the thread: Character, History, and the FBI: A Deep Dive into Virtue Lost > Likes and Comments
Like
We are waiting for the author to join the discussion
The author mentions that even the miscreants he tested as a polygraph examiner didn't usually start out intending to become the meanest person or an unambiguous crook.
Based on the book, do you think a person’s character is a permanent shield they are born with, or is it a fragile thing that can be eroded by the 'underbelly of society'?
The book draws a direct line from the rag-tag volunteers of George Washington’s army to the social upheavals the author witnessed in 1960s San Francisco.
Do you agree with the author’s premise that we have seen a loss of civility since the founding of the country, or is every generation just faced with a different type of virtue?
The author writes: What you do when you are thousands of miles from home, nobody knows you...
that shows your true character.' If we apply this to today’s digital world, where people are often anonymous online, do you think the internet has made it harder to maintain the 'virtue' the Founding Fathers envisioned?
The author spent decades as a polygraph examiner, literally measuring truth.
He argues that character is often revealed only when we are far from home or think no one is watching.
In today’s world, do you think we are more concerned with appearing virtuous to others (social reputation) than actually being virtuous when we are alone?
Does the book change how you judge the character of public figures versus the people in your own life?
Gebare wrote: "We are waiting for the author to join the discussion"I'm here. We hope that character, once formed, is permanent absent a traumatic event that changes everything in that persons life--like a salvation experience with Jesus Christ
Marcella wrote: "The author spent decades as a polygraph examiner, literally measuring truth.
He argues that character is often revealed only when we are far from home or think no one is watching.
In today’s wor..."
Marcella wrote: "The author spent decades as a polygraph examiner, literally measuring truth.
He argues that character is often revealed only when we are far from home or think no one is watching.
In today’s wor..."No, No, If I said that, I mispoke. It is often in that situation that you find out what your true character is--how firm the beliefs that are your core character. Does that make sense?
Welcome to the discussion! We are honoured to have you here.
That is a powerful distinction to make, the idea that character is a permanent anchor unless something truly life-altering intervenes. It suggests that while we might face daily temptations, our core virtue remains steady unless we experience a total shift in our worldview or spirit.
It’s a perspective that really highlights the mental and moral qualities you discussed in the book regarding both the Revolutionary soldiers and the people you encountered during your time in the FBI.
Lauri wrote: "The author mentions that even the miscreants he tested as a polygraph examiner didn't usually start out intending to become the meanest person or an unambiguous crook.
Based on the book, do you th..."
I believe that by the time a person reaches the age of 15 or 16, his character is pretty well formed; not completed . . . I'm only 89, but I'm going to possess an excellent character when (or if) I grow up!
Gebare wrote: "The book draws a direct line from the rag-tag volunteers of George Washington’s army to the social upheavals the author witnessed in 1960s San Francisco.
Do you agree with the author’s premise that..."
Thank you for joining us!
That is a fascinating perspective, the idea that character is an anchor that remains steady unless acted upon by a truly transformative event.
It really bridges the gap between the psychological moral qualities you’ve observed in the FBI and the spiritual healing mentioned at the end of the book.
We are excited to dive deeper into how this permanence shaped the figures in your research!
The author suggests character is largely established by age 15 or 16. If our moral concrete sets that early, do you think our current education and social systems focus enough on those formative years, or are we trying to fix character too late in life?
The author contrasts the underbelly of society, he saw as an agent with the rag-tag volunteers of the Revolutionary War.
Do you think the soldiers of 1776 had a different kind of character than people today, or were they just operating under a different set of social pressures?
We love that perspective! It’s encouraging to think that even at 89, there is still room for growing ug and refining who we are. It suggests that while our foundation is poured by age 16, the architecture of our character is something we work on for a lifetime. Thank you for sharing that bit of humor and wisdom with us!
From the perspective of a fairly long life, I am of the opinion that there is less civility on the world than was the case when I was growing up in small-town eastern Oklahoma. Much of our children's learning comes from observing and copying the behaviors of his parents, peers, etc. Do you think our societal, educational or social leaders on the whole set the proper example for a child to emulate? Not all of them, of course, but too many are careless with the language they use.
