Thursday, May 28, 2015


Conserve: to keep from being damaged, lost, or wasted; save.[i]

Conservative is one of those words I use fairly frequently, even in reference to myself. I’m talking about conserving the Constitution and it’s principles of freedom. I’m talking about living the principles that build wealth and spread prosperity, rather than waste or profligacy that lead to poverty. I’m talking about the principles that lead to civilization, away from savagery.
But I’m finding it doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
I started thinking about this after I happened to hear a discussion on Glenn Beck radio last week. He and crew, Pat and Stu, were talking about the Republican candidates (including those not yet officially in the race) and what factions of the party those individuals could satisfy.
Beck is libertarian (which I am not quite), so I shouldn’t expect the same point of view I have, but we agree on so many things, I forget there are differences. But he described the “conservatives” in the party as something other than I would understand.
The discussion followed an interview with Gov. Rick Perry, prior to his announcing a campaign a week or so from now. It was in that interview that Perry recalled a meeting with the president in which he mentioned that National Guard being kept 50 miles from the border wasn’t close enough—and the president turned to Valarie Jarrett and asked if that was the case, because he didn’t know where he had stationed troops. Anyway, that was May 20th, if you have the ability to go hear it.[ii]
After the interview, Glenn and team started discussing the various candidates, and how they attract the various segments of the Republican party. Glenn asserts that there are four boxes:
GB: So, what it is, in one box, you have to have the GOP. That is the one with the most number in it. Establishment. People who just pull the lever for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is. So there are four boxes: one is GOP; one is conservative; one is religious; one is Tea Party/libertarian.
And then Stu asks for a better definition, which gets to the part that I’ve been thinking about:
Stu: Can you explain the distinction, in this particular scenario, what conservative is? Would you say it’s more like a hawkish...?
GB: Fiscal conservative, yeah, hawk. You know, somebody who is…
Stu: What differentiates it from Tea Party?
GB: Um..
Stu: Hawkishness?
GB: No. I would say Tea Party is more small government.
At this point they have some discussion about Reagan, that he was conservative, but he wasn’t small government. I took issue with it. Their examples were the border—which was supposed to be the one-time amnesty combined with closing the border, so that the issue would be gone forever. But, since the border wasn’t closed, that amnesty was the example to prevent us from ever giving in again. A learning opportunity. Knowing what we know now, would Reagan today offer amnesty? I don’t think so.
And the other example was that Reagan didn’t get rid of the Department of Education, and the Tea Party/libertarians want to. But they forget—Reagan wanted to; he tried. But he was working with a Democrat Senate and House the whole time he was in office. The measure of whether he was conservative would be, did he do the most conservative things he could get done (like lower taxes, which boosted the economy big time)? And what would he have tried to do with a willing Congress?
And I don’t really relate to the term “hawkish.” Reagan was able to end the Cold War without conventional warfare—because he was willing to fight if needed, and he stood firm. What a concept!
In the end of their discussion of candidates, they decided that two candidates—who are leading in Glenn Beck’s monthly online poll (so, not scientific, but gives you a sense of what his listeners believe)—each fill three of the four boxes. Gov. Scott Walker has the GOP establishment box, the conservative box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box. And Ted Cruz has the conservative box, the religious box, and the Tea Party/libertarian box—but he’s missing the biggest box, the GOP establishment. Which, if you define the bigness of the GOP as “People who just pull the lever for the Republican, no matter who the Republican is,” is irrelevant, because whoever gets the nomination will get those people. What’s really at stake is the fundraising and support of establishment politicians and their supporters. By the way, here in Texas, the GOP loves Ted Cruz; he ran away with the straw poll at the state GOP convention last June.
