Kevin Beal

It sounds like one of those adult swim interludes

uh, uh...! ...My heart strings, they've been plucked. It's like a chord. The right combination of things said for just the right effect as my soul weeps for the lost souls I've condemned. If all the context you had was this single quotation, you'd get the impression that this community is a bunch of apathetic, passive people who are cynically rejecting anyone who'd require the least bit of convincing, and going back to playing cookie clicker while listening to some depressing music, wasting away in a world which needs them so much. Is it worth mentioning that you've presented a false dilemma? "Either rebut these reddit users or you aren't reaching out and helping anyone" is a pretty dramatic thing to drop in there, like it's nothing. I could make the case that focusing on the people most likely to be receptive would be a better use of your time, rather than the kind of people you've painted them as. If you cared so much about them, I think you could have shined them in a better light. And I don't know, maybe you know a lot about helping people and reaching out. What experience do you have with that? Have you been able to bring a lot of personal and political freedom to people's lives? You aren't a donator, you haven't mentioned anything you've actually done beside talking to some random strangers on Reddit. I'm not inclined to take advice on moral virtue from you. At least, not without good arguments, or success stories, a good emotional appeal, a demonstration of your passion about the subject, bribes, other things, probably. I mean, how hard are you really trying? I'm sorry to have disappointed, lol.

What matters, according to you, is to have a non-aggressive response. According to your own standard, you fail. What you are saying is "X should be rejected, and I'm doing X right now, what I'm saying should be rejected". It's a performative contradiction, which can be intentional in the case of sarcasm and irony, but as I understand it, this was unintentional. Your "point" absolutely does not stand. You said so yourself with your actions. And it's not like you cited what he said and explained how and in what way it was aggressive. You just poisoned the well with some obnoxious assertions (e.x. "The OP looked like he was starting a fight for no apparent reason"). The point of psychological projection is to deny certain traits you have by pretending that they belong to other people. It's a near certainty that this is what is occurring when in the very moment that you make your accusation, you yourself do what you accuse the other party of. It indicates a reality distortion, especially when it's maintained by exempting yourself from your own rules. I pointed out the hypocrisy and it didn't matter even a tiny bit to you. It only matters when it's the OP who does it. Hypocrisy is a bigger issue and worthy of more attention than styles of presentation, because hypocrisy, in order to be maintained always escalates in terms of rationalization. I'm not treating you like a fragile porcelain doll because you are (presumably) an adult and that's how I'm going to treat you: like an adult. You didn't fall apart did you? Maybe you should give his philosophical opponents a little more credit.

Okay, thanks. I will dismiss your post then, as per your instruction.

What? Like this way you start off your response? Do you have no sense of irony?

I used to get targeted by similar comments. I think it's stopped partly because I'm older and that just happens less to people out of school, but also, I remember realizing that I was a common denominator in all of those interactions and I heard somewhere that there are unconscious cues that people pick up on to know whether or not someone is safe to humiliate. I used to walk by people who looked like ruffians and think to myself "please don't harass me, I'm begging you". What I started doing was paying close attention to how I felt, how I walked and my facial expressions. I noticed that when I started thinking in my head "I dare you to say something!" people never did. Because bullies are totally pathetic and only want to pick on easy prey. If they see that someone has a lot of confidence, they are taking a big gamble that this person isn't going to crush them in the same way they were trying to do the crushing. Like if they blurt out "nice shirt, stupid!" and the confident person just starts laughing at them, they are going to become totally deflated. Bullies reveal their own insecurities in what they choose to insult others for. It's psychological projection as a defense mechanism, the least sophisticated emotional defense after denial. In fact, it's a form of denial except that you deny those aspects of yourself by pretending that they belong only to the other person.

