Waster

Procrastination is a difficult topic. I am struggling with it as well. I see a couple of causes: Your false self wants something and your procrastination is the true self that tries to send signals that you really doesnt want to do something. Your true self genuinely wants something and the false self sends signals like anxieties and shame to sabotage your desires. This can lead to procrastination as well. It can be a lack of timemanagement. People have so many desires, motivations and goals and there are so many options and choices available to us that our head is full with todo's, projects, appointments, ideas. This can lead to great worry and can also result in procrastination. Maybe there are more, but i think focussing on better timemanagement skills can be quite valuable. It is not really a topic that is discussed a lot in self knowledge. Self knowledge can make it clear what your values and desires are. But you can still fail in the world of today because the practical skill of managing all those choices in the world is so difficult.

Your story sounds very familiar. I also felt very isolated and didnt develop any social skills and friendships. What i dont understand is why do you want to take drugs? What is it that attracts you to it? To me it sounds like you want connection or intimacy. But there are other ways to achieve that. Get skills, get hobbies and go sporting and meet people.

Why is that so important to you?

Dont underestimate what you have learned in those years. Having work experience is really valuable. What are you thinking about to study? Motivation is the most important factor for succes when studying. If you hate your current job, what job seems interesting to you? I am not totally understanding your post. I dont understand what loving drums has to do with studying. Do you want to study music? I dont think that is worth the investment in time and money.

I went into the same procedure with a therapist. Also before applying to my current job i had to do a personality and intelligence test. I have been thinking about it lately as well and to me it seems like a narcissism on the part of the therapist by doing these kind of personality tests. We dont want to know, feel and understand the real person by asking open questions. We reduce people to shallow images like we always do in culture. And then we claim we understand the person, because we have diagnosed an image and we are going to give the image a treatment. There is so much subjectivity by asking these kind of loaded questions and making arbitrary conclusions out of it. I completely share your skepticism. When i look back, the reason why there was hardly any improvement with all of my therapists because they couldnt empathize with me. They didnt ask deep personal questions and whenever i showed vulnerability other questions gets asked that leads to the usual comfort zone or i get told what to do. Good luck with your pursuit to self knowledge. I hope this answer helps.

What a good speech. Beautifully edited. I look forward to the whole documentary.

Like happiness is the opposite of unhappiness i think resilience is the opposite of depression. But i cannot find any information where this notion is shared. Resilience: optimism, high self-esteem, extravert, strong bonds, social support, action oriented, active, able to cope. Depression: pessimism, low self-esteem, introvert, weak relationships, lonely, thoughts and worry, passive, not able to cope. I think this is a useful thought, because when i look around it seems treated as seperate and loosely related concepts. Let me hear what you think.

Can you give a counterexample. I have no time to read that wall of text. Corporal punishment is the initiation of force and is always immoral.

Alex. I was reading your story and i really feel how difficult it is for you. But i miss what it is that keeps you together. I read a lot of negative emotions. But what are the good things? What do you like about your partner and what does she likes about you?

I like the comment of David. But to add something to the discussion. There is a lot implicit in offering a reward to children for chores. It communicates that chores have no value in itself for the children, so they need an external reward. It communicates that children wont do them voluntarily. Most of the times it also assumes that children are lazy and need to have external stimuli to do chores. It also kills any curiosity and empathy. It doesnt explore why children dont want to do the chores. And children wont explore why they need to do chores. So i think that forcing, bribing or doing the chores yourself will all fail in achieving what you want. You want your children to be independent and making choices for themselves. Balancing long term and short term gains. So you have to teach, guide and explore those short term and long term gains. Bribing them with money is not going to teach them anything. So yes, it would hurt their long term potential doing house work. Because by not exploring the long term gains, you teach them to be impulsive, focused on immediate-gratification and sensitive to external stimuli. I am not a parent, but i had parents that chose to avoid all confrontations and do almost all the chores. I dont think i have learned a lot from that approach.

Automation means more spare time. Which means more freedom. Thats what we want right?

If parents or a parent was able to take care of their child when they were 4 years old (before school age) then they should have no problem maintaining that care. Like Stef said in the past, parents can cut back on their lifestyle in order to avoid subjecting their kid(s) to abuse. You are contradicting your previous post...

Can you expand on that? How is homeschooling cheap?

I also always think this a tough nut to crack. I think we should unravel the assumptions in this question. What does failing and succesful mean in this context? What doest good education mean? Does these things mean the same towards an anarchist as towards a statist? Moreover. Succesful compared to what? Better education compared to what? I think this is a trick question. A loaded question which is actually a fallacy. So maybe that helps someone.

I am reading your story and i have a feeling you are upset and frustrated. I can understand, but your story comes as emotional and chaotic. You say she needs you, but if you are unstable and emotional, i dont think you can give what your daughter needs either. I think you should also look at the larger picture. What will be the best for you and your daughter in the long run? An endless fight will hurt everyone.

All those comments. "I was spanked, but i turned out to be OK."

Embarrassing. I completely agree with this comment:

I dont even want to reply to those rules, because in capitalism there really is only one rule: No Violence! All those other rules are his own prejudices. One question for him. How does he know that these observations are the result of capitalism and not of government.

I think it is more a bias. You are monetary and so emotionally invested in something, which results in an error of judgement: a bias. If we want to rationalize our bias we use fallacies to support them. People can accept fallacies if they have the same bias, cannot recognize fallacies or have no integretiy towards reason and evidence. So i think the cause is an judgement error because of emotions and the effect is a fallacy in the form of logic or reasoning errors. So is it really a fallacy? If you focus only on the argument itself, yes. If you focus on the situation and the background, then no its a bias.

I think you mean this: P(second white | first white) = P(both white) / P(first white) = (1/3) / (1/2) = 2/3

Love it. Never heard of that one. Let's see if I understand. So you pick a ball at random. It's white. You have a 2/3 chance of having pulled it out of the box with two white, and a 1/3 chance of having pulled it out of the 50/50 box. The chances that the next ball is white would therefore be 2/3. Is that correct? This is correct yes. Maybe this problem is harder because it involves conditional probability and most people dont even know what it is. The subtelity is in the part 'given that the first ball is white'.

A similar problem: There are three boxes. In each box there are two balls. One box has two black balls, one box has two white balls, one box has a white and a black ball in it. If the first ball you get out of the box is white, what is the chance the other ball is also white?

Congratulations Stef! Well deserved.