I understand that it’s a game to measure candidates with these four boxes. But it’s imperfect. I’m a Republican precinct chair, as several members of our local Tea Party are, and I’ve tried to do my civic duty all along. Many Tea Partiers awoke in 2010, when Obamacare got pushed through. I was already awake. Tea Partiers at that point began educating themselves—with more training on the Constitution among regular non-student adults than I’ve ever seen. Maybe more than have studied it on their own since the founding. So Tea Partiers are for small government—because the Constitution is about limited government. So I’m a conservative, religious, Tea Party, GOP-er. Hmm. And I don't think I'm all that rare.
What is a conservative if not for small government, as enumerated in the Constitution? It’s hard for me to picture conservatism without all four boxes—with the possible exception of GOP establishment, although conservatives are totally willing to reform an imperfect party that at least has potential.
The Political Sphere
of the Spherical Model
This is where the Spherical Model helps. We don’t need to separate out into local or big government Republicans; the questions that get us to the freedom zone are about the proper role of government and about the proper level (lowest, most local level possible) for any particular issue.
And the economic question is not whether we are pro-business or not; you can’t be a fiscal conservative unless you’re in favor of freeing up the free market. That’s beats crony capitalism or centrally controlled socialist economies every time. A conservative conserves the principles of the free market—which might at times require radical change from the status quo of regulatory tyranny.
People who claim to be fiscally but not socially conservative are not deep thinkers; they cannot get prosperity without civilized people making it possible. Sure, we’ll welcome their vote, but they’re not the leaders toward the world we want.
So then, the social question is, simply: Do you favor civilization or savagery? We know what gets to civilization. A religious people are required, because no one else will self-rule. We self-rule because we live God’s laws, which are higher than our own personal, changeable sense of ethics. God grants us our rights, so without God, the tyrannical leaders grant or take away “rights” at their whim. And our laws reflect our own willingness to live the Ten Commandments: honor and protect family, respect private property, be honest, don’t murder. Without these basics, it really doesn’t matter what you think about race, gender, climate, or some other pet virtue.
You can’t know what good is, if you don’t know who God is; He defines good.
It would be nice to have a better word than “conservative.” I looked up synonyms in a thesaurus, and that was disheartening: cautious, conventional, die-hard, establishmentarian, guarded, hidebound, middle-of-the-road, moderate, quiet, reactionary, right-wing, sober, Tory, traditional, unexaggerated, unprogressive, verkrampte.
I did a Google Translate on that last one; it means cramped. I tried translating “conservative” into German, and it gave me a much kinder cognate: konsesrvativ. Plus some other adjectives that mean essentially, cautious, careful, wary, or prudent, which are at least better than cramped.
So, the thesaurus thinks conservative means something very uncool. I can live with uncool; I pretty much always have. But I don’t like inaccurate.
I could use the Spherical Model shorthand of north on the sphere—and I do. But until the world catches on to this new vocabulary, I will probably keep saying I’m a Constitutional, fiscal, and religious conservative.
I very much prefer the Webster’s definition for conserve, which I used at the top of this piece. I want to conserve our Constitution and the way of life it offers. I want to keep it from being damaged, lost, or wasted. I want to preserve—conserve—the highest freedom, prosperity, and civilization that we have obtained, or return to that pinnacle by repairing the decay we’ve experienced.
I don’t trust that a single elected official, even a president, can undo all the damage. But having someone who loves those things worth preserving is a start. And such a person could inspire many more to work on the challenging restoration. So I won’t be looking for a person who fits enough boxes to win an election; I’ll be looking for a person who understands what’s at stake and loves freedom, prosperity, and civilization as much as I do.