It's been over a year since I've seen a child get hit, and I didn't do anything either. I felt terrible about it for a long time. I've been thinking about what would be something I'd feel comfortable saying and wouldn't enrage the parent, and I came up with a phrase that I'm going to try the next time I see something. Starting with a "hey, hey, hey" that is a combination of gentleness and urgency, and when they turn and make eye contact, I follow that up with "there has to be a better way". When they respond with "don't tell me how to raise my children", I would say "nobody is above criticism". Then I might do something like turn to the child and just offer a simple "I'm sorry". If they tell me that I can't speak because I don't have children, I would let them know that if I saw a man beating his wife, I would say something also. I don't need to be married to intervene in spousal aggression. If they start going into self pity mode, I would say that "I understand that it's difficult, I really do, and while I'm not a parent, I do have some decent experience, and the thing I noticed was that, although you can't always treat a child like an equal, the more you make an effort to do that, the less defiant they become". If they seem receptive, I'll recommend nospank.net or the Bomb in the Brain. I haven't used it out in the field yet, though. So, take it with a grain of salt.

Hi Sean! Welcome to the boards I'm sorry to hear about the isolation and difficulties you've had, but I'm really glad that you are feeling as motivated as you are to pursue self knowledge and step outside your comfort zone. That's admirable. I'm curious to hear about your experience of IFS if you felt like sharing some more

The Drama of the Gifted Child, and The Body Never Lies by Alice Miller are quite good.

Article is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhfShiBLZFe0TcdtsXHRQtFgEc9uvM9hZd8PUFDoKqY/edit

I don't know nearly enough to know for sure, but from what I can tell, it's a clone of bitcoin, but uses a different way to verify transactions. The new technology is an implementation of a zero knowledge proof (great explanation of the concept, here). Zero knowledge proofs were conceived of more than a decade ago, but most cryptographers (at least those in the cryptographic money scene) only really started thinking about how it could work with cryptocurrencies in the last year or so, according to Gavin Andresen (bitcoin chief scientist) in a recent talk (this one maybe? I can't remember). In the talk Gavin mentioned that he thought it was exciting and that it could possibly be some part of bitcoin in the future. This may become part of a side chain technology. Side chains are blockchains (public ledger) that is split off ("firewalled") from the main bitcoin blockchain, but bitcoin could be transferred at will back and forth between. The side chain could leverage different technologies for faster transactions, improved anonymity and other features that are still too experimental for the main blockchain. The new side chain could be a new coin whose is backed by bitcoin so that you can take advantage of bitcoins network effect (meaning a safer investment). I don't think alt coins are going anywhere, but it should be noted that, depending on your goals, it may be better for new projects to be side chains, or Ethereum contracts (based on the concept of smart contracts). You don't even need to be a programmer to write ethereum contracts (online editor here). In other words, I don't know about shadowcoin specifically, but the technology itself is liked enough by people that would know, that it is going to get implemented in more cryptocurrencies. Shadowcoin specifically is a lot more than that one aspect though. If they can really deliver on the anonymous marketplace, browser and chat services they're working on, I think it's definitely a very valuable technology (which is a better cause for investment than price speculation) Having a truly anonymous browser, chat and marketplace is not an easy task at all. Tor has problems of it's own, and it appears their browser interfaces with Tor. Decentralized and anonymous marketplaces aren't easy either. The Silk Road was not decentralized, but it worked pretty well. This would be like a silk road that no one could take down, and the transactions themselves are verified in a way which is truly anonymous, rather than on the pseudonymous (sort of anonymous) bitcoin. That would be enormously valuable if people used it. Having these anonymity features could potentially draw people in for reasons that are not simply speculation, which is the best way to get people invested, since they aren't just going to pull out of shadowcoin the first sign of a large amount of selling pressure. It's also a currency that could draw people in from users of another cryptocurrency trying to take advantage of the anonymity features and then sold back for the original coin in a different wallet. Shadowcash is currently the 39th largest cryptocurrency, which means more than it did a year ago. That's impressive for any coin, I guess, but I don't pay enough attention to the altcoin scene to feel confident in investing in any of them. I bought some Ether during the Ether sale, but I can't trade the genesis block hasn't been mined yet. I think, generally, you should stay away from investing in anything you don't know a whole lot about. It's interesting enough to me that I will be keeping an eye on it. That my opinion, a casual observer from the outside of the cryptocurrency scene. I'd be interested to hear from someone who actually uses this type of technology.

