The Mindsets Behind the Three Conversations

These three conversations—which correspond to practical decision-making conversations, emotional conversations, and conversations about identity—are best captured by three questions: What’s This Really About?, How Do We Feel?, and Who Are We? Each of these conversations, as we will see, draws on a different type of mindset and mental processing.

 

When we have a conversation about, say, a choice—a What’s This Really About? conversation—we’re activating different parts of our brains from when we discuss our feelings—the How Do We Feel? discussion—and if our mind doesn’t align with the brains of our conversational partners, we’ll all feel like we didn’t fully understand one another.

 

The first mindset—the decision-making mindset—is associated with the What’s This Really About conversation, and it’s active whenever we’re thinking about practical matters, such as making choices or analyzing plans. When someone says, “What are we going to do about Sam’s grades?,” our brains’ frontal control network, the command center for our thoughts and actions, becomes active. We have to make a series of decisions, often subconsciously, to evaluate the words we heard, but also to consider what motives or desires might be lurking underneath……

 

The second mindset—the emotional mindset—emerges when we discuss How Do We Feel and draws on neural structures—the nucleus accumbens, the amygdala, and the hippocampus, among others—that help shape our beliefs, emotions, and memories.

 

The third conversational mindset—the social mindset—emerges when we discuss our relationships, how we are seen by others and see ourselves, and our social identities. These are Who Are We discussions.

 

 

 

 --- Charles Duhigg, Supercommunicators:

How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection. 2024.

 

 

New Life

Jesus contrasts feasting with fasting, new patches with old garments, and new wine with old wineskins to reveal that the power of the Gospel is not compatible with old ways of thinking or shaped by worldly assumptions (Luke 5:33–39). It calls for nothing less than renewal—a complete reorientation of how we live and relate to God. Repentance, therefore, is not merely an outward act but an inward change. Jesus calls us to enter the fullness of transformation that only He can bring, casting off every pattern and attitude that no longer reflects His Kingdom.

 

And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’ (Luke 5:39) 

Luke 5:39 reminds us that spiritual renewal means abandoning what feels safe or comfortable, so that God can pour in something new. In this 120-day journey, we are called to become new wineskins—hearts open to be stretched, reshaped, and filled by the Spirit. 

 

Let His presence renew us, His truth reshape us, and His Spirit fill us until our lives overflow as a living testimony to His transforming power.

 

from: The Turning of Hearts

- Gabrielle K, The Turning of Hearts: 

A 120-Day Transformational Journey through Luke’s Gospel, 2025.

 

 

Language and the Neural Construction of Reality

Our perception of reality is tied not only to the words we know but also to the patterns of activation in our brains, and these patterns vary across people based on individual experiences.

What we perceive as reality is essentially brain activity. Because our perceptions and thoughts are bound by patterns of neural activation, and because different languages activate different neural networks, those who speak multiple languages can cross these mental boundaries in ways that are nothing short of awe-inspiring. What we see or hear is influenced by which neurons are most likely to fire, and which neurons are most likely to fire depends on which prior neurons were activated by recent experiences.

When bilinguals switch languages, their networks of neural activation change as well and, with them, so do their perception and interpretation of reality, allowing them to move across multiple planes of neural co-activation – and hence, arguably, across multiple planes of existence.

--- Viorica Marian, The Power of Language: Multilingualism, Self and Society. 2023.

 

Language-Dependent Memory

The accessibility of memories varies across languages – the Language-Dependent Memory phenomenon – has implications for interviewing bilingual witnesses in legal cases, accessing traumatic memories of events and providing psychotherapy to bilingual clients.

The memories that come to the forefront, in turn, shape how we think about ourselves and the frameworks we use. Languages can even affect how one experiences love and hate. ‘I love you’ feels different in a native versus a non-native language. A native language packs more emotional punch. Which is also why some multilinguals prefer the use of a non-native language when they feel they need some emotional distance.

 

There is now a sizeable body of research under the umbrella of the Foreign Language Effect suggesting that people make more logical and rational decisions in a non-native language in a variety of spheres ranging from moral judgements to financial allocations.

 

--- Viorica Marian, The Power of Language: Multilingualism, Self and Society. 2023.

The Destructive Power of Misinterpretation

Failure to account for the differences between languages can lead to devastating results. In 1945, when Allied leaders met in Germany at the end of the Second World War, Truman, Churchill, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek sent the Japanese premier, Kantarō Suzuki, a declaration of surrender terms, asking that Japan surrender unconditionally. The declaration also stated that any negative answer would elicit “prompt and utter destruction.”

When reporters questioned Premier Suzuki about his reaction, he replied with the usual political fallback that he was withholding comment. The Japanese word he used, mokusatsu, derived from the word for silence, can be translated in multiple ways, from “remaining in wise inactivity” to “taking no notice” to “treating with silent contempt.” In a diplomatic failure of epochal proportions, an ill-chosen translation was interpreted in the West as a hostile response. In now-unclassified documents, the National Security Agency writes:

The word has other meanings quite different from that intended by Suzuki. Alas, international news agencies saw fit to tell the world that in the eyes of the Japanese government the ultimatum was ‘not worthy of comment.’ US officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki’s statement … decided on stern measures. Within ten days the decision was made to drop the atomic bomb, the bomb was dropped, and Hiroshima was leveled.

--- Viorica Marian, The Power of Language: Multilingualism, Self and Society. 2023.

