Marc Moini

This is roughly similar to my opinion of how you have responded so far, and it is why I offered to talk on video, in order that we may move forward. Would you please list more examples in this category then?

If I remember correctly, your claim (in other threads, To Judge Or Not To Judge [moralistically] and Stef's Mother's Table) is that 1 in 20 people are what you call psychopaths or sociopaths. It seems doubtful to me that 1 in 20 people has a brain tumor, or in other words that all (or a vast majority of) the people you claim have reduced biological capacity for empathy are suffering from a brain tumor or some other ailment that cannot possibly be healed by simply giving these people empathy and maybe also some information they haven't encountered yet. So what you claim to know with certainty about the possible effects of a brain tumor (and only some of them, as far as I know not all brain tumors have this sort of effect) is not what you actually claim in the threads you reference above, as far as I can tell. I find this frustrating, because I've noticed you make this sort of mistake a few times already, and since you haven't recognized them or explained to me that they are my mistakes, it makes it difficult for me to have with you the sort of conversation I enjoy having with people and that I would like to have with you.

A few days ago my 13 year old son asked me to take a look at a music video he had been playing over and over, because he wanted me to see the dancing in it.Stromae - PapaoutaiEven though I had heard the song many times since when he started playing it, watching it made me notice the lyrics in a new way and I found myself overcome by emotion, with tears streaming down my cheeks as I realized that I had really missed not having someone I could rely on to guide me and answer at least some of my questions about life, when I was growing up and especially after I turned 14 and my dad wasn't there anymore (due to external circumstances; I saw him a few times after that, and we had been writing each other from time to time until he passed away about 10 years ago).I doubt he could have provided me with much understanding, he worked for the city government as an architect and he held many traditional views, but it looks like I missed him anyway, although I don't remember feeling any loss. In the song they keep asking "where are you Daddy, where are you?" and showing a child trying to interact with a lifeless dummy. I guess just now that what brought me to tears was not that my dad wasn't there from 14 on but that in the years before, although present physically he was emotionally absent from my life, I had no real connection with him. At the time I didn't feel understood by my mother either, but I do have a good connection with her now, after having gone through a lot of self-work and especially as I've been learning NonViolent Communication.This lack of emotional support from my dad was revealed to me even more strongly while watching this video because I was watching it with my son, who keeps singing mostly another part of the song, the one that says "without even needing to tell him, he knows what's going wrong". I believe I have a great connection with my son and that he gets all the support he needs from me (I keep asking him for feedback on what I do), and this just makes the contrast with what I didn't have that much stronger. I'm glad I can give him what I myself didn't have, I guess that was part of my emotion as well. So I think I'm already living what you describe, Antony, and I wanted to give an example of the pain you mention, which to me feels like a welcome pain that brings its own relief. I also want to point out another hopeful thought, that it is possible to stand some amount of abuse, this is not an all-or-nothing alternative, my son goes to public school (not my choice) and he is often punished there for thinking rationally but he is strong enough mentally to understand that he is not at fault and to not let that affect the fun he has with his friends there. (And I believe I've recovered myself as well, in most part, from receiving far more abuse than my son.) I've translated the lyrics here: http://lyricstranslate.com/en/papaoutai-where-are-you-daddy.html#songtranslation

Thanks for posting this. I'm only at the beginning and I'll probably need to watch again to get things I'm not noticing this first time I'm watching, but at around 18 minutes in I find it interesting when he explains how for someone who has lived all their life without getting any respect from anyone, it can be very liberating and a great relief to instantly get a lot of respect from others simply by pointing a gun at them. I like that he doesn't stop at blaming these people for the violence they use and that he tries instead to see them as human beings who are suffering very much as a result of what was done to them, since from what he says they all have had horrific childhoods, and he tries to understand their motivations and aspirations. Because I think that to stop violence, it won't work to use violence (emotional or physical) against people who use violence (emotional or physical). It's a difficult challenge, because at the same time we need to protect ourselves from their violence.