I don't know, right, but if it's excessive emotion, that would sort of indicate one of two likely cases. The first is that it's not excessive where it should properly be directed. When we can't direct our anger or grief at the the people or events which originally opened those wounds, we don't just stop feeling those feelings. When we try to stop feeling, the result is depression, since depression is a lack of emotional connection and we can't simply turn off one emotion, all emotion will be affected. This may explain your lack of motivation and happiness, as well. The second would be if the "this is too much emotion" feels like a judgment coming from the outside being internalized, and along with it a self consciousness that you are being dysfunctional or immature or whatever other kinds of shameful self talk. The degree to which it feels like it's coming from you (assuming it's not) is the degree to which you probably are not conscious of the shaming thoughts and just sort of start to feel self loathing and you don't even know why, or think to ask. Both are defense mechanisms designed to get you to avoid being attacked by other people. The first keeps you from challenging someone who has (had) control over you, for fear of what the consequences would be. The second keeps you from expressing any kind of inconvenient emotions to people who would punish you for inconveniencing them with it. You've internalized their voice so you can spare yourself from being re-inflicted. The two are not mutually exclusive and you might be able to imagine cases where the first feeds the second, since emotions not directed at the appropriate targets tend to be "excessive" (given the context) and could serve to invite attack from people who are just defensive and not at all curious as to why you feel the ways you do. I'm willing to bet that the order of things is that you feel the sensitivity (and overwhelm?) and then the lack of motivation creeps in like a heavy blanket that is almost satisfying in a weird way. And if that's the case, then it could be causal. That is, your desire to suppress (or repress if it's not conscious to you) is in response to powerful emotions and that suppression results in depression. I'm not saying that you are a super depressed person or anything like that. I don't even necessarily think that depression is a bad thing. I'm just talking about a particular pattern that was introduced to me in Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller (great read if you haven't already). A pattern that must repeat itself over and over if events come along that serve to pour salt in the original wounds. --------------------------- I'm not sure what you mean by 'black hole', but I have had some experience with what I used to describe as a hole in my chest where my heart should be. I experienced it like a scary vortex, a bottomless well filled with sorrow. But I also thought of it as a kind of emptiness. And the reason I think that was, is because I was in a position for much of my life where I had to self-erase, pretend I was something I'm not, hide my true passions and genuine enthusiasm for the sake of petty small people. Like the emptiness is where my self expression should be, and the sorrow and pain, and loss was mourning the death of that lost time, those stolen years. If you don't feel good until you get validation, attention and intimacy, maybe what that means is you still have a good deal of internalized standards and values that served to protect you in the past, but which may need to uncovered through your own personal archeology and then replaced with values and standards which are organically your own and serve to get you where you want to be. By internalized standards and values, one example is what a lot of people call their 'inner critic'. "Gosh Kevin, you are totally going to guess wrong about all of this and look like such a fool" is a thought an inner critic might yell at me or whisper so quietly it's subliminal, causing me to avoid going forward with this theory I have about why you might be having the problem you described. These sorts of standards aren't particularly philosophical and start to look pretty silly when you look at them explicitly. But it's still something I want to hear, because it is important to me that what I'm saying is relevant, so I made sure to add qualifiers where appropriate and add some amount of falsifiability. Those things I genuinely value and standards I like to hold myself to for reasons which are probably obvious to you. I was excited to see the title of this thread and it's connection with a sense of self. I think that's a fascinating topic and something I've been thinking a lot about recently. And I think that part of developing a strong sense of self is becoming explicitly aware of what the standards are that you hold yourself to and judge yourself by. Often we don't even think to ask simple and important questions about why we feel the way we do, what are the thoughts that informed those emotions and what is the reasoning and evidence behind those thoughts. I think there is a lot of value in simply feeling emotions which overwhelm us. At the very least, we can build up some amount of tolerance to them, and they almost always seem to shift, as if letting ourselves feel it sends a signal to the unconscious that we can handle it and rewards us with a shift in emotion recognizing that raised self efficacy. Especially if our core beliefs are revealed when expressing those feelings. Our sense of self is strengthened. Hopefully that's even remotely helpful, and not too long!