Lauri wrote: "The author mentions that even the miscreants he tested as a polygraph examiner didn't usually start out intending to become the meanest person or an unambiguous crook.
Based on the book, do you th..."
The author suggests that character is pretty well established by the time a person reaches their 15th or 16th birthday.
Thinking back to your own life or your observations of others, do you agree that our moral concrete sets that early, or is character something that can be radically rebuilt in adulthood?
That is such a poignant observation, Bill.
The shift from the reared virtue of a small-town upbringing to the broader societal influences we see today is a major theme in your writing.
It really highlights the weight of responsibility on leaders and parents alike. When the mirrors our children look into are careless with their language or actions, it certainly makes the preservation of character a much steeper uphill battle.
Thank you for bringing that focus back to the power of example
I may be entirely wrong, but it has been my observation that when you have a mixed group of--let's use Police officers--that have been recently hired, too often the recruits select the wrong older officer to follow and idolize. You know--the guy with bulging muscles that threaten to rip his shirt but who rejects the rule book and belittles the officers who try to do the job right.
In this instance, the young officers usually find out who the real officers are, but sometimes it happens too late for them to save their jobs. Some never mature.
That is a striking example, Bill. It perfectly illustrates the trap of charisma, where a newcomer mistakes aggression or rule-breaking for competence.
It seems to mirror what you wrote about the 1960s, where the loud, radical voices were often the ones being followed, regardless of where they were leading.
It’s a sobering reminder that who we choose to emulate can literally determine the trajectory of our lives and careers. Thank you for that on-the-ground' perspective!
Gebare wrote: "The book draws a direct line from the rag-tag volunteers of George Washington’s army to the social upheavals the author witnessed in 1960s San Francisco.
Do you agree with the author’s premise that..."I'm going to have to re-read portions of my book and consider re-writing those. Under the circumstances in which the Revolutionaries fought and died for what they hoped to be their new country--that was much in doubt for years-- you must admire them, and the General who persuaded them to stay with him and continue. I see no correlation between these men and those who rejected what had been the norms of society in the 1960s. The way these people treated those men returning from service in Vietnam was shameful.
The author describes how new recruits often follow the wrong leader because they look the part bulging muscles, tough talk.
Why are we, as humans, so easily distracted by outward appearances when we should be looking at moral character?
Michael wrote: "The author writes: What you do when you are thousands of miles from home, nobody knows you...
that shows your true character.' If we apply this to today’s digital world, where people are often ano..."
Hello Bill,
During his time in San Francisco in the 60s and 70s, the author witnessed a total rejection of The Establishment.
Looking at our world today, do you see parallels between that era’s loss of civility and our current social climate, or has the definition of "civility" simply evolved into something new?
That is a powerful distinction, Bill.
You’ve highlighted a vital difference between building something up the Revolutionaries and tearing something down (the 1960s).
Your point about the treatment of veterans as a 'litmus test' for character is especially moving.
Since your insights today have added so much depth beyond the pages, our readers are eager for more. Bill,
would you be open to sharing a Reading Guide or a few study questions?
We would love to know which chapters or themes you feel are most essential for us to focus on to truly understand your message on healing our society.
Good question, Michael. The internet has given some people the false impression of anonymity, and so they use language and express thoughts that they would never have the temerity to use in frn of their parents or maybe their pastor. That sort of situation does encourage laxity in our moral clarity--and maybe even a disdain for what we once called virtues. Good point.
Bill, your perspective on the shameful shift in civility adds such a sobering layer to the book. It’s clear that Virtue Lost isn't just about history,
it’s a warning and a call to action.
To help us navigate these heavy themes properly, would you consider providing a Reading Guide or a list of discussion prompts for us?
We want to make sure we are looking at the right mirrors, and asking the right questions as we finish the book. Your guidance would be a highlight for this group!
Hi Bill,
The book argues that what you do when you are thousands of miles from home and nobody knows you is the ultimate test of character.
In our modern age of digital anonymity, are we essentially always thousands of miles from home?
How does the internet act as a modern-day test of the author's theory?