Hi Antony, As I've said before I admire James Gilligan extensive work with prisoners and I respect the understanding of criminology he has attained. Thanks for posting this video, I hadn't seen it before and I find it particularly rich in significant quotes: "People justify their crimes, they couldn't commit them otherwise." "The criminals commit their crimes for moral reasons, and the people punishing people are doing it for moral reasons. As far as I'm concerned both forms of morality are absurd, they're counter-productive, they only serve to rationalize and justify violence." "We need to stop approaching violence as a moral problem and realize that morality itself is the problem." Best wishes, Marc

Hi Antony! After listening to the video you sent me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99HuL_Bk-SU which talks about the creation of the IFS model, I understand how it's basically role-playing in order to help identify the "intention" of the part, similar to in NVC identifying the need that gives rise to a feeling. And the positive regard for each part, the idea that it plays a useful role or at least its intention is to help, I see this as similar to accepting that needs just "are" and they're not "bad". Hm, I heard some NLP jargon later in that video so I went looking and found this where it says that Richard Schwartz was indeed well aware of NLP and Satir and Erickson: http://dreamingofmeta.blogspot.com/2012/11/tao-of-psychology-part-4-internal.html The IFS book I read was by Jay Early, I guess I would have had a more accurate idea of IFS by reading something by the founder himself. Listening to the part where Richard Schwartz is talking about how firefighters intervene even at the risk of hurting someone else or the person themselves, I ask myself this: if Stef knows about this characteristic of firefighter parts, why does he then not consider that maybe "bad" people are not deliberately choosing to hurt others, maybe their "firefighter parts" are taking over and the result is harm to others? (they're also hurting themselves I'd say, since from an NVC perspective it doesn't meet their need for self-respect when they harm others, among other needs that also involve the well-being of others.) In to the Q&A, Schwartz tells how he works with bulimic/anorexic children and helps them stop fighting the parts that make then engage in these destructive behaviors in order to protect them from something else. How when people become curious about the positive intention of a part, instead of thinking of it as "bad" and to be fought, and the part trusts that it's going to be listened to, then the part can provide information as to what it is accomplishing by doing what it does, and it can tell its story, then it can finally feel understood. And how receiving this empathy makes it possible for this part to come out of its fixation on what happened and go back to performing other services for the person instead of keeping them locked into actions that have harmful side-effects. I see the value in this work, how it can help resolve many of these unsatisfactory patterns of interaction inside our own person, and I think it can be much enhanced by making use of the awareness and knowledge that NVC can bring regarding ways of thinking about ourselves and others and how to communicate in a way that leads to conflicts getting resolved instead of worsened. Just a bit later he says how it's having compassion for those parts that allows the process of healing to take place, and again I see the parallel with NVC. This is very different from what I remember hearing from Stef about IFS, it reminds me again of the importance of going to primary sources for getting an accurate idea of something. I had the wrong idea about IFS. I'm curious to find out what Richard Schwartz makes of NVC, it seems he hasn't heard of it yet. I think it can bring him a lot, and maybe he can work in bits of NVC into IFS and get something even more effective than what IFS is now. NVC can be difficult to learn, I find IFS more approachable, so if people start with IFS and then understand NVC too, that would be better than either right now, in my opinion. It seems to me Schwartz is almost there, but from what I can tell he doesn't have some of the communication techniques that NVC brings, though he has the spirit. So the theory could really be useful for IFS, it seems to me. Thanks, hearing Richard Schwartz talk about how he developed IFS has been enlightening for me, I'm glad to be rid of the misconceptions I had about IFS! Best wishes, Marc

Hi Antony! Congrats on the interview! It just so happens that I've been listening to Pete Gerlach's videos recently, after having had them on my list for months. Before listening to this interview, my opinion was that Gerlach's ideas sound quite sound to me, except IFS. Everything he says about psychological wounds, maturity, his communication tips, his tips for improving self-respect, all of this I find right on target and useful, but this idea of subselves to me sounds crazy because there is absolutely no way to know how many someone has, it's like talking about whether angels exist or not. Back in the 80s I studied NLP, which is where IFS comes from as far as I can tell, and I do still believe there is a lot of value in NLP, but not in the bit that IFS took from NLP (the idea of communicating with yourself as if you had multiple parts--but in NLP they are just a metaphor and not subselves, not characters, and you communicate with yourself through all the sensory channels instead of only imagining visuals and monologues) and impoverished (by removing most sensory channels) and also expanded without any rationale by making parts into full personalities (unsubstantiated by any evidence, unfalsifiable, and to me downright irresponsible!) I like how he apparently independently reached the idea that feelings point to needs, that they come from needs. I also like how his perspective is kind to everyone, how he understands that blaming and shaming wounded people doesn't help anyone, not even their victims as a way of protecting themselves from further harm, because in using blaming and shaming on others we almost certainly do it to ourselves too. Again my only reservation is on his use of IFS, because as far as I can tell, even though it is better than nothing, it is not as effective in healing wounds and bringing peace as NVC is. He says he's going to read the NVC book, I think it will be interesting to interview him again maybe next year and find out what he says then! When I hear him say that children need discipline, I hope he will get a different perspective when he does read the NVC book! I really like what you said about empathy, how you developed your awareness of your feelings through practicing reflective listening, and the examples you gave of how this sounds. Self-empathy to me is the single most important skill to learn, and the key to all the rest. As to the audio quality, it's OK but there is room for improvement. There is some echo, but more importantly the volume is too low, I need to set the volume to the max on my player in order to hear what either of you is saying. Finally, I like how you directed the interview to talk about the various things you talked about! Best wishes, Marc