[i] Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition © 1982.
[ii] Glenn Beck Radio, May 20, 2015, from 1:44:30 to about 1:58:00, available by subscription.

Monday, May 25, 2015


Last fall we took a trip to Washington, DC, which I reported here in September, in four parts. I’m repeated parts of them today, in the reverent spirit of Memorial Day, plus maybe some additional things.


Inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier


We got to witness the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This was one of the most reverent moments of our trip. We all stood, in silence, throughout. The ceremony takes place whether people are there or not. They revere those sacred dead; we are invited to join them in that honor. We felt privileged to witness it.

Changing of the Guard
at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier



Retiring the Flag at Arlington Cemetery

After the ceremony, we were waiting for our tour bus, and I ran off to take a few more photos. And I noticed this additional ceremony, the retiring of the flag in early evening. There was no crowd around. The soldiers were doing the honorable ceremony, because that’s what they do. I took the photo from a distance; I was glad I got to see this sacred moment.



Among the Acres of Graves at Arlington Cemetery

I know it doesn’t sound like a thrilling vacation to go to a cemetery, but Arlington Cemetery is worth experiencing. It’s vast, and beautiful, and sacred.

Iwo Jima Monument

The Iwo Jima Monument relates to World War II. It is located just outside the Arlington Cemetery. We saw it just before sunset, which made photography a challenge, but the sky toward the sun was stunning. This photo is taken with back to the sun.

World War II Memorial

One of my favorite memorials was the World War II Memorial, located between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Memorial. We were there on a day when busses were bringing WWII veterans, many in wheelchairs and in their 90s, to honor those they served with most of a lifetime ago.

Each star represent 100 lost lives in WWII
There’s a wall of stars at the memorial; each star represents 100 who lost their lives. There are 4048 gold stars, representing the 405,399 American dead or missing.  

