge to support the well-being and rights of working Americans. Her lifelong fight for women bolsters her credibility in this area, since so many of the problems with labor law hit women the hardest, including those involving child care, paid sick leave, unstable schedules and low wages for tipped workers.
Mrs. Clinton is keenly aware of the wage gap for women, especially for women of color. It’s not just that she’s done her homework — Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name. Her knowledge comes from a commitment to issues like reproductive rights that is decades old. She was well ahead of Mr. Sanders in calling for repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which severely limits federal money to pay for abortions for poor women.
As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.
Mrs. Clinton helped make it possible to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, which in turn led to the important nuclear deal now going into effect. She also fostered closer cooperation with Asian countries. She worked to expand and deepen the dialogue with China and to increase Washington’s institutional ties to the region. Mrs. Clinton had rebuked China when she was first lady for its treatment of women, and she criticized the Beijing government’s record on human rights even as she worked to improve relations.
In January 2011, before the Arab Spring, Mrs. Clinton delivered a speech that criticized Arab leaders, saying their countries risked “sinking into the sand” unless they liberalized their political systems and cleaned up their economies. Certainly, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis deepened during her tenure, but she did not cause that.
Mrs. Clinton can be more hawkish on the use of military power than Mr. Obama, as shown by her current call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her earlier support for arming and training Syrian rebels. We are not convinced that a no-fly zone is the right approach in Syria, but we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.
Mrs. Clinton, who has been accused of flip-flopping on trade, has shown a refreshing willingness to learn and to explain, as she has in detail, why she changed her mind on trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She is likely to do more to help workers displaced by the forces of trade than previous presidents have done, and certainly more than any of the Republicans.
Mrs. Clinton has honed a steeliness that will serve her well in negotiating with a difficult Congress on critically important issues like climate change. It will also help her weather what are certain to be more attacks from Republicans and, should she win the White House, the possibility of the same ideological opposition and personal animus that President Obama has endured. Some of the campaign attacks are outrageous, like Donald Trump’s efforts to bring up Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity. Some, like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers.
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
|---|---|
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
Je Suis Charlie
샤를리 에브도
풍자를 용치 않음을 넘어 피로 대응하는 잔인함 .. 나의 세상은 좁고 안이하다.
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
|---|---|
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
Marriage really is a beautiful thing. I used to think it was a bit pointless, just a piece of paper that allows you an extra tax cut. However, the more I thought about it, the more I learned to appreciate what marriage could be.
Marriage gets a bad rap because most people are really bad at it. It’s not marriage’s fault. It’s the couples’ fault for being neither mature enough nor smart enough to manage.
I used to believe people couldn’t possibly promise to love someone else in 10, 20 years when neither their partners nor they will be the same people they are now. But that’s the point. We know that the future is filled with uncertainty.
Regardless, we still want that promise because it gives us courage to give ourselves to another without reservations.
You may not be able to keep that promise, but you can keep the promise to do your best to be an amazing life partner. That’s all anyone can really ask for. If you’re thinking about tying the knot then be sure that your future life partner to-be can honestly answer these questions to your liking:
People seem to feel this is a question that doesn’t especially need answering. Most will say we love others simply because we love them — a horrible answer. All people need to know exactly why it is that they love the people they love.
Loving someone is a very selfish act, and it’s okay. You love the person you love for what that person does for you and how he or she makes you feel.
We may all have slightly different answers as to why we love someone, but if we aren’t able to exactly define the parameters of our love, then we’re likely to struggle later on once the initial intensity dies down. If your partner can’t answer why he or she loves you now, then imagine the inevitable uncertainty down the road.
“Because I love you” is not a good answer. Life is a journey — one that is best not traveled entirely alone. However, not everyone has the same destination in mind. Wanting to take different pit stops along the route is one thing. Wanting different things out of life is another entirely.
Your partner should be able to tell you what life experiences he or she hopes to share with you. It’s these little goals you set for yourselves that make your life special.
Keeping the romance alive is not an easy task. Yes, it’s all mental, but keeping interest for such a long time is difficult. It takes a lot of work and creativity. It takes the other person regularly trying to please and impress you, which in itself becomes increasingly difficult with each new year.
Romantic love cannot survive on its own; both of you are going to have to maintain it constantly. Is your partner willing to keep the romance as one of his or her main priorities?
We may not know exactly where our lives will take us and what we will learn — who we will become — along the way, but we can make a conscious effort to grow closer together and not apart.
Most people grow apart over the years because they feel like they’ve accomplished everything in their relationships that needs accomplishing.
This is one main reason marriages end up being so horrible — people think that there is no greater peak to climb than the one their relationship is already resting on. Marriage shouldn’t be the end, it should be the beginning.
The good times are a piece of cake. The difficult times, however, will destroy your relationship if you allow them to. There comes a point in every relationship when you have to make a decision. It’s a decision that, if made, is only made once. You will reach a point where you will either decide you are going to be there for this person for the rest of his or her life, or not.
If you decide you’re going to stick with this person then you can’t allow any tragedy or outside force to shake that decision. This is one of the most important decisions we make in our lives — or, as it often turns out, fail to make decisively. Has your lover made the decision? Have you?
The key to a successful marriage is taming your ego. No matter how competitive we are, sometimes you just need to pick your battles. Sometimes the arguments and the stress just aren’t worth it.
What you need to understand is that 99 percent of arguments aren’t arguments over fact, but rather over opinion. An opinion is neither right nor wrong. Sometimes you just have to let things be.
Life has a lot to offer. And if you’re anything like me, you have a very large appetite. We want everything life has to offer, and then some. The problem is we don’t have enough time to have it all; our lives are too short. We can only pick a few things we consider important and do our best to flourish in those areas.
The beauty of marriage is that it can be used as a base to build the rest of your life on. Your partner should be just that: your partner. Your relationship is the most important thing in your life because it’s what makes the rest of your life possible.
Again, how could anyone know he or she will be a great parent? Easy. You just decide you’re going to be. That’s it. No tricks. No gimmicks. Just a decision and then action.
Some things don’t need too much thinking involved. You’re going to be great because you decided you will be. Will your lover do the same and be a great role model for your children?
People not only want, but need to hear it. We need to be reminded you love us because we know that love doesn’t always last forever. We want to hear the words and then have that reassurement reinforced with actions showing how much you love us.
It really is enough just to love us, but understand you need to love us the way we need to be loved — just like we need to love you the way you need to be loved in order for you to be happy.
Sparks don’t spark on their own. Think about how a lighter works. You have a spark that lights the fuel, which creates a flame. But how does that spark, spark? You have to create a force that will result in the energy creating a spark.
Just the same, you can’t expect sparks to keep flying if you’re not trying. If you want to have a happy and healthy marriage, then you need to find someone willing to devote the necessary energy.
Not just financially, but mentally. Maybe even physically if necessary. No one knows what life holds. The unexpected happens, often leaving us weak, hurt or even permanently damaged. Will your partner carry you when you can’t walk?
Will your partner support you when you’re weak at the knees? Will your partner carry the family you’ve created until you regain your strength? Is your partner capable of mustering the strength to fight battles for the both of you?
Marriage is not entirely the end of the person you were and the start of a new you. Sure, being in a serious relationship does require a person to change in many ways.
Yet, there’s a part of us we can never, under any circumstance, let go of. The dreams, wants and hopes we have — our personal goals — must stay alive.
When we lose them, we lose ourselves and inevitably lose the person we love. Marriage isn’t just an “us.” It’s also a you and him/her. You have to juggle being the person you have always been with being a part of a larger whole. It’s not easy. But it is necessary.
Will your partner take care of him or herself by eating healthy and exercising? Will your partner get regular checkups and take vitamins? This may sound silly, but I’ve seen what letting yourself go can do to a marriage.
Moreover, I’ve seen how not maintaining your health can make the lives of those closest to you incredibly difficult.
Yes, your family should take care of you when you need to be taken care of — but it’s your responsibility first and foremost to take care of yourself. No people should become a burden to those they love.
Will your partner hold your hand when you’re too weak to hold it back? Will your partner kiss your forehead and tell you he or she loves you, that you made life worth living? That, because of you, life made sense? Will your partner be there for your last breath, when you find yourself pressed betwixt fear and content?
No one should leave this world alone. It’s said that we leave it the way we come into it, but even when we come into it, there’s someone there to hold us. I understand most people don’t like to think about death, but seeing as it’s an inevitability, it’s better to plan ahead.
You love this person. You want him or her to be happy regardless of whether he or she is with you or without you. If death collects you ahead of schedule, you’ll want to know during those last few seconds that the person you love will continue to live life to the fullest.
That your partner will continue to do great things, continue to be happy, and — if you have children — continue to love your children and guide them through life.
