Drew.

I think that is what matters more. You're not "good" with kids, but you try to treat them well. Not necessarily a sociopath. Maybe just your normal, run-of-the-mill traumatized individual. I think that I saw a woman doing this 'cause she was attracted to me and wanted to attract me by demonstrating how good she was with kids. Rightly or wrongly, that is how I interpreted her actions, and it was something that I didn't like. It seemed like she was using the child to suit her own end, which means that she might be willing to do it again, and to a greater degree, with her own future children.

At 21 and in college, to receive financial aid, a student must provide information regarding their parents income, unless if they meet one of a few conditions. For her schooling, she will still have some kind of attachment and connection to her parents. To make a hard break might threaten her ability to continue pursuing school (with ease). That would definitely stir up a hornets nest in her life. With what Tara has said, I think that it is important to talk about how you feel witnessing her family treat her, but at the same time, it would also be important to inquire about how she feels about it too. I know that I have had relationships where I do not like how my friend is being treated. When I express this, sometimes they try to manage my feelings (Oh, don't be angry! It's not really your concern. I can handle it. Etc.), but what matters is really how she feels about these encounters. I don't know if breaking is truly what is best for her, but she won't do it if she doesn't feel like it's a good decision to do so. If she's living with her family, then they are a huge part of her world right now. When people move out, they gain a great deal of independence. They discover that they can take care of themselves and are less reliant on their family. So, that is a factor to consider too. If she is living with her parents now, any kind of tension or conflict will be really destabilizing to her. Maybe she's just not ready to deal with that now. I don't think that trying to force a decision will be helpful (don't get married so that you two can live together).

Are you someone who is uncomfortable around kids? If I saw you (or anyone) being uncomfortable around kids I would reserve moral judgment. Personally, I think that it is a good metric. It doesn't tell you 100% about a person, but it does tell you a lot. Someone who treats kids poorly is probably an asshole. Someone who is great with kids means that there might be something good about them. The people that I have seen that have been good with kids have their own personal limitations, though. Someone who is neither good with kids nor an asshole to them... well, then that raises the question of why it is so. Maybe watching these kids express themselves is anxiety provoking because they would get punished for expressing themselves. Maybe they recognize that they have power over kids and don't want to abuse it. There a number of reasons why they might act this way. I would also mention that someone might use children in this way as well. Positive interactions do not necessarily mean that this individual is good with kids and all of the likely associations with that; they might just be putting on a show for someone.

I had an adult student who very much wanted a man who would treat her like a princess. This man would take care of her, support her (financially), and I can't remember the other things she said in regards to it. We had nothing but pleasant interactions with each other, but I found myself not really wanting to interact with her further. It seemed like a poor bargain to me.

Well, the belief is likely learned from a traumatic event and experience. Every time it is approach, those old feelings arise. It overwhelmed them as children, and it overwhelms when because these feelings are sort of frozen and unresolved. So the dysfunctional strategy continues.

Everything that we do has some kind of benefit to it. It might be that the benefit has long vanished, but when we began the action, there was a benefit. Someone who holds negative beliefs about themselves viewed this as preferable over something else. We are unaware of them because we normalize and identify with them. They don't seem like negative self-evaluations, they just seem accurate. Something like, I am not very good at drawing is equally as much of an existential axiom as I am not worthy of love. What I have done in the past is to challenge every single belief that I have about myself, find what evidence there is to support it, and attempt to draw a better conclusion, and part of this has involved therapy work. Regarding conscious and unconscious contradictory beliefs, once again, there was some benefit to it in the past.

I mean, I think for these people, it's pretty accurate. The times that were the most enjoyable for them were when they had the least responsibilities. I would imagine that people who say this no longer have the freedom to act in such a manner, as they have responsibilities compounded on responsibilities (kids, marriage, mortgage, car payments, student loans, etc). As they have grown older, their lives have been more about acting on willpower than passion and drive. They don't have any joy in their lives, and these pursuits, in general, are an act of escapism, so they don't even have that anymore. I acted like that when I was younger. To me now, it seems like one of the least interesting things that I want to do (go to parties and drink that is).

