Drew.

Ah, my bad about the test thing. Well, if that's all true, then that really does suck, for sure. I don't think that it is true--or rather, I do not think that it is the whole picture. But once again, if it is, that sucks a lot. Add: At the very least, you believe that all of this stuff is true, and that does suck because you see only three ways to play the cards your dealt when really there might be more.

Humans can operate in both r/K breeding strategies. Some organisms cannot. Caveat, definitely not an expert on this topic. In humans, r/K involves culture, beliefs, and childhood experiences (including trauma). I think that r/K in human beings is less genetic and more environmental. Nurture over nature, though certain genes do flip on to incite the r/K behavior. There is a thing called epigenetics, which is about how the environment impacts gene expression. If something changes, the breeding strategy can change as well. Also, most teens and young adults go through a rebellious, individuation process where they experiment and do dumb things, trying to find themselves.

I like your idea of a successful career. Something that provides and doesn't feel like work. But you are so convinced that you cannot be successful because you scored low on an IQ test. This mood that you are in, I do not think it is the real you. How would a child respond if he was told he wasn't X enough? He would say, "Fuck you, I'm going to do what I want to do!" I think that is still inside of you. I think that's the perspective that you need to take. So what if you only have a hand of cards, who the fuck says that you have to follow the rules? This perspective is conclusion-oriented. You are basing your happiness/self-worth/etc on your circumstances. Circumstances change. If you're basing your happiness on having a fulfilling career? Well, does that mean that you would not be happy for the entirety of your life outside of that career? That when you were a child, you were doomed to misery? That when you retire, you are doomed to misery? That, if having a family is what you need to be happy, does that mean when you were a child, you were doomed to be unhappy? When your children move out, you are doomed to be unhappy? If you outlive your partner, you are doomed to be unhappy? That to me does not seem very stable or reliable. There has to be a better way where we can be happy throughout the entirety of our lives, regardless of our circumstances (so long as our needs are met). What test did you even take? How do you know that test is valid? You seem to be quite literate for someone who scored below average on an IQ test. Both my parents are wicked intelligent, and they're barely literate when they write. There are public sector jobs that provide a valuable service to people. It is advised that we try not to argue from effect, by from morality. In the free market, it could be better, for sure, but that does not discount the current value that we are receiving. The problem is how the services are being paid for, how they are being rendered, how there is a violent monopoly on it. If you wanted to work in hydrology (I think that's what it is, if not substitute something else appropriate), that is an incredibly valuable service, and it's pretty much all public sector. Most of health care is public sector or heavily subsidized as well. There are valuable services and procedures rendered by doctors, nurses, etc.

You have been giving her love when you meet with her, as you described that things are great when you are there but things turn south when you are apart. Has it worked? She needs to provide it for herself. If she cannot do it now, then to be happy she needs to learn how to provide it for herself. Therapy helps with that.

We all have needs. Physical needs are like oxygen, water, food, and sleep. If we are lacking in a physical need, boy are we not happy. Psychological needs fundamentally all boil down to expressions of love: esteem, pride, validation, acceptance, interest, etc. If she had a rough childhood, then she did not learn how to provide esteem, validation, interest, etc. for herself as an adult. It is the same thing with psychological needs as physical needs.

What is it that you do not understand? There is a lot that I can share regarding that.

I think that happiness is our natural state of being. If someone is unhappy, it means that there has been a deviation from their norm. Fixing that deviation should allow happiness to return. I've found therapy to be effective for that. It sounds like your girlfriend is not having her psychological needs met, the requirement for happiness. There is nothing that you can do to meet her psychological needs. You should not try to meet her psychological needs, as it will not make her happy in the long run and will not allow her to develop this for herself, stunting her. Therapy helps with meeting psychological needs, too.

IQ, Looks, and all of that other stuff are helpful, but it is not destiny. I've met tons of intelligent people who are losers because they have no drive or ambition. What is your definition of success? Is it having lots of money? Is it having that family? Is it having a respected career? Is it having awards, achievements, publications, etc.? My definition of success is to live in accordance with who I am deep down, who I was meant to be with ideal parents and conditions. My definition of success is simply to be happy by loving myself regardless of my external circumstances, because I fundamentally do not have control over the external. The best I can do is influence the external. It sounds to me like you're experiencing despair. Despair is a helpful emotion, when it is accurate. I think that your perspective is wrong and is causing this despair. I've made mistakes like this too. Still do, at times.