Post‐truth v.s. Alternative Facts

The process of gathering and analyzing data, and inferences about what the data mean and how they should be understood, are open to different approaches. But the truth uncovered – what the facts or the data show – is accepted as impartial, evidence‐based truth.

 

Evidence‐based truth is accepted unless subsequently proven false by a changing social reality and/or a new scientific discovery that may temper the known facts; we thus say that science, including social research, is an inductive, empirically grounded process. These are the principles that underpin sociology as a social science. As the well‐respected sociologist Claude Fischer notes, science “is simply the systematic collection of observations and the application of logic to explain them.”

 

These principles have been subverted in recent years in the political sphere. For years before he himself ran for political office, Donald Trump frequently asserted that Barack Obama was not born in America (though he was: in Hawaii on August 4, 1961). Obama was dogged by this false accusation, one that was not denounced as false by other leading Republicans, and it continued even though he released his birth certificate demonstrating proof of his US birth. Trump's penchant for “uttering untruths” was a routine part of his own presidential campaign and pervaded his presidency from his inauguration onward, so much so that amid the whirls of misinformation, the notion of post‐truth society gained currency.

 

The various false claims routinely stated by Trump and his senior staff were defended by his aides and supporters as "alternative facts. The well‐respected television news interviewer Chuck Todd responded in one exchange that "alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods.” 

 

How to deal with the issue of “provable falsehoods” has become controversial among reputable journalists and news organizations. Concerns about how to distinguish between “truth” and “lies” have intensified due to politicized attacks on the “fake journalism” of reputable mainstream media, the denial of the scientific consensus on climate change and on Covid and other vaccines, as well as the emergence of a more general narrative framing science as “fake science.”

 

--- Michele Dillon, Introduction to Sociological Theory:

Theorists, Concepts, and their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century. 2024.

Real Love Includes Truth

Real love—the kind described by the God who created and is love (1 John 4:8)—always includes truth. The two are inextricably intertwined, since true love celebrates truth (1 Cor. 13:6). Christians are called to this kind of love regardless of whether we feel empathy or not. Christians love because Christ first loved us, not because we feel a certain way or have had a particular experience (1 John 4:19).

 

That’s why empathy is different from love and why it also must be submissive to love. Putting yourself in someone’s shoes may help you feel their pain, but their pain isn’t determinative of what’s true or false, right or wrong……

 

--- Allie Beth Stuckey, Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. 2024.  

How to Identify 'Toxic Empathy'

Kindness is good, and empathy can be good too. But empathy that affirms sin or lies is always misguided. How can we tell when empathy has become toxic? Here are a few red flags that we’ll see repeatedly in these pages:

 

1.      THE USE OF EUPHEMISMS: Euphemisms obscure the truth to make a position seem more palatable. Think “reproductive rights” for killing an unborn child, or “gender-affirming care” for bodily mutilation. In every conversation, advertisement, article, or podcast, you must carefully look out for the use of euphemisms. Ask yourself, “What does she mean by that?” and try to identify the reality her language choice is hiding.

 

2.      CONTRADICTIONS TO GOD’S WORD: Sometimes these contradictions are obvious (e.g., “Jesus isn’t the only way to heaven”), but most of the time, they’re not. Just like the Devil tricking Eve or tempting Jesus, unbiblical statements are often paired with something true. Think “Christians are called to love the foreigner” to justify chaotic border laws, or “The early church shared everything they had” to justify socialism. Just because something sounds good doesn’t mean it is. It’s crucial we know our Bible and train ourselves to think critically about the things we read and hear—especially when they’re viral or catchy.

 

3.      EXCLUSIVELY POLITICAL ENDS: When calling for empathy, inclusivity, and love, are they talking about how we treat these people as individuals, or are they actually speaking of achieving certain political ends? For example, “love is love” isn’t really a call for us to love gay people by recognizing their innate worth as human beings and treat them with kindness; it’s a call to legally redefine marriage and family…… These are examples of the exploitation of empathy to achieve political power, not peace.

 

4.      CHRISTIAN-SOUNDING WORDS WITH UNCHRISTIAN MEANINGS: The concepts of equality, equity, liberation, oppression, inclusion, and social justice can all be, in some way, found in the Bible, but the Bible defines them differently than progressive activists do. Biblical equity, for example, means fair, impartial judgment (Ps. 99:4). Progressive equity means equal outcomes…… equal outcomes are impossible outside of extreme, oppressive government intervention, and nowhere does the Bible indicate that justice means everyone having equal resources.

 

5.      EMOTIONAL LANGUAGE: Manipulative rhetoric lacks substantive, logical arguments and replaces them with demands that you feel a certain way. If you’re really loving, caring, understanding, empathetic, etc., you will buy into a particular position. Often, your rational points will be rebuffed with accusations of callousness instead of thoughtful responses. When they call you hateful, bigoted, racist, or any other epithet, it usually means they don’t know why they believe what they believe, so their insecurity manifests itself in anger…… You know such an allegation is ridiculous, and you don’t need to dignify it with a response. Simply continue to kindly, humbly, but confidently stand your ground. It may be that this conversation planted a seed in them.

 

When these red flags show up, it means someone is using toxic empathy to capitalize on the Christian’s righteous desire to be compassionate to the outcast and the weak, distorting biblical love into progressive activism and manipulating women into supporting issues that are harmful and, in many cases, sinful.

 

--- Allie Beth Stuckey, Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. 2024.