The death of a loved one can ruin you. It can break you in ways that make full-recovery impossible. Can your partner promise you to find the strength and courage to press forward?
I don’t know about you, but the last thing I’d want for the woman I love is for my departure to be her downfall. If my being in her life or leaving her life will in anyway destroy hers, then I clearly made a mistake by allowing myself into her life.
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
|---|---|
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
4 A.M. WAKE-UP CALL
TUMBLR (REALLY)
DEADLINES
READ EVERYTHING
MAKE FRIENDS
RECAP YOUR MEETINGS
RUN EVERY DAY
STAY PRESENT
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
|---|---|
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
Ever finished a book? I mean, truly finished one? Cover to cover. Closed the spine with that slow awakening that comes with reentering consciousness?
You take a breath, deep from the bottom of your lungs and sit there. Book in both hands, your head staring down at the cover, back page or wall in front of you.
You’re grateful, thoughtful, pensive. You feel like a piece of you was just gained and lost. You’ve just experienced something deep, something intimate. (Maybe, erotic?) You just had an intense and somewhat transient metamorphosis.
Like falling in love with a stranger you will never see again, you ache with the yearning and sadness of an ended affair, but at the same time, feel satisfied. Full from the experience, the connection, the richness that comes after digesting another soul. You feel fed, if only for a little while.
This type of reading, according to TIME magazine’s Annie Murphy Paul, is called “deep reading,” a practice that is soon to be extinct now that people are skimming more and reading less.
Readers, like voicemail leavers and card writers, are now a dying breed, their numbers decreasing with every GIF list and online tabloid.
The worst part about this looming extinction is that readers are proven to be nicer and smarter than the average human, and maybe the only people worth falling in love with on this shallow hell on earth.
According to both 2006 and 2009 studies published by Raymond Mar, a psychologist at York University in Canada, and Keith Oatley, a professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto, those who read fiction are capable of the most empathy and “theory of mind,” which is the ability to hold opinions, beliefs and interests apart from their own.
They can entertain other ideas, without rejecting them and still retain their own. While this is supposed to be an innate trait in all humans, it requires varying levels of social experiences to bring into fruition and probably the reason your last partner was such a narcissist.
Did you ever see your ex with a book? Did you ever talk about books? If you didn’t, maybe you should think about changing your type.
It’s no surprise that readers are better people. Having experienced someone else’s life through abstract eyes, they’ve learned what it’s like to leave their bodies and see the world through other frames of reference.
They have access to hundreds of souls, and the collected wisdom of all them. They have seen things you’ll never understand and have experienced deaths of people you’ll never know.
They’ve learned what it’s like to be a woman, and a man. They know what it’s like to watch someone suffer. They are wise beyond their years.
Another 2010 study by Mar reinforces this idea with results that prove the more stories children have read to them, the keener their “theory of mind.” So while everyone thinks their kids are the best, the ones who read have the edge as they truly are the wiser, more adaptable and understanding children.
Because reading is something that molds you and adds to your character. Each triumph, lesson and pivotal moment of the protagonist becomes your own.
Every ache, pain and harsh truth becomes yours to bear. You’ve traveled with authors and experienced the pain, sorrow and anguish they suffered while writing through it. You’ve lived a thousand lives and come back to learn from each of them.
If you’re still looking for someone to complete you, to fill the void of your singly-healed heart, look for the breed that’s dying out. You will find them in coffee shops, parks and subways.
You will see them with backpacks, shoulder bags and suitcases. They will be inquisitive and soulful, and you will know by the first few minutes of talking to them.
They will write you letters and texts in verse. They are verbose, but not in the obnoxious way. They do not merely answer questions and give statements, but counter with deep thoughts and profound theories. They will enrapture you with their knowledge of words and ideas.
According to the study, “What Reading Does For The Mind” by Anne E. Cunningham of the University of California, Berkeley, reading provides a vocabulary lesson that children could never attain by schooling.
According to Cunningham, “the bulk of vocabulary growth during a child’s lifetime occurs indirectly through language exposure rather than through direct teaching.”
Do yourself a favor and date someone who really knows how to use their tongue.
You should only fall in love with someone who can see your soul. It should be someone who has reached inside you and holds those innermost parts of you no one could find before. It should be someone who doesn’t just know you, but wholly and completely understands you.
According to Psychologist David Comer Kidd, at the New School for Social Research, “What great writers do is to turn you into the writer. In literary fiction, the incompleteness of the characters turns your mind to trying to understand the minds of others.”
This is proved over and over again, the more people take to reading. Their ability to connect with characters they haven’t met makes their understanding of the people around them much easier.
They have the capacity for empathy. They may not always agree with you, but they will try to see things from your point of view.
Being overly smart is obnoxious, being wise is a turn on. There’s something irresistible about someone you can learn from. The need for banter and witty conversation is more imperative than you may believe, and falling in love with a reader will enhance not just the conversation, but the level of it.
According to Cunningham, readers are more intelligent, due to their increased vocabulary and memory skills, along with their ability to spot patterns. They have higher cognitive functions than the average non-reader and can communicate more thoroughly and effectively.
Finding someone who reads is like dating a thousand souls. It’s gaining the experience they’ve gained from everything they’ve ever read and the wisdom that comes with those experiences. It’s like dating a professor, a romantic and an explorer.
If you date someone who reads, then you, too, will live a thousand different lives.
"Deep reading" is vigorous exercise from the brain and increases our real-life capacity for empathy
Gregory Currie, a professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, recently argued in the New York Times that we ought not to claim that literature improves us as people, because there is no “compelling evidence that suggests that people are morally or socially better for reading Tolstoy” or other great books.
Actually, there is such evidence. Raymond Mar, a psychologist at York University in Canada, and Keith Oatley, a professor emeritus of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto, reported in studies published in 2006 and 2009 that individuals who often read fiction appear to be better able to understand other people, empathize with them and view the world from their perspective. This link persisted even after the researchers factored in the possibility that more empathetic individuals might choose to read more novels. A 2010 study by Mar found a similar result in young children: the more stories they had read to them, the keener their “theory of mind,” or mental model of other people’s intentions.
“Deep reading” — as opposed to the often superficial reading we do on the Web — is an endangered practice, one we ought to take steps to preserve as we would a historic building or a significant work of art. Its disappearance would imperil the intellectual and emotional development of generations growing up online, as well as the perpetuation of a critical part of our culture: the novels, poems and other kinds of literature that can be appreciated only by readers whose brains, quite literally, have been trained to apprehend them.
Recent research in cognitive science, psychology and neuroscience has demonstrated that deep reading — slow, immersive, rich in sensory detail and emotional and moral complexity — is a distinctive experience, different in kind from the mere decoding of words. Although deep reading does not, strictly speaking, require a conventional book, the built-in limits of the printed page are uniquely conducive to the deep reading experience. A book’s lack of hyperlinks, for example, frees the reader from making decisions — Should I click on this link or not? — allowing her to remain fully immersed in the narrative.
That immersion is supported by the way the brain handles language rich in detail, allusion and metaphor: by creating a mental representation that draws on the same brain regions that would be active if the scene were unfolding in real life. The emotional situations and moral dilemmas that are the stuff of literature are also vigorous exercise for the brain, propelling us inside the heads of fictional characters and even, studies suggest, increasing our real-life capacity for empathy.
None of this is likely to happen when we’re scrolling through TMZ. Although we call the activity by the same name, the deep reading of books and the information-driven reading we do on the Web are very different, both in the experience they produce and in the capacities they develop. A growing body of evidence suggests that online reading may be less engaging and less satisfying, even for the “digital natives” for whom it is so familiar. Last month, for example, Britain’s National Literacy Trust released the results of a study of 34,910 young people aged 8 to 16. Researchers reported that 39% of children and teens read daily using electronic devices, but only 28% read printed materials every day. Those who read only onscreen were three times less likely to say they enjoy reading very much and a third less likely to have a favorite book. The study also found that young people who read daily only onscreen were nearly two times less likely to be above-average readers than those who read daily in print or both in print and onscreen.
To understand why we should be concerned about how young people read, and not just whether they’re reading at all, it helps to know something about the way the ability to read evolved. “Human beings were never born to read,” notes Maryanne Wolf, director of the Center for Reading and Language Research at Tufts University and author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. Unlike the ability to understand and produce spoken language, which under normal circumstances will unfold according to a program dictated by our genes, the ability to read must be painstakingly acquired by each individual. The “reading circuits” we construct are recruited from structures in the brain that evolved for other purposes — and these circuits can be feeble or they can be robust, depending on how often and how vigorously we use them.