Nope.

I thought about it some more, and I think it definitely is worth talking about that more than a few people who claim to represent the values of this community are manipulative bullies who try and get other people to manage their emotions. If you are part of the facebook group, you may have heard about a recent example of this. I think a word of caution is necessary, that: just because someone is in this community, it is no guarantee that they actually have any principles. And it would be kind of an insult to the people who've actually worked hard to shake off the propaganda and dysfunctional parts of their pasts to simply grant that participation in the community means anything. This is the only forum outside of facebook that I post in, and I find that the people attracted to philosophy tend to be a lot more insightful than the average person. I read far more than I post and enjoy the diverse and considerate thought that y'all put into your posts. But there are exceptions to this general rule, instances that, to me, are like sacrilege. Appealing to philosophical rigor with pretentiousness. Bullying people into empathizing. Pedantically charging opponents with hypocrisy. It's no good, and it's an important discussion to have. I think that pointing out where people are being manipulative and giving other people the heads up is important. I really wish that I knew about a particular group prior to becoming the target of their venom, and even some people with some degree of clout that you would not guess are really dysfunctional actually are, and it would be helpful to people to know about it, or at least be very sensitive to it. I've had people express nervousness about talking to me because I've got a reputation (I'm not talking about points), but I've got my own problems and get things wrong all the time. I can think of a few recent examples that are bothering me. I think that the problem is not that people are wrong, but rather how they respond when you point it out. If I ever refuse to acknowledge mistakes I make, then I want you to be skeptical. I'd like you to challenge me on it, but I can't put that expectation on you, of course. I've regretted taking people at face value despite my gut feeling, simply because they have some reputation. Those regrets cause me physical pain. Not that a gut feeling proves anything, but I don't think it's something to ignore, ever. As a rule, I'm very cautious about who I work to establish trust with. And because what I want is to have the kind of relationships where I can trust other people not to take out their crap on me, and because I bet you do too, I think conversations like this are important to have.

Well, that would certainly be unjust. Howard Roark was definitely not doing anything I would downvote, not that I downvoted anything in this thread (I didn't). I kind of got what you were saying before, suggesting that people aren't living up to rational values, and going against those values even. Values they themselves would likely claim. It was a charge of hypocrisy if I understand you correctly. You are correct that it is donators who are able to vote, and I'm not saying that people should downvote his or your posts, but certainly, simply saying that his posts were all very calm and rational is not the same thing as demonstrating it, right? It's clear that you think the downvotes are bad like downvoting Howard Roark would be bad. An argument is "if you accept this, then you should accept that". It's demonstrating a conclusion by use of reason and evidence. Of course, it would make no sense to say that a conclusion is true because it is true. So, from what I could glean, and correct me where I've misquoted you, you are saying that if you accept that MMX's posts were logically valid and well argued, and his posts got downvoted, then you should accept that it was unjust, especially coming from people who would purport to value rational arguments. Would you say that this is a good argument? Framing a discussion is simply asserting who is right and who is wrong, especially when doing so shines a bad light on your opponent, like, them being emotionally immature, or hypocritical or unintelligent. If we accept that you simply asserted that MMX was making consistently valid logical arguments, and the effect is that you suggest hypocrisy on the part of the people who voted down his posts, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that what you did was frame the discussion. And so, it appeared to me that you were doing was instigating. Which I actually thought was kind of funny. I have no real emotional investment in this thread. But if it's true that you were instigating, downvotes are to be expected. And it's convenient too when you can just use that as proof of your claims. It is a form of passive aggression to provoke a feeling in someone and then condemn (or whatever word you like) them for it. I'm not particularly bothered by it since I can usually smell it a mile away, and it's just boring to me, at this point. How boring it is to listen to people frame discussions. How exciting it is to get logical arguments! So, give it up, big boy! You claim to value logical argument, so let's do it

