Worldview Fragment: motivational verity

Worldview fragment: one or more related ideas/viewpoints that can (and often do) serve as a component or flavor in a complete worldview held by some specific individual. The "fragment" term is not intended to be a subtle insult, but to accurately reflect the reality that the fragment is 1) not necessarily an actual, comprehensive worldview, and 2) could likely coexist with a variety of other fragments within some individual's worldview. A puzzle piece isn't worthless because it's a puzzle piece.

"Motivational verity" is the quality of discovering, understanding, and acknowledging one's own real motivations ("verity" originating from a thesaurus consultation on my part). As with the other worldview fragments, this isn't specific to Christianity. Unlike most of the rest, it's beneficial. Without motivational verity, a Christian is either acting without full knowledge or despite what knowledge he or she has. It contributes to charges of hypocrisy by others (which might lead to a movie exhibiting the effect for humor's sake).

Since a lack of motivational verity is partially responsible for many unfavorable outcomes, the methodical Christian shall try to increase his or hers. Although the primary and indispensable ingredient is penitent earnestness (i.e. just like any other lasting personal change one must sincerely want it and work for it), here are some suggestions and factors to consider.

• Unflinching confrontation. Much has been said and written about denial and avoidance. Motivational verity can't get far if the truth isn't perceived as is, regardless of desirability. What this implies is that possible motivations aren't disqualified without good reason. "Is it possible that I am motivated by..." Furthermore, someone should strive to not overemphasize the pleasant possibilities. "I feel like I might be doing this for personal glory, but anyways I do care, too..."
• Perceptual bias by self-concept. This factor is more subtle than outright denial or purposeful ignorance. The evidence, scientific and anecdotal alike, points to the influence of perceptual biases. In short, people tend to perceive/interpret relative to their expectations. They can see patterns where none exist and miss patterns that are obvious to a different individual. Self-concept is a strong bias. "Lately I've been getting angry about trivia. It doesn't reflect a worrying trend in my attitude; after all, I'm facing stressors G and H." "I deeply wish I could volunteer, but my schedule is so full and I can't clear it, especially my golf time, which is really a ministry to my non-Christian friends, right?" The bias is tricky to eliminate because it's invisible by nature. However, a productive route is to work backward from self-concept to potential biases. Probe the questions, "Given that my self-concept is ______ , how would I (or anyone similar) be most likely to interpret _____ so it fits? Of the interpretations available, are mine precisely those that would disturb my self-concept the least?"
  
• Review. The regular review of one's behavior and motivations can take a variety of forms: a journal, a free-ranging prayer session before sleeping, a comparison to a Bible reading. The point is collecting and synthesizing the minutiae to produce a timely and consistent overall perspective, instead of going about the task in an erratic, ad-hoc search for indications of a precooked conclusion. Don't "cherry-pick" the past month for proofs of developing virtue. Do "rewind" the day, impartially holding each significant moment to the glaring light and confessing or rejoicing in it. Guilt for confessed and repented sin is not the goal of this practice; a sensible way of measuring progress is!
  

The remaining three entail dangers and caveats. These require caution and care in usage.

• Others' opinions. Others' viewpoints aren't framed by the same prejudices as the subject, so their opinions can be immensely valuable for breaking through preconceptions. Yet they have their own set of prejudices, they differ greatly in the capability to correctly discern, and the most empathetic of observers could be as wrong about the subject's motivations as the subject. In addition, strictly speaking Christians aren't obligated to seek approval of their motivations by other Christians. Their inability to surely know the motivations behind an action is one important reason why they aren't (and can't be) the final judges. Finally, due to someone's motivations being a highly personal, private topic, trust and compassion are vital to prevent an incendiary result that can wreck weak relationships, leaving everyone worse off. Of course, an opinion of someone's motivations perhaps shouldn't be expressed at all unless it is supported by a range of identifiable examples that can be marshalled in response to the fair follow-up question "Why do you think that's what makes me tick?"
  
• Prioritization of action over statements. Commonly known as "talk is cheap", this is the strategy of measuring motivations through placing much more weight on deeds than on claims. In terms of a simplistic bluntness that borders on a vulgar degree of insensitivity, "results not excuses". If someone planned or merely intended to _____, but didn't, the failure to act may be a sign that the related motivations need adjustment and someone's awareness of his or her actual motivations is suspect. Piercing examination is necessary; there may be perfectly good reasons why someone didn't act, but on the other hand the inaction may have been a victory of ignoble motivations that need to be broken and given over to God. (In-)Consistency is a marker to watch. One broken promise is less symptomatic of hypothetical motivational problems than a promise broken so often its very existence is reasonably doubtful. The danger of correlating motivations so closely to actions is that it potentially binds someone to a "Law" that isn't mandatory, with accompanying discouragement and despair - better to try and do a little rather than give up completely after trying and not doing a lot. The questions are deceptively straightforward: "If you believe that your motivations are becoming more godly, are your actions also becoming more godly, whatever that means for you? If your actions aren't, then isn't that just cause to pause and question your belief in your changing motivations?"
  
• Immediate reactions and free associations. The most humbling and/or devastating step of all to achieve motivational verity is noting the raw, unembellished, unfiltered motivations that occur effortlessly in the face of anything. The Christian one isn't guaranteed to come first. Or second, third, fourth... An individual who acts Christian, on occasion, in a specialized context, isn't likely to have his or her proud beliefs about personal motivations to be confirmed in this way. Moreover, worrying about a lack of confirmation here is probably counterproductive, as it won't change through "willpower". It's more likely to happen over time, a side effect of old habits and ways of thinking replaced by new, "mind renewal". I've heard cases of people's former desires extinguishing and never returning, but it's not typical.
  

I can evision a reply to the preceding: "The quest for motivational verity seems to be a probing intrusion on my privacy, autonomy, and comfort. As an alternative, why couldn't I compile a to-do list of Christian-y stuff, and select items as I wish?" And someone could, and many do. Though I'd appreciate them not calling Jesus "Lord" or claiming divine forgiveness without repentance and rebirth.