The deep reader, protected from distractions and attuned to the nuances of language, enters a state that psychologist Victor Nell, in a study of the psychology of pleasure reading, likens to a hypnotic trance. Nell found that when readers are enjoying the experience the most, the pace of their reading actually slows. The combination of fast, fluent decoding of words and slow, unhurried progress on the page gives deep readers time to enrich their reading with reflection, analysis, and their own memories and opinions. It gives them time to establish an intimate relationship with the author, the two of them engaged in an extended and ardent conversation like people falling in love.
This is not reading as many young people are coming to know it. Their reading is pragmatic and instrumental: the difference between what literary critic Frank Kermode calls “carnal reading” and “spiritual reading.” If we allow our offspring to believe carnal reading is all there is — if we don’t open the door to spiritual reading, through an early insistence on discipline and practice — we will have cheated them of an enjoyable, even ecstatic experience they would not otherwise encounter. And we will have deprived them of an elevating and enlightening experience that will enlarge them as people. Observing young people’s attachment to digital devices, some progressive educators and permissive parents talk about needing to “meet kids where they are,” molding instruction around their onscreen habits. This is mistaken. We need, rather, to show them someplace they’ve never been, a place only deep reading can take them.
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
|---|---|
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
1. 말로 입은 상처는 평생간다
말에는 지우개가 없으니 조심해서 말하라
2. 이왕이면 다홍치마다
썰렁한 말 대신 화끈한 말을 써라
3. 하고싶은 말보다 듣고싶어하는 말을 하라
모두가 고객이다
4. 걸러서 말하라
체로 거르듯 곱게 말해도 불량이 생긴다
5. 눈을 보며 말하라
눈이 맞아야 마음도 맞게 된다
6. 풍부한 예화로 들어라
예화는 말의 맛을 내는 조미료다
7. 같은 말 두 번 하지 마라
듣는 사람 지겹다
8. 일관되게 말하라
믿음을 잃으면 진실을 의심받는다
9. 상대방에게 말할 기회를 주어라
대화는 일방통행이 아니다
10. 상대방 말을 끝까지 들어라
말을 가로채면 돈 빼앗긴 것보다 더 기분 나쁘다
11. 내 생각만 옳다고 생각하면 큰 오산이다
상대방의 의견도 받아들여라
12. 죽는 소리 하지 말라
죽는 소리를 하면 천하장사도 죽는다
13. 상대방이 말할 때는 경청하라
지방방송은 무식함을 드러내는 신호다
14. 불평불만 꺼내지 말라
불평불만은 불운의 동업자다
15. 시시비비를 가리지 마라
옳고 그름은 시간이 판결한다
16. 눈은 입보다 더 많은 말을 한다
입으로만 말고 표정으로도 말하라
17. 조리있게 말하라
전개가 잘못되면 동쪽이 서쪽이된다
18. 결코 남을 비판하지 말라
남을 감싸는 것이 덕망있는 사람이다
19. 편집해서 말하라
분위기에 맞게 넣고 빼면 예술이 된다
20. 미운 사람에게 각별히 대하여라
각별하게 대하면 적군도 아군이 된다
21. 남을 비판하지 말라
남에게 쏜 화살이 자기 가슴에 명중된다
22. 재미나게 말하라
사람들이 돈내고 극장가는 것도 재미 때문이다
23. 누구에게나 선한 말을 해주어라
그래야 좋은 기의 파장이 주위를 둘러싼다
24. 상대방이 싫어하는 말을 하지 말라
듣고 싶은 얘기만 해도 바쁜 세상이다
25. 말에도 맛이 있다
입맛 떨어지는 말 말고 감칠 맛나는 말을 하라
26. 또박또박 말하라
웅얼거리면 염불하는지 욕하는지 남들은 모른다
27. 뒤에서 험담하는 사람과는 가까이 말라
모진 놈 옆에 있다가 벼락 맞는다
28. 올바른 생각을 많이 하라
올바른 생각을 많이 하면 올바른 말이 나오게 된다
29. 부정적인 말은 하지도 듣지도 전하지도 말라
부정적인 말은 부정타는 말이다
30. 모르면 다시 물어라
몯는 것은 결례가 아니다
31. 밝은 음색으로 말하라
듣기좋은 소리는 음악처럼 느껴진다
32. 상대방을 높여라
말의 예절은 몸으로 하는 예절보다 강하다
33. 칭찬 감사 사랑의 말을 많이 사용하라
그러면 사람이 따른다
34. 공통화제를 선택하라
화제가 다르면 남의 다리를 긁는 셈이다
35. 경솔하게 말하지 마라
가슴에서 우러나오는 말을 하라
36. 대상에 맞는 말을 하라
사람마다 좋아하는 말도 다르다
37. 같은 말이라도 때와 장소를 가려라
저기서 히트곡이 여기서는 소음이 된다
38. 품위있게 말하라
말이 곧 인격이다
39. 표정으로 말하라
드라마 이상의 효과가 나타난다
40. 활기있게 말하라
생동감은 상대를 감동시킨다
41. 솔직하게 말하고 진실하게 행하라
그것이 승리자의 길이다
42. 말에는 책임이 따른다
책임질 수 없는 말은 하지 말라
43. 실언보다 변명이 나쁘다
실언했으면 곧바로 사과하라
44. 말에는 메아리 효과가 있다
내가 한 말은 내게로 돌아온다
45. 말이 씨가 된다
어떤 씨앗을 뿌리고 있는지 생각하라
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
|---|---|
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
Karl Pillemer has spent the last several years systematically interviewing hundreds of older Americans to collect their lessons for living.
Pillemer admits he's an advice junkie. He's also a Ph.D. gerontologist at Cornell University.
Some years ago, after turning 50, he wondered whether there is something about getting older that teaches you how to live better. "Could we look at the oldest Americans as experts on how to live our lives?" he asked. "And could we tap that wisdom to help us make the most of our lifetimes?"
His first book, "30 Lessons for Living," synthesized advice from over 1,000 elders on topics like happiness, work, and health.
Now Pillemer has followed up with "30 Lessons for Loving," which features practical wisdom from over 700 older Americans with 25,000 collective years of marriage experience. One couple he profiles was married for 76 years. Another interviewee describes divorcing her husband, then remarrying him 64 years later.
I spoke with Pillemer for Sophia, a HuffPost project to collect life lessons from accomplished people (that was partly inspired by his work).
Pillemer shared seven key pieces of advice he's heard repeatedly from older Americans -- about their greatest regrets, finding fulfillment, and keeping relationships healthy through life's ups-and-downs.
1. Stop worrying so much.
I asked these oldest Americans what they think people tend to regret at their age, and what they would advise younger people to do to avoid regrets.
I expected big-ticket items -- an affair or a shady business deal, something along those lines. I really didn't expect to hear the one answer that was among the most frequent and certainly among the most passionate and vehement: stop worrying so much.
One of the biggest regrets of the very old was, I wish I hadn't spent so much time worrying. They weren’t talking about planning, but the kind of mindless rumination that all of us do over things we have no control.
One of the people who said that summed it up this way. It was a woman who said, "I knew there were going to be layoffs at my job. I did nothing over the coming three months except worry about being laid off. I poisoned my life. I didn't think about anything else, even though I had no control over it." And she paused and said, "I wish I had those three months back, because that was just lifetime lost."
I'm sort of a chronic Woody Allen-esque worrier. Hearing hundreds and hundreds of older people saying that when you get to our age, you'll see time spent needlessly worrying as time wasted, it really had a profound effect on me.
People have asked me, "What do you do with that insight? How do we stop worrying?" For me, when I start to get into the mindless rumination, I will remind myself that it's an almost absolute certainty that everybody, when they get to the end of life, will say to themselves, "I wish I hadn't spent so much time worrying about something that wasn't going to happen." After doing this for so long, I kind of have this feeling of a thousand grandparents in a room yelling at me [laughs].
A related insight of older people comes through very strongly in their advice about marriage. Very often a lot of their advice revolves around lightening up. We allow things, like marriage or other domains of life, to become extremely grim.
Their viewpoint from later on -- this may sound like a cliché, but they mean it -- is most of the things they worried about didn't happen, and the bad things that happened to them were things they hadn't considered.
2. In relationships, sweat the small stuff.
If I learned one thing about how to keep the spark alive over many decades, there's a point that the elders make that aligns very closely with research. It is an emphasis on thinking small -- the small, minute-to-minute, day-to-day interactions that make up a relationship.
We tend to think of relationships globally. But all relationships are made up of hundreds or thousands of daily micro-interactions where you have the opportunity to be positive and supportive to your partner, or to be dismissive and uninterested.
There's been research showing, for example, that how you respond if your partner interrupts you while you're doing something is very diagnostic of how good the relationship's going to be. If you're actively involved in reading the paper or doing something, and your partner wants to show you something of interest to him or her, whether you respond dismissively or you briefly stop what you're doing and engage with your partner is very diagnostic of positivity in the relationship.