Go on, mr social scientist. Is this the entirety of the observation, or was there more? It seems like you are implying things, but I'm not sure, much less what it would be. I'm very curious. I don't know that I've ever had the opportunity to get feedback from a social scientist before.

Just to be clear. I did acknowledge both those things. And I'll do it again: There was a recent exchange among people who've considered themselves part of this community, who expressed their anger with me over facebook. It was a reporting of their immediate subjective experience, and at first glance sort of resembled the type of subjective reporting that is characteristic of RTR. It was, however, incredibly manipulative and horrible on multiple levels, because they put forward an effort to appear vulnerable and honest, but they wanted me to acquiesce, because they claimed to know both the origins of their tantrum (my statements) and also what my motives were. They were very clear about that. This is not the first time something like this has happened to me. It is ironic, though, that this is exactly the type of thing that RTR is designed to avoid, and that it is narcissists who say "I feel angry, therefore you need to change". Also, many therapists SUCK. Many clients suck. Many therapists subject their clients to the managing of their own compromised consciences,... or are just incompetent. I've known a client to completely bail on a friend in a time of extreme need, only to blame the entire thing on their therapist of several years and start seeing another therapist. Or clients just don't put any effort in and think that by simply showing up they get some kind of points. --------------------------------- Is it fair to assume that people's posts are meant to be unique (or else why post?) that if someone else already posted something they agree with and would express in roughly the same terms, that they wouldn't mention it in their own posts? That is, is it fair to assume that other people could have agreed to the same sentiment that I offered? If the argument is that some people are manipulative about how they report the facts of their experience, and that some therapy is worthless, then I absolutely and totally concede the argument. I agree completely. *correction* You already acknowledged that I acknowledged this and thanked me for it. I forgot about that. I apologize for speaking as if you hadn't already said that. I can imagine that would be annoying. And further, if it's true that you experienced something like what I experienced, then I sympathize, and agree that it's a completely disgusting and lacking in any integrity. People who try and bully you into managing their emotions are contemptible.

As Shia Labeouf from Transformers would say "no no no no no no!" I don't care in the slightest if you are insulting. What the fuck do I care about being insulted? People insult me often, I can handle it. My beef was that you didn't actually provide any reasoning by which I could independently arrive at your conclusion. Personally, I am more than willing to be insulted if there's an opportunity for me to learn something new and important about myself. Treating people like they are fragile little ceramic dolls is insulting. I just ask that you provide some logic for me to evaluate. This is a philosophy forum, after all.

Hey thanks! I've had the box for 4 years, I believe. I don't pour it into other containers, but that's a good idea.

I have done a little sandplay. The first attempt I ever made at doing mecosystem work was simultaneously anima work (I worked with a Jungian) and after performing a ritual marriage on the roof of my house complete with a paper ring, the part told me that I should play with sand. My therapist told me about sandplay and encouraged me to try it out. I didn't do it in any particular way, and if there's some way it's supposed to be done, I don't know what it is, but I thought it might look weird for me to go find some random playground and go play in the sandbox, so I bought some "art sand" lol, and a little wooden box that could hold the sand so that I could take sand with me wherever I wanted. (Pictures below). I find it relaxing, kind of like having a zen garden. I don't know if it's really therapeutic or not, beyond self soothing. I just like the way it feels on my skin, making patterns in it and trying to fight the way that the sand settles itself using coins and other things as reinforcing walls.