We're glad to have you part of our discussion today.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
We are waiting for the author to join the discussion
The author mentions that even the miscreants he tested as a polygraph examiner didn't usually start out intending to become the meanest person or an unambiguous crook. Based on the book, do you think a person’s character is a permanent shield they are born with, or is it a fragile thing that can be eroded by the 'underbelly of society'?
The book draws a direct line from the rag-tag volunteers of George Washington’s army to the social upheavals the author witnessed in 1960s San Francisco.Do you agree with the author’s premise that we have seen a loss of civility since the founding of the country, or is every generation just faced with a different type of virtue?
The author writes: What you do when you are thousands of miles from home, nobody knows you...that shows your true character.' If we apply this to today’s digital world, where people are often anonymous online, do you think the internet has made it harder to maintain the 'virtue' the Founding Fathers envisioned?
The author spent decades as a polygraph examiner, literally measuring truth. He argues that character is often revealed only when we are far from home or think no one is watching.
In today’s world, do you think we are more concerned with appearing virtuous to others (social reputation) than actually being virtuous when we are alone?
Does the book change how you judge the character of public figures versus the people in your own life?
Gebare wrote: "We are waiting for the author to join the discussion"I'm here. We hope that character, once formed, is permanent absent a traumatic event that changes everything in that persons life--like a salvation experience with Jesus Christ
Marcella wrote: "The author spent decades as a polygraph examiner, literally measuring truth. He argues that character is often revealed only when we are far from home or think no one is watching.
In today’s wor..."
Marcella wrote: "The author spent decades as a polygraph examiner, literally measuring truth.
He argues that character is often revealed only when we are far from home or think no one is watching.
In today’s wor..."No, No, If I said that, I mispoke. It is often in that situation that you find out what your true character is--how firm the beliefs that are your core character. Does that make sense?
Welcome to the discussion! We are honoured to have you here.That is a powerful distinction to make, the idea that character is a permanent anchor unless something truly life-altering intervenes. It suggests that while we might face daily temptations, our core virtue remains steady unless we experience a total shift in our worldview or spirit.
It’s a perspective that really highlights the mental and moral qualities you discussed in the book regarding both the Revolutionary soldiers and the people you encountered during your time in the FBI.
Lauri wrote: "The author mentions that even the miscreants he tested as a polygraph examiner didn't usually start out intending to become the meanest person or an unambiguous crook. Based on the book, do you th..."
I believe that by the time a person reaches the age of 15 or 16, his character is pretty well formed; not completed . . . I'm only 89, but I'm going to possess an excellent character when (or if) I grow up!
Gebare wrote: "The book draws a direct line from the rag-tag volunteers of George Washington’s army to the social upheavals the author witnessed in 1960s San Francisco.Do you agree with the author’s premise that..."
Thank you for joining us! That is a fascinating perspective, the idea that character is an anchor that remains steady unless acted upon by a truly transformative event.
It really bridges the gap between the psychological moral qualities you’ve observed in the FBI and the spiritual healing mentioned at the end of the book.
We are excited to dive deeper into how this permanence shaped the figures in your research!
The author suggests character is largely established by age 15 or 16. If our moral concrete sets that early, do you think our current education and social systems focus enough on those formative years, or are we trying to fix character too late in life?
The author contrasts the underbelly of society, he saw as an agent with the rag-tag volunteers of the Revolutionary War.Do you think the soldiers of 1776 had a different kind of character than people today, or were they just operating under a different set of social pressures?
We love that perspective! It’s encouraging to think that even at 89, there is still room for growing ug and refining who we are. It suggests that while our foundation is poured by age 16, the architecture of our character is something we work on for a lifetime. Thank you for sharing that bit of humor and wisdom with us!
From the perspective of a fairly long life, I am of the opinion that there is less civility on the world than was the case when I was growing up in small-town eastern Oklahoma. Much of our children's learning comes from observing and copying the behaviors of his parents, peers, etc. Do you think our societal, educational or social leaders on the whole set the proper example for a child to emulate? Not all of them, of course, but too many are careless with the language they use.
Lauri wrote: "The author mentions that even the miscreants he tested as a polygraph examiner didn't usually start out intending to become the meanest person or an unambiguous crook. Based on the book, do you th..."