I very much liked the arguments that you have posted in this thread, Neeeeeel. I do not think that there is anything that I disagree with, as it really is about applying the principles of peaceful parenting, which is a practice that legitimately has a wide range of acceptable behaviors, but a few musts for the parents.It very much seems like Donnadogsoth was trying to force a situation where people had to pick between two bad alternatives. I do not know why this was so fascinating or important for him to hold onto or explore. Honestly, I was a little tired of seeing this topic pop to the top of this section with new posts, and I knew that it wasn't an impossible situation due to the fact that it takes place in the home of another person. I agree that this would only happen if there was legitimately no rapport or goodwill between the parent and child. I would imagine that a child doesn't want to return home either because he/she has fallen in love with someone at the neighbors (which is something that is lacking at home, and such a strong reaction would suggest that perhaps love itself is missing), or that he/she is afraid of the home, which suggests, once again, a lack of love. I like to think that with enough rapport, and adult could gain near immediate compliance with "trust me on this," as the parent will have earned it. Children can be unpredictable at times, it's called spontaneity. But even there unpredictability is going to have limits. I myself can be pretty spontaneous at times. One thing that I will never do is go out in public naked and start robbing people. It would be highly unpredictable and something that is theoretically within my limits (maybe in the summer), but unless if I experience brain damage, then I have no interest or desire in doing it. The same thing with children. A little boy who has a favorite toy might start singing to it, but he's not going to break it, with intent, for no reason at all. I think that this was a "gotcha!" scenario that he tried to devise. I do not know what Donnadogsoth's views on parenting are, but just the nature of the thread, that is how it rings to me.

When I work with adults in therapy, that is how I treat them and what I try to help them instill in themselves. When I interact with adults in my daily life, I will be compassionate and admire what is good in them, but I will not try to correct them as it is not my responsibility nor is would it necessarily be welcomed, as it would be unsolicited. I do not try to punish adults, though some people will only stop a bad action if the cost is too great for them, and I do act on that when necessary.

I view that children gain more and more moral responsibility as they grow older. It is not a binary switch that is flipped as soon as a child turns 18 (or whatever standard you would like to hold for adulthood) where they go from completely lacking responsibility to totally responsible. But, as children, despite how much responsibility can be applied to them, they still earn and deserve a lot of leeway and grace. So, even if a child acts immoral, the point is not to punish them, but to correct them, help them understand why what they did was wrong, and love them.

Get glass of water Use glass of water Check inventory Examine room This child is acting on the premise that it is appropriate to do something just because he/she wants to do it because the other reason is not shared. To make it fair, it would be okay for me to do whatever I wanted as well. If this child/my child/the child I am looking after agree this is a fair rule, I am free to do anything I wish. Also, the home doesn't belong to the child, and visiting the neighbors has an implicit time limit. After a certain point, this child would be trespassing. It would be entirely appropriate to use the smallest amount of force to gently correct the situation, much like how it would be appropriate to restrain a child who is striking others. Add: The use of force isn't wrong or immoral, it is the initiation of the use of force. Also, it is best to avoid it as much as possible with children as they are especially sensitive to it.

I would ask the child why he/she doesn't want to leave. I don't think that this situation would be a lifeboat dilemma.

This situation is such a vacuum. Why does the child not want to leave?

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie might be a nice read. I am currently reading The Fine Art of Small Talk by Debra Fine, and I am finding value in that.

Has someone posted, "If you can't handle me at my worst, then you don't deserve me at my best" yet? 'Cause, "If you can't handle me at my worst, then you don't deserve me at my best"

Daniel Mackler wrote some essays regarding the differences between the therapeutic relationship and other relationships, such as friendships and parental relationships. It's worth a read if you're interested how they might be different. http://wildtruth.net/three-differences-between-therapy-friendship/ http://wildtruth.net/three-differences-between-therapists-parents/ I think that everyone here in this thread would recommend avoiding therapists who prescribe psychiatric medications and drug their clients. This is a self-knowledge section of the forum. To not talk about therapy is like discussing how to cook without the use of a stove, but I agree that it's very easy to push and pressure people into seeking it. I know for me, and I think that this speaks for everyone here as well (if I am wrong, then please speak up), that we all have received tremendous benefits in our lives due to seeking therapy. It's like being dehydrated all of your life and then discovering drinking water.

I think the neg was for the approach that you used, regardless of the truth of your statement. I found myself not liking how you said what you said either. I think that everyone can benefit from therapy. Maybe someone doesn't need it to grow, but it really truly accelerates things. With a good therapist, it the difference between making a 10000 mile trip walking versus on a bicycle or faster vehicle.