Hi Joseito, Hi Antony, I prefer when people get along, so maybe you and LovePrevails will both agree with this: the way I understand it from reading Nathaniel Branden, self-esteem is not directly dependent on any specific achievement, it is the reputation we keep with ourselves and thus to raise or lower it significantly a number of different successes or failures (in our own evaluation) are required. It is an aggregate opinion resulting from multiple experiences over the course of a lifetime. Here is what I posted in another thread: I want to point out how Nathaniel Branden warned against confusing high self-esteem with conceit, which I find is exactly what Stef and his interviewee are doing in the video you linked to. Here is the article by Nathaniel Branden (he discusses this specific point on pages 5 and 6): http://www.nathanielbranden.com/discussions/self-esteem/what-self-esteem-is-and-is-not/ Best wishes, Marc

Hi Howard, Thanks for these precisions. I hear that it is frustrating for you that I didn't understand your explanations despite your repeated attempts to explain, because you are looking to be understood, just like I do, and maybe also because you don't want to spend more time on this than is necessary, which I completely understand as well. From your previous explanations it wasn't clear to me whether you made this distinction or not, in the group of people who hurt others, which constitutes a significantly-sized minority of the population (and excluding the small number of people who have suffered brain damage from blows to the head or strokes or tumors, etc.), between those who have and those who don't have biological impairments that make it significantly more difficult for them to being susceptible to being brought over to nonviolence through NVC alone. And you're saying that the group with biological impairments represents about 1/20 (I'm not sure if you mean of all people or of those who hurt others). So in effect, you've answered my question by saying that anyone who does switch to non-violence was simply part of the subgroup without brain damage. Therefore my finding examples of this does not address your point. If I understand correctly. You're also frustrated because you think I have not seriously examined the many studies detailing evidence about the psychopathic brain, I suppose. I've read a few of these over the years, and I do see deep methodological issues in this sort of study. I also did look at the articles Stef references in his Bomb in the Brain webpage (they all--those that don't lead to "page not found" eventually point to articles by Dr. Bruce Perry), and I didn't find anything there that convinces me either. Just now I looked at the top Google result for "pubmed psychopathic brain", which is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18327824 (yes, the top result is a study from 2008), where the abstract starts with "The biological basis of psychopathy has not yet been fully elucidated. Few studies deal with structural neuroimaging in psychopaths." Not what I call convincing. You say there are "countless studies showing significant differences" of the psychopathic brain. Please point me to the full text for the one you deem is the best and I'll study it in depth. Fair? OK, assuming the second group exists and it is a significant portion of the population, would you tell me why it is important to you to distinguish between the two? For me, if the difference is only that I'll have to spend more time with people in the second group if I want to connect with them (if they want it too), it's not a big deal because I enjoy it regardless, so I'm curious to know what the importance of this is to you. Best wishes, Marc

Hi Howard, OK, you find that I am not being objective and rational and open to contrary evidence. And you say that your goal is to understand the truth whatever it is. So you pride yourself as being objective and rational and open to contrary evidence, if I understand correctly. You are stating that people who hurt others are deficient in empathy and not amenable to effective communication with NVC alone, because of their different biology. Right? If so, what if I gave you an example of someone who was behaving very violently in the past, a bully everyone was afraid of in his high school, who solely through learning NVC is now a very peaceful and empathetic person and actually helps others learn NVC? Would that be enough for you to reconsider your stance? Best wishes, Marc

Hi Howard, Thanks for your replies. How do you see us resolving our disagreement here over whether 1/20 people really are different from everybody else in that they get pleasure from hurting others in the reverse of the way everybody else gets pleasure from helping others (giving from the heart as Marshall Rosenberg would say)? I think I'm aware of the type of evidence you mention, and for me it is not convincing, and I know of contradicting evidence (which I have pointed to above). It seems to me the same is true for you. I feel frustrated that something which is so clear to me, you don't understand the same way I do. I guess it's the same for you, right? So what do we do now? I doubt the following will help, but I'll say it hoping it registers with you: I'm not denying that it's possible that someone grows a tumor or has a stroke which damages some part of their brain and then they behave "as a sociopath", but we're not talking about that, right? We are talking about people who have a "mental illness" that did not result from blows to their heads or strokes or tumor, no? Those 1/20 of the population, according to you, not the 1/10000 or less with brain damage from strokes or tumors etc. Best wishes, Marc