The author suggests that character is pretty well established by the time a person reaches their 15th or 16th birthday. Thinking back to your own life or your observations of others, do you agree that our moral concrete sets that early, or is character something that can be radically rebuilt in adulthood?
That is such a poignant observation, Bill. The shift from the reared virtue of a small-town upbringing to the broader societal influences we see today is a major theme in your writing.
It really highlights the weight of responsibility on leaders and parents alike. When the mirrors our children look into are careless with their language or actions, it certainly makes the preservation of character a much steeper uphill battle.
Thank you for bringing that focus back to the power of example
I may be entirely wrong, but it has been my observation that when you have a mixed group of--let's use Police officers--that have been recently hired, too often the recruits select the wrong older officer to follow and idolize. You know--the guy with bulging muscles that threaten to rip his shirt but who rejects the rule book and belittles the officers who try to do the job right.In this instance, the young officers usually find out who the real officers are, but sometimes it happens too late for them to save their jobs. Some never mature.
That is a striking example, Bill. It perfectly illustrates the trap of charisma, where a newcomer mistakes aggression or rule-breaking for competence. It seems to mirror what you wrote about the 1960s, where the loud, radical voices were often the ones being followed, regardless of where they were leading.
It’s a sobering reminder that who we choose to emulate can literally determine the trajectory of our lives and careers. Thank you for that on-the-ground' perspective!
Gebare wrote: "The book draws a direct line from the rag-tag volunteers of George Washington’s army to the social upheavals the author witnessed in 1960s San Francisco.Do you agree with the author’s premise that..."I'm going to have to re-read portions of my book and consider re-writing those. Under the circumstances in which the Revolutionaries fought and died for what they hoped to be their new country--that was much in doubt for years-- you must admire them, and the General who persuaded them to stay with him and continue. I see no correlation between these men and those who rejected what had been the norms of society in the 1960s. The way these people treated those men returning from service in Vietnam was shameful.
The author describes how new recruits often follow the wrong leader because they look the part bulging muscles, tough talk. Why are we, as humans, so easily distracted by outward appearances when we should be looking at moral character?
Michael wrote: "The author writes: What you do when you are thousands of miles from home, nobody knows you...that shows your true character.' If we apply this to today’s digital world, where people are often ano..."
Hello Bill,During his time in San Francisco in the 60s and 70s, the author witnessed a total rejection of The Establishment.
Looking at our world today, do you see parallels between that era’s loss of civility and our current social climate, or has the definition of "civility" simply evolved into something new?
That is a powerful distinction, Bill. You’ve highlighted a vital difference between building something up the Revolutionaries and tearing something down (the 1960s).
Your point about the treatment of veterans as a 'litmus test' for character is especially moving.
Since your insights today have added so much depth beyond the pages, our readers are eager for more. Bill,
would you be open to sharing a Reading Guide or a few study questions?
We would love to know which chapters or themes you feel are most essential for us to focus on to truly understand your message on healing our society.
Good question, Michael. The internet has given some people the false impression of anonymity, and so they use language and express thoughts that they would never have the temerity to use in frn of their parents or maybe their pastor. That sort of situation does encourage laxity in our moral clarity--and maybe even a disdain for what we once called virtues. Good point.
Bill, your perspective on the shameful shift in civility adds such a sobering layer to the book. It’s clear that Virtue Lost isn't just about history, it’s a warning and a call to action.
To help us navigate these heavy themes properly, would you consider providing a Reading Guide or a list of discussion prompts for us?
We want to make sure we are looking at the right mirrors, and asking the right questions as we finish the book. Your guidance would be a highlight for this group!
Hi Bill,The book argues that what you do when you are thousands of miles from home and nobody knows you is the ultimate test of character.
In our modern age of digital anonymity, are we essentially always thousands of miles from home?
How does the internet act as a modern-day test of the author's theory?
We're glad to have you part of our discussion today.
From the rag-tag volunteers of George Washington’s army to the underbelly of society seen through a lie detector, this book asks us to examine the moral qualities that define us.
In this discussion, we’ll be talking about:
The author’s unique perspective as a Special Agent.
How historical virtue compares to our values today.
Whether character is something we are born with or something we build.
Grab your coffee and join the conversation, we want to hear your thoughts on whether virtue is truly lost or just changing.