I taught a boy who would hit me. During the summer at a nearby park, a boy would hit me sometimes. I don't think the non-aggression principle really applies to children, simply because they are not fully developed. That is, him hitting you is not immoral. But it's also not a good or nice thing to do. But, that's the theoretical. In these situations, I restrained them. I prevented them from hitting me more. I gave them a great big hug. Depending on the level of comfort and familiarity, I would also kiss them on the forehead while doing so. It's okay to be firm and assertive with children. Do not strike them, but I think it's acceptable to prevent them from hitting you or others. I think that some children hit because they have only learned to touch others through the use of physical force. They hit because they have been hit. They hit because they want to touch another person, and it is the only way (dominant, or most socially acceptable way) that they have learned to do so. Some children hit haven't received much in the way of positive touch, like hugs and other displays of physical affection. If this has been your relationship with your son, then I commend you for trying to improve your parenting style. Even starting now will have a tremendous positive impact on the life of your son and your relationship with him. Some children hit because they are angry and do not know how to express themselves. They need to know what they are feeling, that it is understandable that they are angry, and other such things. So, what I have done is wrapped up the child in a hug, told them firmly in a low voice: "I understand that you are angry, but it is not okay to hit me. What are you upset about? Tell me. I love you. I want to help you." And I may offer other displays of physical affection too. I tell them that I will let them go as soon as they stop hitting me, and if they do it again, I will do the same. The boy that I taught for a year stopped hitting me entirely after a month or two. The only time he did was in acceptable situations, such as pillow fights and paper ninja-star fights.

I have tried abstaining from activities like that in the past. I would find success for a time, but when I reengaged with them, I would be wracked with shame and disappointment in myself. These things are coping mechanisms. When we feel bad, they are a way of making ourselves feel good. Although, we often regret engaging in such an activity after we do it. It is known as a shame spiral, and is particularly vicious. Feeling bad leads to coping leads to feeling bad leads to coping... When I was living with my parent still, there would be regular fights between us. There was a great deal of stress in my life. I smoked cigarettes. The moment that I moved out of my parent's house--and subsequently to China--my desire to smoke cigarettes dropped entirely. I had been trying to quit for months. I tried a cigarette again a few years later, but I just couldn't even smoke one. I don't feel like getting into the specifics of my coping habits, but everyone does it. I don't think we deserve to punish ourselves if we cope. We cope because we have been traumatized, so if we punish ourselves, we are just adding more adversity and trauma. It just doesn't make sense to me, but it is an easy habit to fall into.

For the types of loud voice-sound-making, I would call those shouts. Shouts are calls of alarm or to carry one's voice, while yelling is an act to intimidate, frighten, and punish.The intent and how the child feels about the action is important, and shouting is non-threatening to the child or his/her sense of safety and love. My father would express is anger through breaking inanimate objects. I was terrified. It is definitely better to attack something as opposed to the child, but to get so angry means that a person has been overwhelmed by anger, which likely means that the anger is being amplified by historical influences. The only time that I think it is appropriate to break or harm an object is when one's life is being threatened, and it is a way of intimidating or harming the aggressor.

If you don't mind putting yourself at risk were the abuser to turn violence at you, that is your choice. My only concern would be whether that kind of aggressive approach would further entrench someone in abusing their children. Some parents will always strike their kids, but if they do that less, it is still better, but definitely not ideal. Too much child abuse may crush the child, so that when they are adults, they unconsciously follow the cycle, while a child who experiences less abuse may be able to question it and improve as they become parents. But of course, we cannot control the actions of another person. If we could, then we would make them not abuse their children in the first place. Just something to think about.

Yeah, I second being aware of the method and manner of approach and how aggressive it is. I had a friend shout out to a man who was striking his child in a fast food restaurant. Things escalated pretty quickly, and I thought that there might be violence directed toward us as a result of that exchange.

Yeah. That's what I defined it as. That is not what you defined it as in your original post. But, maybe we have misunderstood each other at some point. It seems though, we are in agreement with each other.