Hi Howard, I was writing a reply to your previous post: I understand that this is Marshall Rosenberg's explanation for any destructive behavior. But I'm not sure it holds water. There are sadistic people who commit acts that inflict suffering on others where I think you'd have a hard time finding any alternative need that they are trying to meet but failing to meet. Maslow sometimes talked about an "aesthetic need" and used the experience of having to straighten a crooked painting as an example. I think for some sadistic people the suffering of others meets some kind of aesthetic need for them. Make no mistake, there are many - if not most - people who do harm because they are indeed using faulty strategies to meet needs and thus failing to meet those needs. But if you look at the case of a psychopath, for example, they are often quite satisfied by their actions and do not find their needs being unmet. Rather, they find their needs indeed met by their destructive actions. They are only frustrated when others try to stop them from satisfying themselves. I think the NVC crowd - in which I find a great deal of value - have not sufficiently contended with cases of these sorts and their implications. when your new one arrived: This is not true for quite a few people with conditions like psychopathy and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as well as some others, that are deeply rooted and reduce empathy and cooperation. Thinking that "getting past our negative images of them" will lead to better behavior on their part is sorely misguided and can lead to a lot of pain. For many many people, it is true that taking a forgiving view of them will help them grow and heal and cooperate more. But it is really important to recognize there is a whole category of people for whom, by the very definition of their conditions, this is not the case. And this category likely includes at least 5% of the population, which is quite a lot when you really think about what 1 in 20 people means. and my answer is similar to both so here goes: I read what you wrote on your website about the limitations of NVC, which if I understand correctly is essentially what you posted here, meaning there exist people with medical conditions (abnormal or impaired brain functions) that effectively make them different from normal people. And you are concerned that normal people interacting with these abnormal individuals may be harmed if the abnormal individuals are not recognized as such. I suppose you have had experience yourself dealing with such abnormal individuals, which is why you are aware of this danger and why you are keen on warning others, so they don't get harmed like you were or could have been. Around the time I was a baby, the accepted knowledge in the medical world was that infants cannot feel pain because their nervous system has not sufficiently developed yet. This led doctors to the general practice of operating on infants without anaesthesia. As far as I understand it, the medical view today that such conditions as Psychopathy and Sociopathy and Narcissistic Personality Disorder exist, is similarly misguided and without evidence. Marshall Rosenberg gives an example in his book Nonviolent Communication where a person diagnosed with such a condition was found to be perfectly normal, and the condition they were thought to suffer from was in fact caused by the way of thinking this person had picked up from the culture. He explains how thinking that we should be this way or that way (moralistic judgment*) can lead to depression and other "medical conditions". He stopped his practice as a clinical psychologist, after he found that he could help people much more effectively by not diagnosing them, i.e. not thinking of them as sick or stupid or damaged or abnormal. I refer you to the work of Milton H. Erickson and Jay Haley for other examples of similar miracle cures for people who had been diagnosed with mental disorders and thought of as incurable, often after having been imprisoned in "mental care institutions" for years. The work of Thomas Szasz (http://www.szasz.com/manifesto.html) is also admirable in this regard, I find. I wish you and other FDR members, who fully understand how mistaken the establishment view on economics or anarchy can be, would come to recognize that the establishment view on psychiatry and psychology (and nutrition, and medicine, and history, etc.) can be just as mistaken. Best wishes, Marc *as far as I can tell, you are practicing moralistic judgment when you see people as normal or abnormal, which then leads you to think that NVC only applies when dealing with normal people. Whereas the central message of NVC as I understand it, is that it is possible to replace moralistic judgment with value judgment (based on universal internal human needs instead of universal external moral rules) and then NVC is effective for getting your needs met with everyone since the categories of normal and abnormal no longer exist for you (they are replaced by the single one of "people trying to meet their needs in the best way they can manage right now").

Hi Antony I listened to the podcast just now and what I get from it is that if we judge people as bad then many won't want to make any efforts to improve their interactions with us (as Darrell in the story who I guess was happy to get negative attention since he believed he couldn't get respect), whereas if we get past our negative images of them and address them more as equals then they are more likely to treat us back with affection and understanding. I'm interested in hearing what you get out of the anecdote you selected! Best wishes, Marc

Hi Stef, Best wishes to you for a speedy full recovery and a long happy life. Marc p.s. If you will accept this suggestion from me, I have found http://robbwolf.com/what-is-the-paleo-diet/ works wonders. I'm back in shape after starting to balloon up 3 years ago, I got back the energy I had at 30 (I'm 47), I no longer need to wear glasses, and various other spectacular changes like that.