Vietnam Memorial Wall

The Vietnam Memorial Wall is most impressive maybe because of its length, full of names of those lost in service in that war.

Korean War Memorial

On the opposite side of the Lincoln Memorial is this Korean War Memorial. It also has a reflective wall, this one with faces looking out. The wall is alongside a garden of statues, soldiers walking through undergrowth, as you might have seen them in action. I hadn’t been aware of this memorial before the trip. But I saw it in a scene of a TV show after returning home. This was another place I really felt the reverence. Maybe it relates to having had a son stationed in Korea.


 I want to add this photo, honoring four fallen Americans in Benghazi, September 11, 2012. We’re still trying to find out what happened, and why the administration lied about what happened, and continues to obstruct the investigation. The honor is for today; we’ll save the troubling discussion for another time.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Voice of the People

Long ago, in a faraway kingdom, there lived a good and wise king[i], who loved his people. He led them in righteousness, and served them well, as his father had before him.

Often during his reign there was peace. But as the kingdom grew, a new generation arose that did not believe the long-held social practices, and disregarded the righteous laws to give themselves pleasure. Among the young rebels were the sons of the king himself, four of them. And their best friend, the son of the high priest of the church. The parents were heartbroken.
But a miracle happened, and the sons saw the error of their ways, and sought to repair the damage they had done within the kingdom. And many regarded their sorrow and repented with them.
The sons of the king asked if they could go on a quest, to the north, to teach the ideas of love and peace that they had discovered unto the barbaric people who had waged war on them from time to time through the centuries. If they could bring them the peace within, they could bring peace between the nations.
The king was anxious about his beloved sons going so far, among such a bloodthirsty people. But the word of God came to him, and assured him good would come of the quest, and the sons’ lives would be kept safe. So they parted.
The king waxed old. He would need to pass the crown to a successor. He and trusted advisors searched the kingdom for a suitable successor, but the king was agitated. Whoever they chose, he feared contentions would arise, leading to anger, separations, even war. It could destroy the souls of many of his beloved people.
He brought his concerns before the people. He said, “Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.” He said, “If it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments—even as my father did for this people—then it would be expedient that you should always have kings to rule over you.” He reminded them that he, himself, as king, had labored to serve them, had judged them according to the laws of God—that there should be no stealing, plundering, murdering, nor any manner of iniquity, or else they would be punished according to their crimes.
But a wicked king, he warned them, can cause great iniquity to be committed among his people, to their destruction. Such people fall into bondage. “And ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For he has his friends in iniquity, and keeps his guards about him. And he tears up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him. And he enacts laws according to his own wickedness, and he destroys anyone who disobeys his laws. He will send his armies against any rebels, to destroy them.”  Such a king destroys civilization among his people.
So he proposed a brand new way. He said, “Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them from God.”
And he gave them his reasoning. “Now it is not common that the majority voice of the people desires anything contrary to what is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire what is not right. Therefore, this shall be your law—to be governed by the voice of the people.”
Their thriving would depend on the righteousness of the people, instead of the righteousness of their king. He warned them, “If the time comes that the voice of the people choose iniquity, then the judgments of God will come upon you with destruction, as has happened with other ancient peoples in this land.”
He set up a system for the judges: “Now if you have judges that do not judge you according to the law, you can cause those judges to be judged of a higher judge.  And if your higher judges do not judge righteously, you shall cause a small number of your lower judges to gather together, to judge your higher judges.”
He declared, “I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.”
His declarations went out to the people, and they gave up their desire for a king to rule over them. They assembled themselves together in bodies through the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law. And they rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted unto them.
The people lived in peace for some time. But not as long as hoped.
It happened that corruption came within not many years. Lawyers found that they could make more money if they stirred people up to go against one another before the law[ii]. And some of the judges could be bought to rule against the rightness of the law.
Always there continued to be strife between the righteous church members and the nonbelievers. The corruption was mainly among the nonbelievers. Laws needed to be declared to protect the believers from persecution for their beliefs. That helped for a time. But pride and corruption spread even among the churchgoers, which was a stumblingblock for sincere seekers of truth and goodness[iii].
The system of government by the voice of the people—democracy, in the form of elected judges and written law—lasted for about a century, which is the common length of time for self-government experiments to last.
About a quarter century into the reign of the judges, a group arose to alter the law. They didn’t want to change just a few tiny points in the law; they wanted to throw out the government by judges, ignore the voice of the people, and reinstate a king[iv]. It was those of “high birth” who wanted a monarchy, so they could institute privileges for themselves, and power and authority over the people. They didn’t like equality before the law.
For a time the voice of the people settled the matter, because the people voted to maintain their liberty. But war from outside came to the land, and the dissenters, the kingmen, refused to fight. They were put in prison to be dealt with according to the law. The swiftness of the justice did away with the kingmen faction entirely.
But the war continued for many years. The military leader was a strong and righteous man. He put up a flag to remind them of what they fought for: “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”[v]
The good and righteous people succeeded in fighting off the invaders. But there was corruption within the land, secret societies that conspired together in secret theft and murder, for the purpose of gaining wealth and power. The spread of this plague of corruption led to the eventual end of the reign of the judges[vi]. The people separated into tribes, each according to their family relations. Some tribes worked among themselves in righteousness, but many more did not, and they fought one with another, vying for power over one another. And there was war and chaos throughout the land, which only a return to righteousness could resolve.
What do we learn from this kingdom’s story?
·         It is better to be ruled by the voice of the people than by a monarch.
·         Liberty is the blessing of a righteous people who self-rule according to longstanding laws of righteousness.
·         Corruption from within is a greater danger than invaders from without
·         Judges and government leaders ignoring the written law cannot be tolerated, if liberty is to be maintained.
·         Most of the time, the majority will choose right, but a minority will be choosing wrong.
·         When the majority chooses unrighteousness, destruction follows.
This story of the voice of the people is different from our nation. But it could be a cautionary tale for us, or for any people who love liberty. I think the principles apply:
·         It is better to have self-rule, rather than monarchy or other forms of tyranny.
·         Usually the majority chooses right, especially when written long-standing laws are in place to protect our liberties.
·         It could happen that leaders go astray, and that judges go wrong, but those can be corrected—if the people are diligent in holding them accountable. But if corruption is allowed to spread, eventually a majority chooses to disregard the law and make new laws that support tyranny and savagery.
·         If the corruption isn’t rooted out—if a majority of the people are not righteous, if they do not insist on maintaining their freedom to live in righteous liberty—then the government of the people will decay into chaos and tyranny, which is the common lot of mankind.
We have had too much of the decay. It’s time to reject the pressure of the libertine and return to the laws of liberty.

