Okay, time for a late evening, "informed rant" about dating and relationships, via Presidential politics.

What?

I happened to see an article by writer Michael Kinsley today. He wrote about how he feels that Americans demand and deserve every personal thought in a presidential candidate's spiritual practice. It started in discussing Mitt Romney's limited expression of his Mormonism, then went on to JFK's comments on how the details are his own private business - that the work at hand is what we ought to be paying attention to. He disagreed with this stance of course.

Talking to the guys with the company, it's one of those special things about mindOS and how you can just every now and again get one of these AHA moments.

MindOS is sort of like a tree on which you can go out exploring on any branch of human thought, and discover things in a new way you haven't thought of before.

The issue immediately of course made me think of mature boundary skill versus immature boundaries. I, personally, most certainly respect a leader more who has a sense of privacy and self-respect to maintain it than someone who sways with the whims of an ever-changing constituency.

Yet at the same time, I can understand why Kinsley would make the statement. Just as in finding an appropriate and reliable mate, the voting public must come up with efficient ways of elliciting the character traits and quality in a leader.

But do you think that is likely to happen simply by asking them or having them tell us what their maturity level is via brand of spirituality?

A great leader is the one with highest character, and you'll find in mindOS precisely why that is. It's that what leaders do is to TAKE ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOME DECISION-MAKING FOR US, so that we don't HAVE to vote as a democracy on any and every little microdecision required of office.  Do you personally want to have to decide how much of the nation's budget needs to go to subsidizing farmers?  I sure don't.  I'm neither competent to, nor do I have the time to address something so remote from the duties I need to do in running my life.

 Ultimately, if we are going to leave to someone else (the leader) the responsibility of making the best possible solutions with the most constructive results, we have to know that they have the most masterful skill at decision-making. It has to be even better than our own, and better than the vast majority of the public they represent.

In fact, ideally, they ought to of all of the public, have the most masterful decisions covering the most broad range of the decisions inherent in the office.

What is this called?

WISDOM.  Theirs had better be higher than ours and most everyone we know.

And isn't that just a bit like being a good parent?

Back to the original topic.

Along with decision-making wisdom, it is crucial that the person also have good boundaries. If they don't, the decisions they make may not even matter, because so much of them will result in waffling, going back on promises, dishonesty, and all the other trappings of poor boundaries that are actually incompatible with being "wise."

Kinsley actually makes the comment that knowing one's religious preference and degree of devotion to it (in DETAIL) is actually a good indicator of one's character. It would seem to be a shortcut, the efficiency we were talking about in trying to come up with a screening method for maturity, wisdom, and leadership itself.

I disagree.

Merely stating one's religion, and by extension according to him, their character and maturity level, doesn't really do anything but reveal a poor sense of privacy and boundaries. And if they are so willing and ready to surrender their own boundary territory and privacy - how long will it be before they are willing to invade or betray YOURS?

Hmm. Poor boundaries about revealing oneself go hand in hand with invading the boundaries and privacy of others. And as we know, poor boundaries are also an indicator of dishonesty potential, manipulativeness, disloyalty and the tendency to cheat. To be a "user."

Ignored is an actual system known for over a hundred years, which accurately, scientifically identifies the quality of one's character, and therefore, leadership potential.

Psychoanalysis, and the study of psychological development.

Independent of spiritual preference and merely outward overtures that say "look at me!" this branch of science logically, analytically details the functioning of a person's personality and maturity level.

Which is what mindOS is based on as a synthesis of the various schools of psychology.

So what does this all have to do with choosing men to be reliable, loyal mates? Turns out that in terms of expecting maturity, boundaries, lyalty, honesty, and wisdom, choosing a president has a great deal in common with choosing a mate.

Have you ever had a guy you were initially interested in launch into a giant, revealing, heart-on-the-sleeve description of his every desire, belief, and interest?

Was he interesting to you for long? Did he keep your attraction?

More importantly, did he give you a sense he was trustworthy as a potential date or eventual teammate in life?

NO, to all the above, if you're honest with yourself.  And I don't mean a guy with friend-only potential. I mean a guy who sweeps you off your feet not merely with flirtacious fast-talk, but who GIVES YOU A SENSE THAT YOU ARE PROTECTED around him.

We don't live in a world anymore where there are tigers hiding in the bushes and the man has a spear.

So what remains in a world of social politics, sophisticated communication and information, is WISDOM as your indicator of the protective value of a man in your life.

Certainly, testing him for boundary strength is a large part of this too, because his maturity of boundaries will also tend to parallel his level of wisdom and maturity.

Would it be convincing to you that he can be a good teammate to you, a protector and confidante, if he blurted out his most private thoughts in any and every social situation?

No.

And if he were to merely tell you some list of his good qualities (ever have that happen to you?) how much can you trust and rely on that?

Not much. Where's the mystery? Where is the gift of letting you want to know more? There's no chance to because he just blurted it all out. And not only are you not attracted, you also know that this is a guy who does not make a good teammate. He will let anything and everything creep into your eventual relationship, will overpromise and underdeliver. And you would not be safe in what you want to accomplish in your life. Not with a teammate such as that.

But ironically, if you actually SEE HIM DEMONSTRATE his traits, perhaps even by refusing you an answer, by having both an identity and a privacy about him, with a track record of doing the right thing by you - you know that you know that you know he can be trusted.

You feel it intuitively.

And in our live programs in Chicago on dating and relationships, and in the personal phone Q & A of the teleseminars, we cover those exact things you can do to test his character, then read his actions for the truth. At the LIVE training coming up in Chicago on Oct 20th, we'll go out on the town together, and you'll see how to do this.

I'd be loathe to train you at voting, but this - the selection and testing of the right men for you - that, I can do, as I have for thousands of women.

See you Oct 20th in Chicago.