You're welcome Joseito, thanks for telling me that my explanation didn't answer your question. I'll try to be more specific: What I mean when I say that in the sentence "People should make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" my choice and responsibility are invisible, is that at best they are implied, whereas in the sentence "I wish everyone would make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" it is more clear that it's me who wishes this and not some unnamed entity. I wonder if the reason this difference is apparently not clear to you is that for you, "People should make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" does strongly imply that you actively choose to live according to this rule. Is this so? For me it doesn't, and I remember how in the past I was not aware that I had the choice of not obeying this rule, I considered this rule a part of how things work in the world (it was just like gravity to me). The reason I find it preferable and more truthful to assign responsibility to myself with regard to this choice, is that it frees me to make the choice one way or another, and thus have more power over my own life, power which I can then use rationally in order to improve my happiness. If I am not aware that I have this choice, I am a slave to this rule and potentially other rules which people might give me to obey. Yes, I wish to convince others of the validity of my reasons for choosing value judgment over moralistic judgment. I get the impression that you understand this as being a moralistic judgment on my part, i.e. "everyone should use value judgment over moralistic judgment", when I am careful to not write it that way because the way I see it, I am not making a moralistic judgment here. It is only a wish on my part, I do not think anyone is "bad" or doing something "wrong" if they choose otherwise, and I don't want to blame or shame or guilt or punish anyone for making moralistic judgments. I don't want to, and I don't, and for me this is evidence that I am not making a moralistic judgment here. Please let me know if this is satisfactory for you or not! Best wishes, Marc

Hi Joseito, Yes, I understand that 'reasons' are judgments grounded in reality. I hear how being grounded in reality is important to you, and it is very important to me as well. I want to base my judgments on reality, not on wishful thinking or illusion, and I think this is what I am doing when I make value judgments instead of moralistic judgments. It's important for me to use language that makes it clear what my choices are and what I am responsible for, when these choices and this responsibility exist in reality. When I say "I wish everyone would make value judgments and not moralistic judgments" I think I am being more truthful than if I say "People should make value judgments and not moralistic judgments", because the first formulation more clearly states that this is my choice and that I am the one responsible for making it, whereas in the second one this choice and the associated responsibility are invisible (when I used to think moralistically, I actually was not aware that I had a choice here!). This is why for me the first statement is more grounded in reality than the second one. And then there are all the other advantages the writer details in the article. Does this answer your question? Best wishes, Marc