For sure. I terminated counseling with my first therapist to work with my second because the second had values that were in more alignment with what I was looking for. Both therapists are/were great, but the relationship is also important too. I would add that finding someone who continues to do work on themselves and seeks consultation/supervision/therapy with another provider is another thing that's really important. I admit that there might be bias, as that is exactly what I do, but the way that I see it is that if you want to learn how to play guitar, you don't go to someone who has studied musical theory, but to someone who actually has learned how to play guitar and is still practicing and learning.

I wouldn't be coercing someone's reality, nor would I be forcing them into false ideas/beliefs. If I tell you that yesterday I saw a dragon in my living room, are you going to believe that? Is your perspective of reality going to fundamentally warp to a world where living rooms are real things and not just things of mythology? No. You know that living rooms cannot exist and do not exist. When I interact with most people and they make a claim, I'm pretty skeptical of what they have to share. When someone tells me that karma is real and they have glimpsed nirvana, I don't suddenly believe that such things exist. What I process is that this person believes that they had this experience, such a concept is real, is a decent metaphor to explain an empirical experience, etc. Lying to children in attempt to create those false ideas and beliefs, such as indoctrination is wrong. I would say morally wrong too, because children probably cannot escape that indoctrination.

Haha, yeah I am. If you would be interested in working with me, feel free to reach out. I'm not going to try to pressure or convince you. I've been doing this for three years, journaling/therapy for six and half years, introduced to FDR around a decade ago, and I believe that I am quite skilled.

I would recommend me. I work with me just about every day, and I kind of like the guy.

So, she's looking for a fight, and it seems like she is trying to dominate you. Personally, I wouldn't stay.

Except that crimes against the mind are easier to protect against, as an adult. We have psychological defenses in place to defend against such vicious, nastiness that others can inflict upon us. In childhood, crimes against the mind are worse. Violence against the body heals naturally.

I don't think that lying is immoral because it does not involve the initiation of force. It is aesthetically negative though, everyone prefers the truth over falsehood (except when the truth really hurts). When something is immoral, it justifies the use of violence to correct it. I think that you would agree with me if you asked someone if they did the dishes and lied about it, that you wouldn't slap them. The enslavement thing is not quite accurate unless if this individual is also enslaved or kidnapped. We can always find information through other sources; no one has a single monopoly on any piece of knowledge. Coca-cola might have their trade secrets, but any other person could dedicate the time and energy to discovering the actual recipe. The target of a lie has his own rational faculties, empiricism, and the aid of others to help disprove a lie.

The David thing has happened a few times to me, usually with non-native English speakers. Sure, you asked me how I could love others. It sounds as though things are different for you than they are for me.

If you're going to refer to me by a name, I prefer Drew. Everyone has true self, it might just be buried under dysfunction. I think that it is human nature to love others. It is as natural as breathing or singing along to the radio. Children love wildly and absolutely. So, there is that. The second thing is that, people do awful things to each other and themselves. But, I do not think that they fundamentally chose to do such things. Alcoholics and drug addicts do not choose to be addicts. Sociopaths do not choose to be sociopaths. This is born out of trauma, it is not their choice. For many people, they do not see that there is a way out. Some don't have the capacity to get out. Perhaps they are too weak now there is too much in their life that is keeping them paralyzed in their dysfunction. It was either Maslow or Rodgers who suggested that in every living organism, there is this life drive; there is a desire to grow and improve. The people who are so despicable and miserable are those who are struggling to manifest their life drive. We all make assumptions, and often there is evidence for such assumptions. But evidence is not proof.

I don't know about you, but I know that there was a period of time where I hated people. Let's just say this came around in my teens. I don't feel that way anymore. I think that I love all people, not necessarily how they act and how they are now, but how they were supposed to be without all of the trauma. It's been a few years since the transition. I wrote it in my journal, and I have yet to reread or transcribe what I had wrote, but I think the turning point for me was when I asked my, Do I really hate people, or do I love them so much that I cannot stand what they do to themselves and others? It sounds like you have a lot of assumptions and/or conclusions about the world and relationships. If they're not working out, challenge them. If they're just and valid, they can weather some skepticism and examination. If not, you might be able to free yourself by shrugging off these unnecessary burdens.