Other research has shown that it takes around 10 positive interactions to make up for one nasty one, so the ratio of positive to negative small interactions in a relationship is really critical. And that's exactly what older people say. Many of their lessons embody this same concept.
For example, one of the things that older people argue is that we ought to be polite in our relationships. You know, the old things that people learned in elementary school, to say please and thank you and observe normal civility, is something people forget to do all the time in their relationships, mostly because we feel comfortable.
They argue using politeness and tact, but also making a habit of positive things, of compliments, of small surprises, of doing a partner's chore, if you have a fairly rigid division of labor. Many people described that. I had more than one woman -- perhaps it’s quote from someone else -- but they jokingly said that their husband doing the dishes was the best aphrodisiac they could think of. So I would say that for a good relationship that lasts a long time, one of the absolute keys is attending to being positive, cheerful, supportive in the small aspects of the relationship.
Another thing which is closely related: many couples begin to develop divergent interests and one partner then becomes hostile to a passionate interest. I had many older people say, "Our relationship changed when I gave my partner's interests a chance and embraced them."
One guy in his mid-80s, he was astonished. He said, "I started going to opera and ballet. Me! Opera and ballet! But it was worth it to engage with my partner." Or wives who took up golf or developed an interest in football. At some point, people begin to say that positivity in the relationship is more important than fighting over these kinds of like minor differences.
People who have very positive relationships consciously tend to maximize these small positive interactions. And that is a place where elder wisdom completely or very closely aligns with what we know from research about good marriages.
3. Don't sacrifice your relationship for your children.
There's a very strong research finding in family social science. It is called the U-shaped curve of marital happiness. Basically, marriages start out pretty happy. Marital happiness drops precipitously at the birth of the first child and usually never completely recovers until the last child has left the house.
So even though kids are great -- they satisfy our existential longings, and we love them, and it's one of the most profound experiences -- they are stressful for marriages. You probably don't need a social scientist to tell you that, because anybody who's been through it knows that.
There's no question that a lot of marital arguments and difficulties revolve around children. It's one of the paradoxes of marriage that good things, like having kids or having a really good job, even owning and taking care of a house, also can be sources of marital stress. It's the double-edged sword of marriage.
The elders had one really strong recommendation in terms of adjusting to kids. Put your marriage first, put your relationship first, and don't let kids distract you from having a good relationship with your partner.
Couples lose themselves in the mix of kids and work and fundamentally abandon attention to their relationship. The advice of the oldest Americans is very similar to that famous instruction on airplanes -- put your own oxygen mask on first and then put it on the kids. If you aren't attending to your relationship, you aren't going to be very effective as child-rearers.
It's very unusual that people have an awful relationship and wind up being good parents. If you sacrifice your relationship for your children, you have a reasonable chance of losing both.
Now, they aren't saying, of course, that you don't love your kids and that you wouldn't hurl yourself in front of a train to save them. But they argue that a marital relationship needs constant attention in spite of the kids.
I was shocked, in focus groups I did in preparation for the book, how many young parents couldn't even remember when they'd gone out on their own or spent much individual time together. The oldest Americans' argument is: Carve it out. Impose on grandparents. Develop a babysitting exchange. Even if you don't have any money.
I had people who grew up in the Depression. One couple said, "We returned our disposable soda bottles and went to McDonald's. It was just an opportunity to be away."
Even if it's something as artificial as a weekly date night where you scrimp and arrange for babysitting and go off on your own, you simply must do it. If you lose yourself in this middle-aged blur of work and kids, you really won't do your kids any good.
4. People who share core values typically have better marriages.
One hallmark of these long and harmonious marriages -- and this is a piece of advice, too, that older people explicitly give -- is to marry someone a lot like you.
We have in our popular culture this vast amount of examples of where opposites attract and make for great relationships, from “Romeo and Juliet” through “The Little Mermaid” through “Pretty Woman” and on and on.
Both the elders and research say, not so much. Marrying somebody who is very similar to you -- in the trade, we call it homophily. Homophilous marriages, where the partners are pretty similar across a range of domains, tend to last longer and be happier.
What seems to really make the difference are core shared values. For example, work and the importance of work, the number of children and the way children are to be raised and goals for children, how important money is, spiritual and religious values to some extent. If there's core value similarity, that seems to really make for these longer and happier marriages.
There's no magic bullet. But marrying someone who's fundamentally similar to you, especially in outlook, worldview, and values, really does seem to make a difference. It makes everything else much easier.
You might ask, in our complex multicultural society, is that really a good thing to recommend? What they would say is, you can have differences. Sometimes differences do spice up a relationship. But if you have two people who are, for example, strongly committed to two different religious traditions, you've got to be aware that you're going to have to work around that in your relationship. If you have other kinds of strong value differences, it's important to be aware of those and deal with them.
5. Communicate early, communicate often.
I've spent a lot of time interviewing young people. Of course, I'm speaking anecdotally. I know a lot of them as a college professor. One thing I've learned is that even in long dating relationships, it’s actually relatively unusual that they have a deep discussion about child-rearing values or even having children.
I think that's a problem. I think the elders would say it's a problem. Understanding how your values align is very important early on.
This is related, and it may seem obvious, but virtually all of the elders in long marriages say the key to their success was learning how to communicate effectively on important issues.
People who were divorced very typically attribute it to a communication breakdown. I had several couples in the study who had gotten divorced and then remarried. One couple was actually remarried almost a half century after they were first divorced and began to have a very positive relationship. Almost always that was attributed to learning how to open up, to have open and successful communication and to really talk to one another.
6. Approach marriage as a discipline.
The unspoken, unquestioned, and underlying assumption, especially of people 75 and older, was that marriage would last forever.
They viewed marriage as an unbreakable bond; they simply had to work within those parameters. That means, for example, you live through rough patches and don't just try to get out of the relationship. You come to accommodations and acceptances of the other person. You see this unit as something that is bigger than two people and their immediate individual satisfaction.
When they got married, they were making a commitment to the concept of marriage as a worthwhile institution, rather than the partnership based on immediate satisfaction of the individuals involved.
I got from them the idea of marriage as a discipline -- not a punishment kind of discipline but the way it's used if you're learning music or a martial art. Marriage is a lifelong path, one that you never perfect and that you continually work to get better at. You're continually working to improve communication and overcome problems and establish more interest.
This worldview -- that once you were in marriage, you were in it for good -- shaped people's day-to-day experience and view of it. It's one of the things which those who do articulate it recommend to younger people. They say, even if the reality is that you may not stay married, you ought to have this attitude, because it will make you work harder to get through difficult times. And there are such benefits to doing that that you ought to do it.
7. Take time to craft the story of your life.
There's been considerable research on the importance of reminiscence, life review. Most old people would like to be able to see their lives as a meaningful whole, to be able to sum it up into a coherent narrative.
I don't want to wax too poetic, but I have really been struck by something which the famous psychologist Erik Erikson said. At some point you realize that you're given this one chance -- he words it this way -- ‘this one chance in all of eternity to enact an identity and to play it out in the real world.’
Towards the end of life, what's really important to people is to be able to see how their life mattered, how it was meaningful, how there was a story to it that wraps up in a good way.
People who are able to create that kind of narrative, and think of their life in that way, are typically happier. They're more generative. They're much more serene and open to the end of life. So that is really good work for people to do. Writing about it is something that a number of my interviewees did. Often my best interviewees were people who had done some writing of memoirs.
There is a concept which some of them also did, it's called the “ethical will,” where people will write down what they would like to leave to younger generations about their values and principles and morality, how someone should live a life.
It's so critical for older people to record their memories. I would go one step further. Stop me if -- actually, I'm going to go ahead and say it. We're in the midst right now in our society of a very dangerous experiment. That's one where young people, outside of intermittent contacts in their own family, have no meaningful contact with older people in any other dimension of their lives.
Whereas old people were often much more integrated and were sought out as sources of wisdom and advice and life experience, now they really aren't, because our society is so age-segregated.
I think that we place young people in peril without these kind of intergenerational contacts. This is something that's so natural for the human race. It's really only been about the last hundred years that people have gone to anyone other than the oldest person they knew for advice about something, say like marriage or child-rearing.
Even though it sounds artificial, it's important for older people to record their own thoughts and memories, but it's really critical for younger people to ask them for them, and not just for stories, but for guidance and practical advice for living. I'm not against professional help. I think it's great. But sometimes people might go and ask the elders in their lives for advice on finding a meaningful career or improving a relationship first.
So I think that it's both older people doing it themselves, nurturing these memories and reflecting on their lives, but it's also our role as younger people to help them to do it, to express interest in it and be a part of their reminiscing and summing up their life into a meaningful story. That's what we really risk losing now. It's a large reason for these projects, I have to say, and why I'm writing these books.