Hi Joseito, Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest. Ah I see, it's because I'm expressing how I prefer to judge people's actions and how I prefer others would judge people's actions, and to you this is expressing a universal preference, right? For you, what I'm saying amounts to "everyone should use value judgments instead of moralistic judgments (and if they don't then they're doing something morally wrong)", is that so? I don't think of it this way, this is only my preference and I only wish that others would do the same, I'm not using moralistic judgment on what people do or don't do, I'm not thinking that they should or shouldn't. It is my own preference and I don't consider anyone else bound to have the same preference, although I would like that. Does this still sound dishonest to you? Yes. Your wish that (all) others would do the same is a universalisation of preference = moralisation. Just because you leave enforcement or blame out of your conscious picture does not mean you do not have the intention to exercise them. Would you also let your own child moralise others and simply communicate your "wish" for the contrary? Children are very prone to universalising... I am really curious to hear what you would do (or have perhaps already done). OK, so you're saying that I have an unconscious intention to exercise enforcement and blame. Maybe I do, but it doesn't get manifested in my actions in any way that I can observe. Yes, I would let my own children moralise others, in fact I do, and yes I do simply communicate my wish for them to focus on their needs instead. Sometimes I don't even do that, when I get the impression that they would hear it as me saying they're doing something wrong. I talk with them the same way I do here on FDR or anywhere else, i.e. I try my best to refrain from moralistic thinking. This is also what anybody else who practices NVC aims for, once they understand how essential it is in order to get needs met. But maybe you still think that I do, if for you my wish that (all) others would do the same is a universalisation of preference = moralisation. Me, I don't see how this is moralisation. For me, it would be moralisation if I said "Everybody should do the same, and they're bad if they don't", and this is not what I'm saying, as I wrote in the quote above. Maybe I'm missing something here, I'd appreciate if you would help me see what it is. No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before? I understand what you mean by parts/child-training now, it's a reference to the argument in the article which claims that part of our mind interprets the statement "you are beautiful" literally and disagrees because it is not universally true (since people have different ideas of what they find beautiful, or the person receiving the compliment knows that sometimes they look different than how they look now), while another part of our mind has been trained since childhood to resolve differences between literal meanings and commonly accepted meanings. I guess I'm more rested today However I still don't understand how this argument can be applied to "I really enjoy looking at you", because here the literal meaning is the only one, at least the only one I am aware of. Which other meaning are you thinking of for "I really enjoy looking at you", if what you are saying is that there is another meaning? Well, "I really enjoy looking at you", when, now or always? Could it be because of something else other than me is causing you pleasure? Which part of you is saying that; or is the person who says that always a fully integrated and consistent whole unlike the person who universalises? This is what I mean about how completely detached and unconscious this perspective is, and I say this in all sympathy. Clearly, you and the writer fail to attribute the same qualities to themselves in the (wrong) assumption that reporting on your feelings is always a fully conscious act. Ah, thank you, I understand now, you're saying that I might have unconscious going-ons that cause me pleasure, so that "I really enjoy looking at you" is not guaranteed to be a truthful statement because the pleasure might not be caused by looking at "you", it might be caused by something else, right? And do I understand you correctly if I think that you bring up this point in order to establish balance/fairness, because you think that I already am using this argument of unconscious motives (or the writer of the article is) in order to claim that "You are beautiful" is not strictly speaking a true statement? Where the writer of the article does mention "part of your brain" and "your conscious brain", I don't understand this as claiming that the reader is not a fully integrated and consistent whole person, only that there is the literal meaning of "You are beautiful" and then there is also the commonly understood meaning of this being a compliment even though the statement itself is not strictly true (because value is assigned by the valuer, because "you" looks different at various times, etc.). And when he suggests saying "I really enjoy looking at you", my understanding from the article is that this is intended to reflect the reader's feeling in the moment, since the point of saying this is to reveal what goes on inside right now, to take responsibilty for our feelings and to be vulnerable. I hope I've explained this to your satisfaction, please let me know if that is the case or not! Thank you to you too! And likewise Best wishes, Marc

Hi cherapple. The title of this thread is misleading I find, it is about the merit of using value judgment instead of moralistic judgment, not about doing away with judgment (right Antony?). I agree with you 100% that many children who unfortunately find themselves with parents who punish them, however indirectly, for exercising personal choice or even voicing their preferences and opinions, do learn to become paralyzed adults for whom it is extremely difficult to know how to love and support themselves. I think I get a sense of how important this subject is for you, how much you want to warn people about the danger to children who find themselves in situations like this, and how much you want to support those who have been abused in this or other ways. It is because I share this concern that I want people to know how judgment based on needs (as described in Maslow's hierarchy of needs*) can help them to recognize and satisfy their needs in win/win fashion, instead of using judgment based on moral rules (whether universal as in UPB or relative as in religion or statism) which the way I see it only leads to more disconnection. I'm saying you (and Stef) are not going far enough, you're still staying in the realm of moralistic judgment even though your kind is more rational, whereas what is far more beneficial for you I think (and for Stef and me and everyone else), is to use value judgment. I hope you'll tell me how this sounds to you. Best wishes, Marc * http://sfhelp.org/relate/keys/maslow.htm Note how there is no "need to harm others" or "need to control others", these would be tragic strategies for meeting these needs and not needs themselves.