Authoritarian parenting is much like an authoritarian government. Consistent rules and laws do not matter as much as obedience. Punishment is doled out and often will include time out, grounding, physical punishment, and humiliation. The parent is the absolute ruler. The child is property. Permissive parenting is what the article is describing about how Swedes are currently parenting, and it is the opposite of Authoritarian parenting. It says, there are no rules, do as you wish. A permissive government is one that has no rules, that is to say, a complete absence of a governing system. This is anarchy as the red-and-blacks desire, and what some ancaps/voluntarist/etc might call pandaemonium. An authoritarian parent will punish a child for drawing on the walls. A permissive parent will let a child draw whatever (s)he wants on the walls. Often, authoritarian and permissiveness will go hand-in-hand. A parent might lean more toward one extreme in a certain area, time, or circumstance, and then over-correct on the other hand to counter-balance it. There is another type of parenting that is known as Authoritative parenting. There are rules and limitations, but a lot of parenting is based on explanation, negotiation, and agreeing to rules beforehand and enforcing the consequences that were agreed upon. It is peaceful parenting; peaceful parenting is not permissive parenting.

I didn't say not to intervene, if that is what you are suggesting here or interpreted as what I had said. I was saying, be aware of your approach, and honey draws more flies than vinegar.

It takes time. Go out and meet new people. Join a club or organization or classes or something. I've been meeting new acquaintances by going to a gaming store and playing tabletop games with people. There are some people there that I genuinely like and am glad to see. But I've also been journaling/therapying a lot about expectations of friends and relationships in addition to things that might prevent me from connecting with others, such as disdain for normal people, social anxiety, insecurity, etc.

I had a friend who would be pretty confrontational when intervening in child abuse. It was always a really awful, unpleasant, stressful, frightening situation. Personally, I don't recommend it. The approach that I've taken has been more pleasant, at least in the moment, and I think it's at least as effective. I try to be assertive "This is wrong" but also kind and considerate. This is a mistake that the parents are making. The more that the, bad terrible awful, immoral, evil person label is there, the more that they will fight and resist, making things worse in the moment, and potentially calcifying the parent. The most basic goal is to side with the child and have the child recognize it, but if the parent will think twice or drop the behavior entirely is a massive success and a desired goal as well. These parents are repeating what was done to them as child. Spanking and yelling is how they were corrected as children, and by being assertive but non-confrontational is showing them that there is another way of correcting bad behavior. The child will see it too, and I think that will have a greater impact than just attacking the parent.

For sure. Rage is inappropriate in 99% of situations, and is the result of unprocessed, unexpressed anger which is amplifying what would normally be experienced in a given moment. I totally agree that the world could benefit from more angry women--provided that they are expressing their anger at the appropriate targets and not sublimating and dumping said emotions on people who did not incite them in the first place. Anger when expressed in a healthy, appropriate fashion can bring relationships together. The author says that she has been shamed for her anger. She should be angry at the people who have shamed her for her anger, and rage might be appropriate for that. But I don't get the sense that she is suggesting that, but encouraging that anger to be used and expressed whenever she wants.

I think that real peaceful parenting avoids punishing children. Their actions will have natural consequences for them, and there really is no reason to double-ding them. I don't clean my place because I want to avoid being yelled at or I want to receive a bribe (reward), I do it because I genuinely believe that having a clean place is a good thing and I want to give that to myself. That said, if a parent can punish the child, then the child should be able to offer similar punishments to the parents. But most parents won't offer that two way street. Fundamentally, all punishment is about the infliction of negative feelings onto the child (being grounded induces boredom, being hit induces fear and pain, etc). The infliction of negative feelings is not an act of love, nor is it an expression of unconditional love, which children deserve from their parents. If children can be punished, if negative emotions can be inflicted upon them, then that means that love can also be withdrawn and withheld from them, and love is a legitimate psychological need for children, it is like withholding food. Children who do not get what they need grow up distorted, whether that be physically through malnutrition or emotionally through lack of love.

I think that lying is actually a great skill to have and develop, but what is important is teaching children when it is appropriate to dissemble. If someone is going to attack you if you tell the truth, then it is entirely okay to fabricate. If a child encounters such a situation and has no skill in lying or believes that he must always tell the truth in such circumstances, then he is setting himself up to be attacked. Children who lie to their parents when they have done something (like break a lamp) are trying to avoid punishment, are trying to avoid having love being withheld from them.