Transcription services by Tigerfish; now offering transcripts in two-hours guaranteed. Interview has been edited and condensed.
Sophia is a project to collect life lessons from fascinating people. Learn more or sign up to receive lessons for living directly via Facebook or our email newsletter.
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
|---|---|
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
I feel bad for marital communication, because it gets blamed for everything. For generations, in survey after survey, couples have rated marital communication as the number one problem in marriage. It's not.
Marital communication is getting a bad rap. It's like the kid who fights back on the playground. The playground supervisors hear a commotion and turn their heads just in time to see his retaliation. He didn't create the problem; he was reacting to the problem. But he's the one who gets caught, so he's sent off to the principal's office.
Or, in the case of marital communication, the therapist's office.
I feel bad for marital communication, because everyone gangs up on him, when the truth is, on the playground of marriage, he's just reacting to one of the other troublemakers who started the fight:
1. We marry people because we like who they are. People change. Plan on it. Don't marry someone because of who they are, or who you want them to become.Marry them because of who they are determined to become. And then spend a lifetime joining them in their becoming, as they join you in yours.
2. Marriage doesn't take away our loneliness. To be alive is to be lonely. It's the human condition. Marriage doesn't change the human condition. It can't make us completely unlonely. And when it doesn't, we blame our partner for doing something wrong, or we go searching for companionship elsewhere. Marriage is intended to be a place where two humans share the experience of loneliness and, in the sharing, create moments in which the loneliness dissipates. For a little while.
3. Shame baggage. Yes, we all carry it it. We spend most of our adolescence and early adulthood trying to pretend our shame doesn't exist so, when the person we love triggers it in us, we blame them for creating it. And then we demand they fix it. But the truth is, they didn't create it and they can't fix it. Sometimes the best marital therapy is individual therapy, in which we work to heal our own shame. So we can stop transferring it to the ones we love.
4. Ego wins. We've all got one. We came by it honestly. Probably sometime around the fourth grade when kids started to be jerks to us. Maybe earlier if our family members were jerks first. The ego was a good thing. It kept us safe from the emotional slings and arrows. But now that we're grown and married, the ego is a wall that separates. It's time for it to come down. By practicing openness instead of defensiveness, forgiveness instead of vengeance, apology instead of blame,vulnerability instead of strength, and grace instead of power.
5. Life is messy and marriage is life. So marriage is messy, too. But when things stop working perfectly, we start blaming our partner for the snags. We add unnecessary mess to the already inescapable mess of life and love. We must stop pointing fingers and start intertwining them. And then we can we walk into, andthrough, the mess of life together. Blameless and shameless.
6. Empathy is hard. By its very nature, empathy cannot happen simultaneously between two people. One partner must always go first, and there's no guarantee of reciprocation. It takes risk. It's a sacrifice. So most of us wait for our partner to go first. A lifelong empathy standoff. And when one partner actually does take the empathy plunge, it's almost always a belly flop. The truth is, the people we love are fallible human beings and they will never be the perfect mirror we desire. Can we love them anyway, by taking the empathy plunge ourselves?
7. We care more about our children than about the one who helped us make them. Our kids should never be more important than our marriage, and they should never be less important. If they're more important, the little rascals will sense it and use it and drive wedges. If they're less important, they'll act out until they are given priority. Family is about the constant, on-going work of finding the balance.
8. The hidden power struggle. Most conflict in marriage is at least in part a negotiation around the level of interconnectedness between lovers. Men usually want less. Women usually want more. Sometimes, those roles are reversed. Regardless, when you read between the lines of most fights, this is the question you find: Who gets to decide how much distance we keep between us? If we don't ask that question explicitly, we'll fight about it implicitly. Forever.
9. We don't know how to maintain interest in one thing or one person anymore. We live in a world pulling our attention in a million different directions. The practice of meditation--attending to one thing and then returning our attention to it when we become distracted, over and over and over again--is an essential art. When we are constantly encouraged to attend to the shiny surface of things and to move on when we get a little bored, making our life a meditation upon the person we love is a revolutionary act. And it is absolutely essential if any marriage is to survive and thrive.
As a therapist, I can teach a couple how to communicate in an hour. It's not complicated. But dealing with the troublemakers who started the fight? Well, that takes a lifetime.
And yet.
It's a lifetime that forms us into people who are becoming ever more loving versions of ourselves, who can bear the weight of loneliness, who have released the weight of shame, who have traded in walls for bridges, who have embraced the mess of being alive, who risk empathy and forgive disappointments, who love everyone with equal fervor, who give and take and compromise, and who have dedicated themselves to a lifetime of presence and awareness and attentiveness.
And that's a lifetime worth fighting for.
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
|---|---|
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
Age: 30
Net worth: $4.5 billion
At 30, Elizabeth Holmes makes her debut on the Forbes 400 as the youngest self-made woman billionaire. She dropped out her sophomore year of Stanford University to found Palo Alto, Calif.-based blood testing company Theranos in 2003 with money she saved for college. With a painless prick, her labs can quickly test a drop of blood at a fraction of the price of commercial labs which need more than one vial. Theranos has raised $400 million from venture capitalists, valuing the company at $9 billion, and Holmes' 50% stake at $4.5 billion. She has assembled a stellar board that includes elder statesmen George Shultz and Henry Kissinger. Last year, Walgreens, the largest U.S. retail pharmacy chain, with more than 8,100 stores, announced plans to roll out Theranos Wellness Centers inside its pharmacies.| 터무니 없는 과다복용 (0) | 2016.04.24 |
|---|---|
| Study Finds Growing Reason to Be Wary of Some Reflux Drugs (0) | 2016.03.30 |
| Pharmacist License requirement via State (0) | 2014.01.27 |
| 약개발의 신개념 biobetter - 제약 현실의 안타까움 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
| 파이토케미칼 - 현대의학과 한의학의 만남, 새로운 건강의 방향 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
| Study Finds Growing Reason to Be Wary of Some Reflux Drugs (0) | 2016.03.30 |
|---|---|
| Elizabeth Holmes idea made real life (0) | 2014.11.12 |
| 약개발의 신개념 biobetter - 제약 현실의 안타까움 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
| 파이토케미칼 - 현대의학과 한의학의 만남, 새로운 건강의 방향 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
| 바이오 제약 회사들의 기업적, 국제적 성장 (0) | 2011.08.05 |
Until recently, I hadn’t really known any great leaders. As a writer, the highest-ranking people I deal with are editors, and they’re pretty much just writers who have gotten lazy. The only thing an editor has ever led me into is a bar.
So my images of leadership were based mainly on movies and sports. I figured great leaders did a lot of alpha-male yelling and inspirational speechmaking. To me, the epitome of leadership was when a baseball player is yelling at the umpire and about to get ejected and his manager runs out to the field to jump in front of him, so he can yell at the umpire and get thrown out of the game instead. In fact, I always thought baseball-team owners were awful people for not getting on the field in front of both the manager and player and getting ejected in their place. I may have felt this way because my favorite team was owned by George Steinbrenner.
But after spending time with a range of leaders for my new book, Man Made: A Stupid Quest for Masculinity, I learned that my vision of what makes a good leader was all wrong. I spent hours working alongside fire chiefs, army captains, Boy Scout troop leaders, and others who guide teams. To my surprise, the best of them tended to be quiet listeners who let other people make most of the decisions. They weren’t particularly charismatic. Or funny. They weren’t the toughest guys in the pack. They didn’t have a Clintonian need to be liked, or a Patton-like intensity. They were, on the whole, a little boring.
Like firefighter Capt. Buzz Smith, whose firehouse in Hollywood is one of the busiest in Los Angeles. For one thing, he doesn’t look like a “Captain Buzz Smith,” by which I mean he is not a plastic action figure. He has a gentle face, an easy smile, a mustache, and a general kindness to him. If he were cast as an astronaut he’d be the guy in charge of mixing Tang.
But what Capt. Smith and the other effective leaders I met have is a code. Capt. Smith isn’t weighing each decision based on a desire to keep his team happy, or to be fair to each guy. Capt. Smith has a way of doing things he believes is right, and he doesn’t waver. His mission is to follow the rules of the city, even if that means driving every 911 caller who asks to the hospital, whether they need to or, far more likely, do not. His job is to run a clean, orderly house so the team can respond with military precision. The calmness Capt. Smith exuded, I eventually realized, was humility. He didn’t need to express everything he felt immediately, because he understood that he wasn’t the most important person. It’s also a lot easier to feel secure in your leadership when you’re named Buzz.
Everyone at his firehouse knows they are doing things exactly right. And that seems to make them both proud and assured. They would do anything for Capt. Smith. Not because they love him — I’m not entirely sure that outside of the firehouse he could inspire them even to switch TV channels — but because his deep belief in his mission makes them also believe in that mission.