Hi Joseito, Not really because "judgement is universal" – I did not say that anywhere – but because obviously the intention of the writer, and yours I suppose, is to express your preference that people not be judged a certain way, which is universal. I do not consider this intellectually honest. Ah I see, it's because I'm expressing how I prefer to judge people's actions and how I prefer others would judge people's actions, and to you this is expressing a universal preference, right? For you, what I'm saying amounts to "everyone should use value judgments instead of moralistic judgments (and if they don't then they're doing something morally wrong)", is that so? I don't think of it this way, this is only my preference and I only wish that others would do the same, I'm not using moralistic judgment on what people do or don't do, I'm not thinking that they should or shouldn't. It is my own preference and I don't consider anyone else bound to have the same preference, although I would like that. Does this still sound dishonest to you? No, I meant that the same argument the writer uses to question the validity of "you are beautiful" can be used to question the validity of "I really enjoy looking at you", which he imagines to be foolproof when he says "who can disprove that?". Does this clarify what I said before? I understand what you mean by parts/child-training now, it's a reference to the argument in the article which claims that part of our mind interprets the statement "you are beautiful" literally and disagrees because it is not universally true (since people have different ideas of what they find beautiful, or the person receiving the compliment knows that sometimes they look different than how they look now), while another part of our mind has been trained since childhood to resolve differences between literal meanings and commonly accepted meanings. I guess I'm more rested today However I still don't understand how this argument can be applied to "I really enjoy looking at you", because here the literal meaning is the only one, at least the only one I am aware of. Which other meaning are you thinking of for "I really enjoy looking at you", if what you are saying is that there is another meaning? Yes. OK, thanks for explaining. We agree then, judgment is necessary in order to apprehend reality, and we need to judge in order to live. What I think is that we have a choice of which type of judgment to use, and I linked to this article because I find that it clearly explains the existence of this choice and the advantages of choosing value judgment over moralistic judgment. But this gets us to your next comment: First, I don't see the reason for labelling "you are beautiful" as a moral judgement – morality is not about that – but I can see the connection with it being a universal judgement, etc. My opinion of that kind of judgement the writer universally prefers is that it is used to diminish the individual, their integrity and their understanding and connectedness to reality, in order to perpetuate dysfunctional relationships – especially that with oneself – and precisely to obscure individual choice and responsibility, as you say. The function of the mind is to universalize and conceptualize the world, and this is experienced as something universal regardless of the words used to express it. Responsibility and authenticity come from our ability to think and validate or invalidate our concepts and judgement according to reality – as well as from the actions that follow – not from changing the words we say. I don't see how changing the wording of these "value statements" (I would call them aesthetic) implies one is more authentic, objective or responsible, can you explain that? It seems to me the responsibility you are talking about is that of protecting the feelings of others, which is another way to say that the function of one's mind is less important than that of others'. I like how you explain your perspective, I find your explanation very clear, although I disagree with your conclusion. Let's see if I understand your point correctly: first, to you "I really enjoy looking at you" is just a change of wording, the meaning is still just as universal as "you are beautiful", and both formulations still convey the same moralistic judgment (it's a moralistic judgment because it is universal, it applies the same for everyone everywhere at any time). Then, you look at this change of wording as a dirty trick intended to hide the universality, so that a difference can be established between what some people deserve versus what some other people deserve. And then, this difference is used to exploit the people who have been put into the "lower" category, because through this trickery they have been made to believe that they are less important than other people, and that they cannot or should not trust their own mind but instead they should obey the exploiters, if only to avoid hurting the exploiters' feelings. The result of all this is that the people who are exploited end up in dysfunctional relationships, especially with themselves, and their capacity for individual choice and authenticity and responsibility is degraded, they are no longer able to validate concepts and judgments according to reality and hence they are not able to choose the rational course of action that would serve their life best. Am I understanding correctly what you expressed? To me it is not merely a change of wording, going from "you are beautiful" to "I really enjoy looking at you". I see in "you are beautiful" the assumption that this a something in "you", independent of me or anyone else but "you", a universal truth. I agree with the article writer that this is not a universal truth, because I think that value, in this case beauty, is assigned by the mind of the valuer (as the Austrian economists explain) and thus can vary according to whom is doing the valuing. Because of this, I find that it is "you are beautiful" and not the other formulation which denies individual choice and responsibility, through this mistaken (in my opinion) claim of universality. Whereas when I say "I really enjoy looking at you" I make it clear that it is my choice to do so, and thus I affirm my responsibility, rather than impersonal submission to an external standard. For me the reality is that it is me who enjoys looking at "you", and by saying it this way I state what is objectively true, and I am being authentic, rather than hiding my feelings behind a statement that implies I have no part in the process. I'm curious to read your response to this! Thanks for the discussion so far, I'm enjoying it. Best wishes, Marc

Hi Joseito, thanks for your feedback. I'm not sure I correctly understand everything you wrote, please let me know where I don't. You're immediately repulsed when you see the writer put "wrong" in quotes in an article about judgment, because judgment is universal. Saying judgment is not universal is relativism, a perspective you find contemptible and dangerous, and therefore you're put off from the article right from the start. Your comment about "I really enjoy looking at you" is the one I have the most trouble understanding: would you please explain what you mean by the same parts/child-training analysis? Are you talking about IFS? I don't get how this would apply to saying "I really enjoy looking at you" versus "you're beautiful". Do you mean the writer is wrong, and a person is actually objectively beautiful or not, that this is not a matter of personal preference? That we're trained to see some physical characteristics as beautiful and others not, the same way we are trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self-knowledge? Then you point out how judgment is necessary, a basic function of the mind, needed to apprehend reality. That we judge people whether we want it or not, and it is necessary that we judge. And that you wish people who believe judgment is not necessary would reflect on why they think they shouldn't, because you think this is a sign of the toxic training they were subjected to in order to make them blind to the abuses of people who want to exploit them. Is this what you mean? I think the writer is saying there is another kind of judgment which we have the choice to use instead of moralistic judgment, which works just as well for helping us make sense of the world and for protecting ourselves and for achieving our goals in life, and that other kind of judgment is value judgment. I think he's agreeing with you that we need to judge, but one type of judgment (value judgment, saying "I like your looks" or "your looks match my preferences") leads to taking more responsibility for our preferences and choices, and to being more authentic, and to being more objectively in accord with reality, more true, than the other type of judgment (moral judgment, "you are beautiful") which risks obscuring our choice and responsibilty. I'm interested in knowing what you think about this. Best wishes, Marc