I'll try to address things paragraph by paragraph. I may skip a few. How would it be immoral? There is no initiation of force involved. Your argument involves a strawman. In the despair portion of my previous response, I mentioned how an appropriate level needs to be struck. Of course, too much empathy is a harmful thing in a situation like this, much like how a lot of water (so much that it goes into one's lungs or causes water toxicity) or too much heat (heat stroke, burns) can be a problem as well. Mirroring is vital for children to understand and comprehend their own emotions. If infants are not mirrored, they will not understand their feelings growing up. Stockholm syndrome being an empathic act is an unpleasant conclusion, but according to the premise that I offered, it would fit. If there are no such things as ghosts because we cannot have consciousness without matter, then that really puts into question the human spirit and god. Stockholm syndrome is and always has been, in my mind, when a person begins to identify with and empathize with their captor. I am not sure that I follow your new definition. I will want an example to understand it if this is something that you still hold. I disagree that abusive people and sociopaths have troubles recognize boundaries. I say this because whenever I have interacted with them, they know exactly where to strike. If they didn't have some sense of what I was feeling, if they didn't have some degree of empathy, their attacks would be blundering and random. They would not be able to inflict harm as well as they do if they did not have this capacity. Empathy doesn't require perfect understanding. The only way to perfectly understand another person is to... you can't! Because chances are that the person doesn't fully understand themselves, even. To have a better understanding of another person's feelings is to empathize with them more. I agree that empathy requires two separate entities (you could also empathize with a younger version of yourself, as there is that separation between who you are now and who you were, and they are likely, effectively two different people). It seems that you are saying that we really cannot know what other people are thinking and feeling. I think that is so silly. If someone is smiling and it is genuine, it is some degree of glad. If someone is using curse words, they are probably feeling angry. There are plenty of times when I meet with someone for therapy for the first time. In our first moment of interaction, I feel the nervousness. It is not my nervousness because I have done this plenty of times, and I am the one in the position of authority, as the therapist. I ask them, are they feeling nervous? Always, always they say yes. We can empathize with other people--to a degree--we can experience what other people are experiencing and feel what they feel because we are all human beings. We all have the same neurological structures and mirror neurons that allow us to do this with each other. It is evolutionarily a beneficial thing to be able to sense what another person is feeling and properly identify it. Is the person barring their teeth threatening and angry with you or are they smiling at your presence? It may be impossible to share the exact same feelings, but the flavor of the feelings is consistent among people. Anger is always anger, no matter what it looks like or how it is expressed. Too much empathy is the blurring of the self-other boundaries. That is a bad (inappropriate, unfitting, and unsuited for the situation. It is definitely not immoral) thing. That is when you have the suicidal person drive another person to feeling terrible and suicidal as well. I understand that you are personally troubled by what I have been sharing. But to use the phrase, "trying to inhabit" makes the act of empathy as I have suggested it a malicious action. It certainly can be used that way, as I described above with abusers. You say that it is impossible and unknowable to know what another person is feeling. Forgive the analysis, as it may be inappropriate and unsolicited, but you opened up the door when you began talking about your defenses to me. Just because you are not capable of doing it, doesn't mean that others cannot. I think that you are projecting your own personal experience onto others. I also think that you are resisting my definition because it is not something that you have been successful at. You are substituting a different definition--one that you can do--because you want to be an empathic person. I can understand that and respect that. You want to be an empathic person because if you do not have empathy, that must mean that you are a sociopath and abuser. No, you're not. I think that your capacity to empathize--my definition--has been damaged. You are fundamentally not a bad person for lacking this ability or struggling at it. You likely struggle with it because you have been abused. To say that you are a bad person because you cannot do this would be attacking and abusing you for fundamentally being attacked and abused in the past. I have no interest in doing that. But, I am totally open to being wrong about this. I am just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks, but I got a good feeling about these noodles. If that's true, then banishing these thoughts--that you are a bad person if you cannot empathize--would be the next step, and unfortunately that is therapeutic and inappropriate to do over the forums, nor is it easy work that I offer for free. Your definition of empathy seems either like detachment/dissociation OR having processed oneself to the point that one can do that. Both led to this, as dissociation mimics enlightenment. Perhaps you are trying to empathize with yourself here. What makes human beings so great is that we have the capacity to be self-reflective. You were definitely being self-reflective in this post, you are treating yourself as an external object to make better sense of your thoughts and feelings. If you can do it one external object, then you can do it with another. If you can do it with yourself, then you can do it with others.