What Capt. Smith understands is that inspiring people through your personality is a risky, exhausting endeavor. But if you make people feel like you’re going to help them accomplish something far bigger than you — not just saving lives, but living by a system that provides dignity and pride — you can let your belief do the work for you.
I cannot believe, actually, that there’s not one of those inspirational wall posters about boringness. It’s a lot more effective than screaming.
Joel Stein writes a humor column for Time magazine. His first book, Man Made: A Stupid Quest For Masculinity, is very, very good. He wrote this paragraph too.
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
|---|---|
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
| [경향] 정부 “미 쇠고기 검역 중단 않겠다” ..더러워서 안 먹는다 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%84%B1%EC%82%AC
로마 가톨릭에서는 성사의 효과를 사효적 효과(Effectum ex opere operato)와 인효적 효과(Effectum ex opera operantis)두 가지로 구분한다. 사효적 효과는 '거행된 성사 자체를 통해 받는 성사의 은혜'이며, 인효적 효과란 '성사에 참여하는 이의 노력과 정성과 열심에 따라 받게 되는 하느님의 은혜'이다. 따라서 로마 가톨릭에서는 전례를 통해 거행되는 성사의 효과를 최대화하기 위해 신앙과 교리에 대한 교육의 필요성을 강조한다. 그러나 그 성사의 효과는 어느 하나가 다른 하나를 약화시키거나 저해하지 않는다. 따라서 비록 교리 교육을 받지 않은 유아에 대한 세례성사에 있어 그 성사의 효과는 동일하다. 따라서 로마 가톨릭에서는 유아세례를 생후 100일 이내에 받기를 요구하고 있다. 그러나 그 유아가 성장하여 견진성사,신품성사 등을 받기 위해서는 신앙과 교리에 대한 교육이 필요하다.
성사(라틴어: Sacrament, 聖事) 또는 성례전(聖禮典)은 눈에 보이지 않는 하느님의 은혜가 눈에 보이는 방법으로 전달되는 ,쉽게 말해서 하느님의 은혜를 받는 예식이다. 기독교 교파별로 개신교는 성례, 성례전, 성공회에서는 성사,성례전(전자는 성공회 기도서에서 사용하는 공식적인 교회용어이고, 후자는 교회 일부에서 사용하는 비공식적 단어이다.), 정교회, 로마 가톨릭은 성사라고 한다. 물론 모두 같은 말이다.
성사(Sacrament)는 교부 터툴리안이 200년경 그리스어인 μυστριον(Mysterion,신비, 특별한 것이라는 뜻)를 라틴어로 옮긴 Sacramentum에서 파생된 말이며, 번역하면 ‘성별된 것이나 행동’ 혹은 ‘성스러운 것’, ‘성별하는 것’이라는 뜻을 담고 있다. Sacramentum은 본래 로마 제국군인들의 황제에 대한 복종 곧 제국의 질서에 대한 복종을 상징하는 표지를 뜻하기도 했으므로,성사는 기독교인의 그리스도에 대한 복종을 상징하는 표지를 뜻하기도 한다.[1]침례교 신학자이자 사회학자인 토니 캠폴로(Tony Campolo)는 성사 또는 성례전을 기독교신자가 자신이 기독교 신자임을 항상 기억하게 하는 중요한 전통이라고 설명한다.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church
The sacraments of the Catholic Church are, the Roman Catholic Church teaches, "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."[1]
While the Church itself is the universal sacrament of salvation,[2][3] the sacraments ofthe Catholic Church in the strict sense[4] are seven sacraments that "touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith".[5] "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation", although not all are necessary for every individual,[6] and has placed under anathema those who deny it: "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."[7]
The Church further teaches that the effect of a sacrament comes ex opere operato, by the very fact of being administered, regardless of the personal holiness of the minister administering it.[8] However, a recipient's own lack of proper disposition to receive the grace conveyed can block the effectiveness of the sacrament in that person. The sacraments presuppose faith and through their words and ritual elements, nourish, strengthen and give expression to faith.[9]
The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists the sacraments as follows: "The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist,Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony."[10]
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Christian initiation is accomplished by means of the sacraments which establish the foundations of Christian life. The faithful born anew by Baptism are strengthened by Confirmation and are then nourished by the Eucharist."[11]
Baptism[edit]
Main article: Baptism (Catholic)The Catholic Church sees baptism as the first and basic sacrament of Christian initiation.[12]In the Western or Latin Rite of the Church, baptism is usually conferred today by pouring water three times on the recipient's head, while reciting the baptismal formula: "I baptize youin the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. Matthew 28:19). In theEastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine Rite immersion or submersion is used, and the formula is: "The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."[13] Though sprinkling is not normally used, its validity is accepted, provided that the water flows over the skin, since otherwise it is not a washing.[14][15]
Confirmation[edit]
Main article: Confirmation (Catholic Church)Confirmation or Chrismation is the second sacrament of Christian initiation.[16] "It is called Chrismation (in the Eastern Churches: anointing with holy myron or chrism) because the essential rite of the sacrament is anointing with chrism. It is called Confirmation because it confirms and strengthens baptismal grace."[17] It is conferred by "the anointing with SacredChrism (oil mixed with balsam and consecrated by the bishop), which is done by the laying on of the hand of the minister who pronounces the sacramental words proper to the rite."[18] These words, in both their Western and Eastern variants, refer to a gift of theHoly Spirit that marks the recipient as with a seal. Through the sacrament the grace given in baptism is "strengthened and deepened."[19] Like baptism, confirmation may be received only once, and the recipient must be in a state of grace (meaning free from any known unconfessed mortal sin) in order to receive its effects. The "originating" minister of the sacrament is a validly consecratedbishop; if a priest (a "presbyter") confers the sacrament — as is done ordinarily in the Eastern Churches and in special cases (such as the baptism of an adult or in danger of the death of a young child) in the Latin Church (CCC 1312–1313) — the link with the higher order is indicated by the use of oil (known as "chrism" or "myron") blessed by the bishop on Holy Thursday itself or on a day close to it. In the East, which retains the ancient practice, the sacrament is administered by the parish priest immediately after baptism. In the West, where administration is normally reserved for those who can understand its significance, it came to be postponed until the recipient's early adulthood; but in view of the earlier age at which children are now admitted to reception of the Eucharist, it is more and more restored to the traditional order and administered before giving the third sacrament of Christian initiation.
See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1285–1321
Eucharist[edit]
Main article: Eucharist (Catholic Church)The Eucharist, also called the Most Blessed Sacrament, is the sacrament (the third of Christian initiation,[20] the one that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says "completes Christian initiation")[21] by which Catholics partake of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and participate in his one sacrifice. The first of these two aspects of the sacrament is also called Holy Communion. The bread (which must be wheaten, and which is unleavened in the Latin, Armenian and Ethiopic Rites, but is leavened in most Eastern Rites) and wine (which must be from grapes) used in the Eucharistic rite are, in Catholic faith, transformed in its inner reality, though not in appearance, into the Body and Blood of Christ, a change that is called transubstantiation. "The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone."[22] The word "priest" here (in Latin sacerdos) includes both bishops and those priests who are also called presbyters.[23] Deacons as well as priests (sacerdotes) are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and lay people may be authorized in limited circumstances to act as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The Eucharist is seen as "the source and summit" of Christian living, the high point of God's sanctifying action on the faithful and of their worship of God, the point of contact between them and the liturgy of heaven. So important is it that participation in the Eucharistic celebration (see Mass) is seen as obligatory on every Sunday and holy day of obligation and is recommended on other days. Also recommended for those who participate in the Mass is reception, with the proper dispositions, of Holy Communion. This is seen as obligatory at least once a year, during Eastertide.
views w/o endorsement
http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=sayox&logNo=100104562373
세례성사
우선 세례성사는 거의 모든 개신교파도 공통적으로 인정하나 일부 개신교에서는 회개를 수반하지 않는 세례의 무효성을 내세워 유아세례를 인정하지 않고 있습니다. 세례성사의 성경적인 근거로는 예수님 자신도 세례를 받으셨고 (마태오 복음 3장 13-17절, 마르코 복음 1,9-11절, 루가 복음 3,21-22절, 요한 복음 1장 28-33) 또한 물과 성령으로 다시 나지 않으면 아무도 하늘나라에 들어갈 수 없다고 하셨습니다. (요한 복음 3장 3-5절).
성체성사에 대해선 개신교인들은 가톨릭과 성경 말씀의 해석을 달리합니다. 즉 개신교인들은 빵과 포도주 (어떤 개신교인들 예수님이 술을 먹지 못하게 하셨으므로 포도주가 아닌 포도즙이라고 우깁니다.)를 먹음으로써 나를 기념하라, 즉 기념하는 것을 뜻한다고 해석합니다.