Hi everyone, An article by Scott Swain I hope you'll find interesting and relevant to the discussion here: ClearSay.net - Do We Really Need Labels? Best wishes, Marc

Hi Pacal_II, Oh OK, I understand your question better now, thanks for explaining. Similar to what cherapple wrote, my guess is that others want us to conform as a way of coping with the uncomfortable knowledge that they are conforming while they would prefer not to. I believe we all have a need for autonomy, and we feel frustrated when this need is not satisfied, such as when we conform to external standards when they don't align with our fundamental human needs (http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory). When I used to feel this pressure to conform but I didn't see a way to not submit to it, it was tempting to try to reduce my frustration by making myself believe that I had no choice. And when somebody would do something proving that the choice does exist, I would feel scared and I would attack them, in order to force them to conform and thus show both them and myself that there is no choice, we all have to conform. I do hope you'll find the film useful, it took me many months but it's what allowed me to learn a new way of thinking that does let me see how to not conform while feeling satisfied at the same time. Does this help? Best wishes, Marc

Hi Pacal_II, I believe you don't have to, it's only if you want. It's your life, no one else's. I think we don't even have to eat, it's a choice we make if we want to stay alive. If you feel pressure to do what others tell you (or what you think they want you to do), I suggest looking into what doing this brings you. Here's the framework I find most useful for thinking about this, because it explains the fundamental human needs we are all trying to satisfy every second of our life: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Basics+of+Non+Violent+Communication The meaning of "needs" here is completely different from anything else I am aware of elsewhere, such as needs as described in PET (parent effectiveness training). Please let me know if this helps or not. Best wishes, Marc

My sister-in-law and brother are compulsive liars and alcoholics. They've been given many chances, from rehab from my brother - and during his rehab my sister-in-law stated that "no one will take away my alcohol - to blanket forgiveness by my family repeatedly for their behavior. My brother received a number of DWI's, and was helped out by my father in a number of cases to help fix his cases. Recently, yet again, my sister-in-law began yelling at me in front of my family, stating that "You think you're so high and fucking mighty because your sober", which is a common theme of abusive people. They have a completely violence based relationship, though not physical violence that I know of, and they express that violent behavior on others. Due to this repeated onslaught of hate, they have been ostracized and not spoken to anymore. Let me make this clear, I realize that the first response by some people here is that my parents fucked up in raising him. But, my parents through discussions, therapy and life events have expanded their minds and have become even more loving human beings who have embraced anarchism, atheism, and have categorically apologized for any abuse while stating that my wife and I will be better parents. My brother, on the hand, is a 30 year old boy who has done nothing but fuck up his own life while blaming others and constantly lying. He should be ostracized and not forgiven because he's gone too deep down a hole of shit. Hi Carlos, thanks for explaining what you've been experiencing, that you think your brother and sister-in-law have been given more than their fair share of chances to rehabilitate themselves and that now it is well past time to stop talking to them. And that your parents have apologized for any parenting errors they made. I wonder if you feel exasperated, or whether for you it is more a feeling of disgust or contempt towards your brother and sister-in-law? Or possibly any fear as well? Best wishes, Marc

I guess it would depend on how 13 year old girls in general are perceived in that society, whether they are thought of as persons like anybody else who get to make their own choices for how they want to live their own life, or whether as is the case in most places today they are considered by most people as incapable of making their own choices. This perception today I suppose isn't helped by the fact that most 13 year olds are raised to be incapable of making their own choices. However in a free society that wouldn't necessarily be the case, it would probably be the exact opposite. My own daughter was 13 not too long ago and she had wanted to work and earn a living for years, in a stateless society she would have been able to, and she could have been much more independent and experienced in life than is the case now. And perfectly capable of making her own choices as to who to have or not to have sex with. I believe this would deal with the problem you envision, without using coercion.