AdamC

I agree; it's not a conscious choice during childhood. My point - and the point of posting the series of quotes above - is that it may be a 'choice' (at some adulthood-inducing choiceness level) to continue to use these defenses during adulthood. And, even if it's not entirely accurate, conceptualizing adult Social Anxiety as a choice, seems to be the more empowering perspective: It is unjust, both to myself and to others, to be afraid of people who have *not* attacked me (but I understand where that fear comes from). Yes, that fearful infliction/injection of anxiety into other people as Cheryl describes above. It was out of my concern for what I was choosing to do others that made me reconsider the idea I was the only sufferer of my Social Anxiety; others were made to suffer too. I guess the 'script' worked exactly as planned to keep me isolated.

On second thoughts, I think following your contention is far more interesting. Suppose what I wrote was and is intended to be understood as an argument: "No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid." And you reply: "Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid." Exactly! Neither of us is obliged to accept as valid any argument – including this/that one. There may very well be consequences to our not accepting even valid arguments as valid. But even if we ourselves accept them as valid, neither of us are obliged to give any indication to the other that we have accepted the argument as valid. And the consequences of not giving an indication (taken as an agreed fact of the denial or acceptance) may be that we can't continue our communication, or can't trust each other in our dealings, or one of us (likely the one in denial or just plain misunderstanding) makes some catastrophic miscalculation about physical reality. But there isn't any obligation.And this is my point to the OP. Your friend – whether he/she agrees or not – is not obliged to perform any physical gesture and/or verbal uttering to communicate to you that he/she accepts any of your arguments as a valid. You might like some kind of indication, but there is no obligation to give it. In one moment I can deny a valid argument, and in the very next I can affirm it. But at no time am not obliged to offer denials and affirmations. You might attempt to reason with me, but I am not obliged to be reasonable! In fact, your assumed obligation may be thoroughly unreasonable given that you possess particular criteria for 'reasonably' communicating acceptance of your arguments of which I am not aware.Now, perhaps I'm wrong (and being thoroughly unreasonable). Perhaps there is some kind of positive moral obligation – above our mutual preference for it – that demands we respond in some particular way to deliver each other intersubjectively ascertainable denials or affirmations of our acceptance of the validity of arguments.Would someone care to articulate this obligation?

The block to speaking one's truth/experience is self-inflicted as a defence mechanism and as the result of using one's judgment. But necessary childhood defences can be proven maladaptive during adulthood.

Read my statement again.

Agreed. Thanks for taking the time to make it clear.

I agree he owns the modified material, but by definition, modified matter isn't "land", it's "property".

Show list: https://pinboard.in/u:fdrpodcasts/t:social-anxiety/ The above quotes speak to a paradoxical view of Social Anxiety: Social Anxiety is the result of *your* unjust infliction of *your* power of acceptance/rejection upon other people. Put simply, by fearing the rejection of (non-FOO) people, you place yourself in a Victim position and them in a "one-up" Persecutor position (see: The Drama Triangle). If they are good people, then you will and should fear their annoyance for having been typed by you as abusive, since that is unjust and thus reprehensible. And if they are bad people, then you will and should fear both them and yourself for giving them the okay to abuse you by typing yourself as Victim (i.e., by self-attacking). Fearing the rejection of FOO people might be better described as Separation Anxiety (a child's mortal fear of abandonment), which is where the adult habit of Social Anxiety (i.e., victimizing yourself by inflicting your power of acceptance/rejection upon others) comes from.

No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid.

Other than geoanarchist rent-sharing, I have not found a "right"/rule that justifies such an exclusion to unmodified natural resources. Regarding the modification of a "plot" of land... Is the entire plot modified or just a part of it (i.e. only handfuls or shovelfuls of earth)? If the entire plot *isn't* modified, why would anyone except as valid the claim that the entire plot of land is "owned" as property? Either modification of matter is the standard of verbalized property ownership claims, or it is not. If not, what is the standard? Just verbal claims? How do mere verbal claims prevent conflict?

Procrastination is: The Avoidance of Shame; Shame Follows Failure; Failure is Death; Choosing is Death; Not Choosing is Death.

I would be interested in reading this. Seems that you are a fellow perceiver (divergent thinker). From the Secret Lives of INTPs book (available at Oddly Types):

I'll just leave this here: Oddly Developed Types: INTPs and ADD

Why Geoists and Market Anarchists Can and Should Be Friends by Gil Guillory and Fred Foldvary

YouTube: The Mystery of the Left Hand Thesis: Left-handedness is due to elevated levels of testosterone in utero. 00:32:00: Left-handedness check: Height of left and right testicles.

Having been converted, I'm very interested in this topic but haven't found any research to share. Though I have no memory of it, apparently, at age 5, I was forced to write with my right hand by the teachers at school. About 10 years ago I rediscovered my original handedness via the stepping off a curb test, and after resolute practice, am now ambidextrous. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this.