그러나 가톨릭에서는 “나를 기억하여 행하라”라고 해석합니다. 다시 말해 개신교에서는 본동사가 remember인 셈이고 가톨릭에서는 do인 셈입니다.
그러면 영어 성경을 보실까요.
가톨릭용 성경뿐만이 아닌 개신교 영어 성경에 이렇게 적혀 있습니다. Do this in memory of me. 즉 본 동사가 행하라(do)입니다. 성경에 행하라 하였으니 가톨릭에서는 행하는 것입니다.
또한 주님의 전능하심을 믿는다는 개신교들이 어찌하여 주님께서 빵과 포도주를 주님의 몸과 피로 변화시키지 못한다고 주장할 수 있는지. 그들은 주님의 전능하심을 그냥 말로만 떠드는 것인지 모르겠습니다.
요한 복음서 6장 52절을 읽어보십시오. 유다인들은 이 말씀을 듣고 “이 사람이 어떻게 자기 살을 우리에게 먹으라고 내어 줄 수 있단 말인가”하며 서로 따졌다. 이는 분명 예수님께서 빵을 당신의 살로 의미하셨고 많은 제자들은 이 말씀을 제대로 해석했기에 예수님을 떠나게 된 것입니다. 얼마 남지 않은 제자들에게 예수님께서 다시 말씀하십니다. “정말 잘 들어두어라. 만일 너희가 사람의 아들의 살과 피를 먹고 마시지 않으면 너희 안에 생명을 간직하지 못할 것이다. 그러나 내 살을 먹고 내 피를 마시는 사람은 영원한 생명을 누릴 것이며 내가 마지막 날에 그를 살릴 것이다. 내 살은 참된 양식이며 내 피는 참된 음료이기 때문이다” (요한 6,53-55).
최후의 만찬 때 역시, 당신이 돌아가시게 것을 미리 내다보신 예수님께서 제자들과의 마지막 자리에서 농담으로 빵을 들어 축복하시고 제자들에게 나누어주시며 “너희는 모두 이것을 받아먹어라. 이는 너희를 위하여 바칠 내 몸이니라.” 하셨겠습니까? 이 말씀을 농담, 아니면 그저 상징적인 것이 아닌 것으로 분명히 알아들은 제자들은 초대 교회 때부터 이 예식을 행하였던 것입니다. 가톨릭 신자들은 매 미사 때마다 주님의 몸과 피를 받아 모심으로써 주님께서 유언으로 부탁하신 바를 지키고 있는 것입니다. 고해성사, 종부성사, 혼배성사, 신품성사, 그리고 견진성사 모두가 성경에 근거를 둔 것입니다.
비단 개신교인들 뿐만 아니라 비그리스도교 사람들도 ‘신부도 같은 사람인데 어찌 사람이 사람의 죄를 사해줄 수 있는가?’하는 의문을 당연히 가질 수 있습니다. 여기에 대해서는 박 도식 신부님의 ‘천주교와 개신교’라는 책에 설명되어 있는 것을 인용하겠습니다.
‘같은 사람이라도 법관은 국가로부터 사법권을 부여받았으므로 다른 인간을 벌하거나 죄 없음을 판단할 수 있습니다. 가톨릭 신부도 그리스도로부터 사죄권을 받았기 때문에 사람의 죄를 사해주는 것입니다.’
그렇다면 사도들이 예수님으로부터 사죄권을 부여 받았는가 아닌가를 성경에서 확인하면 되는 것입니다. 예수님 이전에는 사람의 죄를 사하는 것은 오직 하느님만이 하시는 일이라고 믿어왔습니다. 그러나 예수님께서는 많은 사람의 죄를 사하여 주셨고 (마태오 복음 9장 2절) 또 그 사죄권을 제자들에게 부여해주셨습니다. 요한 복음 20장 22-23절의 말씀입니다. “누구의 죄든지 너희가 용서해주면 그들의 죄는 용서받을 것이고 용서해 주지 않으면 용서받지 못한 채 남아있을 것이다.” 여기서 너희란 부활하신 예수님을 뵌 제자들을 말합니다. 또한 예수님께서는 베드로를 반석 삼아 교회를 세우셨고 천국의 열쇠를 주셨습니다. “잘 들어라. 너는 베드로이다. 내가 이 반석 위에 내 교회를 세울 터인즉 죽음의 힘도 감히 그것을 누르지 못할 것이다. 또 나는 너에게 하늘나라의 열쇠를 주겠다. 네가 무엇이던지 땅에서 매면 하늘에도 매어있을 것이고 땅에서 풀면 하늘에도 풀려있을 것이다.” (마태 16장 18-19절)
개신교에서는 베드로 사도부터 계승되어온 가톨릭의 정통성을 무시하기 위해 베드로라는 인격체 위에 교회를 세운 것이 아니라베드로의 믿음 위에 교회를 세웠다고 해석합니다.
그러나 어느 사람이 글짓기를 잘해 상을 받을 때 그의 재능 때문에 상을 받지만 상을 받는 것은 바로 그 사람이지 그 사람의 재능이 아닌 것입니다. 이와 같이 믿음을 가진 베드로 개인을 반석 삼아 교회를 세우시고, 그 믿음을 가진 베드로에게 천국의 열쇠를 주신 것이지 믿음이라는 추상명사 위에 교회를 세우시고 믿음이라는 만질 수도 없는 추상 명사에 열쇠를 주신 것이 아닌 것입니다. 그러므로 이 구절을 옳게 해석하면 사람의 죄를 용서해주는 권한이 예수님으로부터 제자들에게 부여된 것을 알 수 있습니다. 또한 초대교회 때에도 신자들이 사도들에게 와 죄를 고백한 것이 성경에 나옵니다. “그리고 많은 신도들이 와서 자기들이 한 일을 숨김없이 자백하였다.” (사도행전 19장 18절). 즉 고백성사가 신자들의 신앙생활에 주는 은총 등을 설명하기에 앞서 고백성사는 그 근원을 성경에 두고 있는 것입니다.
가톨릭에서 행하는 혼배성사 한 가지를 보더라도 개신교와 가톨릭 중 누가 성경 말씀을 더 잘 지키고 있는가에 대한 답이 나옵니다.
주님은 결혼에 대해서 단호하게 말씀하셨습니다. 마태오 복음 19장 6절에 “따라서 그들은 이제 둘이 아니라 한 몸이다. 그러니하느님께서 짝지어 준 것을 사람이 갈라놓아서는 안 된다”라고 나와 있습니다.
가톨릭에서는 영국이라는 한 나라가 가톨릭으로부터 떨어져 나갈지언정 주님이 주신 이 말씀을 굳게 지켰습니다. 따라서 영국은 성공회를 세우며 가톨릭에서 이탈되었던 것입니다.
그러나 루터는 한 영주의 지지를 잃는 것을 두려워해 그의 이혼을 허락하였으며 그 결과 오늘 날 개신교에서는 이혼하는 것을 하느님의 계명을 어기는 것으로 여기지 않아 대표적인 개신교 국가인 미국에서 이혼율은 50%에 가깝습니다. 미국인 중 가톨릭 신자와 다른 종교인들을 제외한 순수한 개신교 신자의 이혼율은 50%가 훨씬 넘을 것입니다.
성경을 자세히 보지 않았던지 아니면 그저 상징하는 것으로 해석했는지 개신교에서는 아픈 사람에게 기름을 바르는 행위, 즉 병자성사에 대해서도 말이 많습니다. 그러나 야고보서 5장 14절의 말씀을 보면 병자성사에서 축성된 기름을 바르는 것이 확실히 나옵니다. “여러분 가운데에 앓는 사람이 있으면 그 사람은 교회의 원로를 청하십시오. 원로들은 주님의 이름으로 그에게 기름을 바르고 그를 위해 기도해주어야 합니다.” 개신교회 목사들이나 장로들도 교인들 중에 아픈 이가 있으면 그 집을 찾아가 병이 낫기를 기도해줍니다만 기름을 바르는 경우는 없습니다. 물론 하도 많은 교파가 있으니 그들 중 어느 교파는 병자에게 기름을 바르는 지도 모르겠습니다만.
개신교에서는 창세기 1장 28절의 말씀을 들어 하느님의 진정한 뜻이 모든 사람이 결혼하는 것이므로 신부들이 결혼하지 못하게 하는 것은 하느님 뜻에 어긋나는 것이라고 주장합니다. 그러나 “자식을 낳고 번성하여 온 땅에 퍼져서 땅을 정복하여라.”하신 이 말씀은 아담에게 하신 말씀입니다. 만약 아담이 독신을 지켰다면 인류는 어떻게 되었겠습니까? 사랑으로 창조하신 인간이 결혼하지 않음으로써 멸종되는 것을 당연히 바라지 않으셨던 하느님은 인류 번성을 위해 자식을 낳고 번성할 것을 강조하셨던 것입니다.