[i] This is my retelling of a story from The Book of Mormon. The kingdom is called Zarahemla, and the king is Mosiah, son of King Benjamin. The story of beginning the reign of the judges is found in Mosiah 29, which is estimated to have taken place about 92 BC. The location is unknown, but somewhere in the Americas, probably within Central America. Some quotes in the story are paraphrased; see the scriptures for actual quotes.
[ii] Alma 11:20
[iii] Alma 4:10
[iv] Alma 51
[v] Alma 46:12
[vi] 3 Nephi 7:2, around AD 30.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Common Sense or Calamity

“Studies either confirm common sense or they’re wrong.”—Dennis Prager[i]
Common sense tells us things that eventually social science can confirm, if done correctly.[ii] If you start with correct principles, and follow the correct procedures, then you get the right answers. Same with logic, which is mathematical. If you start with the right premise, and don’t get off track with faulty reasoning, then you get the right answer. But if you don’t start with a true premise, your answers will be faulty. Or if you take a wrong turn along the way.
That’s why it makes sense to look at what has been tried and tested over many years, by many people, in many places, in many cultures. If they come to see the wisdom in the same things, they might be right. Learning from the past, we can identify the principles that lead to civilization.
It’s kind of pointless to say, “Now that we’re more evolved, or progressive, we can ignore the experience of the sum total of human history, and try something new and untried, because we’re so advanced.” That is probably what every decadent society thought: “We don’t need to cling to those old ideas of morality; we want to do things our own way.” And then they sink from civilization into savagery, and misery. Every time.
Detroit after decay
Economist Thomas Sowell wrote a piece earlier this month, comparing life for blacks in America before and after the Civil Rights movement, and then the War on Poverty in the 1960s.
You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.
We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact—for those who still have some respect for facts—black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less.
Murder rates among black males were going down—repeat, DOWN—during the much lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.
Sowell gets to talk openly about race by virtue of his color. It’s helpful to get truth from someone who has lived a life worth knowing. But he doesn’t leave it as a racial problem; you do the same things in any culture, and you get the same results. He suggests reading Life at the Bottom, by Theodore Dalrymple, talking about British white slums caused by the welfare state.
Sowell concludes,
You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization—including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain—without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.
He’s an economist, so the requirements of civilization he’s focusing on particularly affect economic prosperity, such as a strong work ethic. But more than that, you don’t get prosperity without the necessary behavioral standards and personal responsibility. And what are those? The principles were laid out in basic form about 3400 years ago, in the Ten Commandments. Every civilization has had something very close to that: you don’t lie, you don’t steal, you don’t have sex outside of marriage, you don’t take innocent life, you honor family, and you recognize God as the giver of life and inalienable rights. If you throw out any of the essential ingredients, you don’t get to have civilization.
image found here
In 1995 the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent out A Proclamation to the World, titled “The Family.”[iii] It’s a short document, and at the time we thought it seemed puzzling, because the points made in it were what we’d believed all along. They were common sense.
But very shortly afterward, ever line in it began to be attacked. Things like:
·        Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
·        We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.
·        We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
·        Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.
·        Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
For someone with common sense, those aren’t weird or outmoded or ridiculous in any way. They’re just the common sense way to happiness.
If you take a look at some older movies, or maybe some Shakespeare, you’ll find that the assumption that sex must only take place within marriage is a given. It was so widely accepted that even villains would expect they needed marriage before they could prey upon the damsel.  It has always been known that not everyone would abide by this societal requirement, but rebels knew they couldn’t expect society to condone their rebellions. Society must reverence marriage and family as sacred, or civilization ceases to be.
I’ve mention Vico and Unwin before. Giambatista Vico came first. Back in 1725 he concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is essential for civilization—it is the “seed plot” of society.[iv] Religious people, statesmen, and pretty much any educated thinking person in Vico’s day recognized that sex outside of marriage was an evil against society. Vico just explained the reasoning (the social science).
Two centuries later, in 1935, along came anthropologist and “progressive” thinker (i.e., progressive movement that Woodrow Wilson foisted on us) Joseph D. Unwin, who set out to prove that the institution of marriage was unnecessary, maybe even harmful. He did an exhaustive study of some 86 cultures, all the world cultures throughout history that he could obtain sufficient data for.[v] He was forced by the evidence to conclude that only marriage with fidelity, what he called absolute monogamy, would lead to the cultural prosperity of a society—civilization. Anything else, such as “domestic partnerships” or living together unmarried, or any other type of promiscuity, would degrade society. He reported:
The evidence was such as to demand a complete revision of my personal philosophy; for the relationship between the factors seemed to be so close, that, if we know what sexual regulations a society has adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its cultural behavior... (p.5).
Now it is an extraordinary fact that in the past sexual opportunity has only been reduced to a minimum by the fortuitous adoption of an institution I call absolute monogamy. This type of marriage has been adopted by different societies, in different places, and at different times. Thousands of years and thousands of miles separate the events; and there is no apparent connection between them. In human records, there is no case of an absolutely monogamous society failing to display great [cultural] energy. I do not know of a case on which great energy has been displayed by a society that has not been absolutely monogamous…(pp.31-32).
So a society’s sexual behavior can be predictive:
If, during or just after a period of [cultural] expansion, a society modifies its sexual regulations, and a new generation is born into a less rigorous [monogamous] tradition, its energy decreases... If it comes into contact with a more vigorous society, it is deprived of its sovereignty, and possibly conquered in its turn (p.21).
It seems to follow that we can make a society behave in any manner we like if we are permitted to give it such sexual regulations as will produce the behavior we desire. The results should begin to emerge in the third generation ( p.45).
The Family Proclamation ends with a more religious sounding but nearly identical warning:
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
Some people have to learn by experience; I understand that. But let them experiment in their own limited lives and circles. There’s no need for them to bring on dire consequences to entire civilizations just because they want to try out ways of living that have proved misery-inducing throughout all of human history.
I choose common sense rather than the proven path to calamity.

[i] Donna Carol Voss quotes (without quotation marks, so possibly a paraphrase) Dennis Prager at the beginning of her piece, “Could it Be? Stay-at-Home Moms Are Bad for Children?
[ii] For example, “Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” 2002, Institute for American Values, available at, and the updated version “Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition, Thirty Conclusions from theSocial Sciences.” See also Linda J. Waite’s tabulations from the 1987-1988 waves of the National Survey of Families and Households available in Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better-Off Financially (New York:  Doubleday): 155-156.
[iii] The proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society (women’s auxiliary) Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City. In its entirety at
[iv] Vico, Giambattista, The New Science, 3rd Edition, trans. by Max Harold Fisch and Thomas Goddard Bergin, paragraphs 10-11:  “The first of these [human institutions] was marriage…For marriage, as all statesmen agree, is the seed-plot of the family, as the family is the seed-plot of the commonwealth…”
[v] Unwin, also Joseph Daniel, Ph.D., “Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior," an address given to the Medical Section of the British Psychological Society.