Hi Ivan! Welcome to the boards That's funny about the greeting. It looks just like mine. I'm curious how you used to look at philosophy prior to the show, if you felt like sharing.

I'm flattered by the kind words, but you say this as if it's equally true that it was vain or wasn't vain. I'm not convinced I was being vain, I'm simply trying to demonstrate the difference between "you're one grandiose mother fucker" and "hey, I think you might be being vain here, and this is why I think that". If you thought I was being vain and had good reason to think so, then you can make that case. Simply suggesting that people are doing something bad without presenting any reasoning is a tragically common thing, and if there were one thing that I could shake people by the collar and slap them around about, it would probably be this one. There are 3 possibilities that I see when you post comments like that (assuming you're right about that comment): Someone is able to figure out your meaning and the reasoning necessary to independently come to that conclusion on their own, somehow, despite you not giving them that reasoning. Someone simply accepts your conclusion, but has no reasoning and so just as easily can swing back the other way when the next person tells them they are humble. Without the necessary logic, you simply provoke their insecurity. They don't understand why you are saying it, so they just dismiss it, and do not benefit from the insight you have. I volunteered the possibility that I was being vain (which is conceivably true, I guess) as a starting point, not the conclusion of your provocation. This and the last reply of mine to you are my way of offering a criticism: that this is how you offer meaningful criticism. I don't think simply suggesting that people are doing something bad helps anyone. I think it makes people less receptive to your message in the long run. Because: why aren't you making the case logically? Do you have the logic but are keeping it from us? Or do you not have sufficient reasoning and you are concealing that fact? I think that you only have so many conclusions you can ask people to accept, and that you earn those by consistently demonstrating your reasoning ability in relationship to people. I can't do that with someone I've just met, and I would hesitate still to do it with someone I know very well. Conclusions are powerful. They are non-trivial.

Hey wait just a minute, Buster Brown! Did they say in the very moment that they were expressing the facts of their experience, that the facts of their experience was the same thing as philosophy? Did they say that their feelings were philosophy? So far you have not mentioned anything like that, and because it sounds ridiculous, I am just going to assume that they did not. What kind of a ridiculous standard would ever make sense to say that in order to be a scientist, every action you make has to be science. This is specious reasoning. "A philosopher must always be doing philosophy!" If they were honest with you about their feelings (and not putting the responsibility for managing their feelings onto you, or use their feelings to try and stop you from making an argument they didn't like), but something actually resembling RTR, then it's not incompatible with philosophy. The scope of the conversation has simply changed. It's no longer about the abstract issue, but about something more subjective going on. Something that, as yet, has no propositional content and cannot be evaluated according to objective empirical/rational standards. The methodology is to discover the feelings and the core beliefs that inform them. You can have an objective standard about a domain which is subjective, though. Considering this, it's not accurate to say that because the subject is now about a domain which is subjective that it must therefore be in opposed to or at the expense of philosophy, rationality, empiricism. That's why I say that it's specious. To anyone who hasn't yet read Real Time Relationships: The Logic of Love, it's fantastic and you should go do that, but also, it's got a lot of epistemology in it and is in no way incompatible with philosophy.

I'll believe weather forecasts decades from now just as soon as people can accurately predict even a two weeks from now.

I didn't downvote your post, but I have noticed that you sometimes leave terse, cryptic and vaguely passive aggressive responses in threads every once in a while. Which I find annoying and am unsure what they actually add, if anything. All I know is that you take issue with it, which personally, I could care less about. I guess it depends on what you mean by "narcissist". In the actual clinical sense you need a lot more information to make that determination and would be quite the damning accusation. You could try and make the case that it's vain, and maybe I was being vain, being the first to publicly say what my IQ is and in so doing, inviting others to do the same. I'm perfectly okay with exploring that if that's what you wanted to do. I can be vain at times, sure. There are much worse things in this world, my ego can take that hit. *Thinking aloud* What's that definition of a sadist that I heard before? Something like "they know just enough to hurt, but not enough to actually help in any way".