그러나 예수님은 결혼을 하지 않으셨고 바울로 사도 또한 결혼하지 않았으며 독신을 지키는 것을 더 높은 덕목으로 치셨습니다. 그렇다고해서 가톨릭에서 결코 결혼을 경멸 시 한다든가 등한시하지는 않습니다. 오히려 다른 교회에서는 없는 혼배성사를 통해 결혼의 신성함을 더욱 강조하는 것입니다. 그러면 가톨릭 사제들이 결혼을 하지 않는 규정(교회법)을 성경의 어느 부분에서 찾아볼 수 있을까요? 마태오 복음 19장 10-12절의 말씀입니다. 제자들이 차라리 결혼하지 않는 것이 좋겠다고 한 말에 예수님께서는 “그것은 아무나 할 수 있는 일이 아니다. 다만 하느님께서 허락하신 사람만이 그렇게 할 수 있다. 처음부터 결혼하지 못할 몸으로 태어난 사람도 있고 사람의 손으로 그렇게 된 사람도 있고 또 하늘나라를 위하여 스스로 결혼하지 않은 사람도 있다. 이 말을 받아들일 만한 사람은 받아들여라 ”
즉 가톨릭 사제가 결혼하지 않겠다고 서약하는 것은 하늘나라를 위해서이며 또한 하느님께서 허락하신 사람만이 그렇게 될 수 있다고 하신 예수님의 말씀을 받들어 교회에서는 독신을 지키는 사제가 되는 것을 신품으로 여깁니다. 또한 ‘이 말을 받아들일 만한 사람은 받아들여라’하심으로써 모든 사람이 다 그렇게 하라는 뜻이 아닌 하늘나라를 위해 자신의 욕정을 포함한 모든 것을 포기하고 자기로서 대가 끊기는 것을 감수할 뜻이 있는 사람만이 독신을 지키라는 일종의 권고를 하신 것입니다. 진정 가톨릭의 정수는 자기의 모든 것을 바쳐 주님만을 따르려는 가톨릭 사제들의 독신생활에 있다고 해도 과언이 아닌 것입니다.
로마 가톨릭과 거의 모든 것에서 일치하지만 사제가 독신을 지킬 것을 서약하지 않는 동방 정교회에서는 로마 가톨릭에서 분리된 이후 아무런 성인, 성녀가 나오지 않는 것을 보더라도 사제들의 독신이 영성과 사목에 얼마나 중요한 것인가를 알 수 있습니다.
바울로 사도가 독신 생활을 더 귀한 덕목으로 여긴 것은 그의 여러 서간문에서 찾아볼 수 있습니다. 고린토 전서 7장 32-34절의 말씀입니다. “결혼하지 않은 남자는 어떻게 하면 주님을 기쁘게 해드릴 수 있을까 하고 주님의 일에 마음을 쓰지만 결혼한 남자는 어떻게 하면 자기 아내를 기쁘게 해 드릴 수 있을까 하고 세상일에 마음을 쓰게 되어 마음이 갈라집니다. 남편이 없는 여자나 처녀는 어떻게 하면 몸과 마음을 거룩하게 할 수 있을까 하고 주님의 일에 마음을 쓰지만 남편이 있는 여자는 어떻게 하면 자기 남편을 기쁘게 할 수 있을까 하고 세상일에 마음을 씁니다. 나는 여러분 자신의 이익을 위하여 이 말을 합니다.”
즉 아담에게 있어서는 자식을 많이 낳아 인류를 번성시키는 것이 주님을 기쁘게 해주는 일이었지만 예수님 당시에는 독신으로 지내는 것이 주님을 더 기쁘게 해주는 일이 된 것입니다. 하지만 모든 사람이 독신을 지킨다면 인류는 곧 멸망하기 때문에 독신을 지키는 것은 하느님께서 허락하시는 사람만이 할 수 있고 다른 이들은 결혼을 하여 인류를 유지시키는 것이 주님의 뜻인 것입니다.
견진성사란 세례를 받은 신자들이 받을 수 있는 성사로서 주교의 안수와 성유 바름을 통해 성령의 은혜를 받는 성사입니다. 이 견진성사의 성경적 근거로서는 사도행전 8장 14-17절을 들 수 있습니다. “예루살렘에 있는 사도들은 사마리아 사람들이 하느님의 말씀을 받아들였다는 말을 듣고 베드로와 요한을 그리로 보냈다. 베드로와 요한은 그리로 내려가서 사마리아 사람들이 성령을 받기를 기도하였다. 그들은 주 예수의 이름으로 세례는 받았지만 아직 성령은 받지 못했던 것이다. 베드로와 요한이 그들에게 손을 얹자 그들도 성령을 받게되었다.” 즉 세례는 신부를 통해 받을 수 있지만 확고한 믿음과 성령의 풍부한 은사를 받기 위해 주교님께서 안수하고 축성된 기름을 바르는 예식을 하는 것이 바로 견진성사입니다
| Gnosticism 이른 그리스도교 - 오늘의 성경에 포함되지 않은, 묻혀진 이야기들 (2) | 2012.01.18 |
|---|---|
| Sodom and Gomorrah (0) | 2012.01.15 |
| "GNOSTICISM" AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY (0) | 2012.01.10 |
| [scrap] Einstein and Islam (2) | 2011.10.29 |
| 꾸르실료 Cursillo 를 다녀오신 부모님 (0) | 2011.07.31 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_the_Deaf_(United_States)
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) was founded in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1880 as a non-profit organization run by deaf people to advocate for deaf rights. The first president of the organization was Robert P. McGregor of Ohio. It includes associations from all 50 states and Washington, DC. It is also the United States member of the World Federation of the Deaf, which has over 120 national associations of Deaf people as members. The office of the headquarters is in Silver Spring, Maryland. All the presidents of the NAD were late-deafened until the 1970s. The NAD is in charge of the Miss Deaf America Ambassador programs that are held during the associations conventions. The NAD has advocated for deaf rights in all aspects of life from public transportation to education.
The NAD describes their aims and objectives:
"The mission of the National Association of the Deaf is to promote, protect, and preserve the civil, human and linguistic rights of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States of America."
While the NAD works for deaf people it also works to promote knowledge about the rights, culture, and language of deaf people to hearing people.
http://www.nad.org/youth-leadership-programs/JuniorNAD
The Junior NAD, a program of the NAD, offers deaf and hard of hearing students in 7th through 12th grade opportunities to develop leadership skills, learn and demonstrate citizenship, and meet and interact with students from other schools and states. Students can participate in the Junior NAD by joining chapters established by their schools.
Junior NAD chapters focus on advocacy, attitude, awareness, commitment, cooperation, friendship, information exchange, involvement and leadership skills. Chapters have meetings and participate in many activities such as community events and fundraisers. Skills and values obtained by chapter members during these meetings and events will help them to become future leaders and advocates in the deaf and hard of hearing community.
| Gallaudet University 세계 유일 난청 청각 장애 학생들을 위한 대학교, 유학생의 유학권유 (9) | 2012.03.29 |
|---|---|
| 충주 성심학교에 다녀오다 - 장애인 시설에 대한 단상 (0) | 2011.07.13 |
| 농학생 대학교 Gallaudet University (0) | 2011.06.21 |
빌 클린턴, 늙었다. 말 참 잘 한다, 히야 .. 잘 한다 하면서 보고있는데 본인이 직접 쓴 연설이란다, 대박. 마치 이 캠페인을 위해 태어난 듯, 능숙함과 편안함. 미국 정치라는 공간에 인생을 담은 사람이니만큼 익숙한 것이 당연하겠지만 여전히 놀랍다. 참으로 내가 원하고 잘하는 일을 하면서 사는 것, 이란 저런 것이구나, 저것이 정석의 모습이구나 싶은 모습. 감탄에 감탄이다, 어메이징. 이러한 현란하지 않은 간단함, 공감의 주제들을 적절히 다룬, 자신이 지식과 능력을 한껏 활용한 연설. 이러한 것이 사람의 마음을 움직이고 대중을 움직이는 힘이다 싶다. 보면서 '투표하고싶다'는 생각이 들게하는 것, 이것이 힘이다. 박수.
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
|---|---|
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
| [경향] 정부 “미 쇠고기 검역 중단 않겠다” ..더러워서 안 먹는다 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
| 재미있는 오피니언 '원자력은 절대 부패한다' 과연, 대중에 전달되는 과학적 사실의 정확성 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
 instagram @watericious 배우며 감동하며 여행하며 행복 travel seattle by water_ |
||
|
