travioli

This seems fairly complex, and I guess I will try to offer something novel to think about since a lot has already been addressed. I might be missing or oversimplyfing things...but the way I see it is a bit more straightforward and less "pro/con" intellectualizing. Whether or not cheating on her boy is good/bad, I think you should ask yourself what you would do in her situation. Like, would you feel proud of yourself if you found some girl who was seemingly way more virtuous than your current girlfriend? And that you had such a little bond with your current girlfriend that you didn't tell her, or were too scared to do so? And that this seemingly virtuous girl couldn't maturely handle the fact that you currently had a girlfriend without leaving? (I mean I assume she didn't tell you because she didn't want you to run away so fast--maybe insecurity). IMO It doesn't seem like very honorable stuff to me. And even if you don't find problems with that--when you put it as if you did those actions--then why would she be with someone who isn't virtuous (her current boyfriend) if she is supposedly so attracted to virtue? How could she not have a strong enough bond with her current partner to tell him about this situation, IF she claims to like virtue? That seems like some sort of dichotomy of living her values. So again; how would you feel if you were doing what she was doing? This might be rather hard to do because of what I assume to be some pretty strong feelings/infatuation. But, that's why I set up the switching of roles--that could distance you from her as a person and think of this more of a situation. Alas, I think if you respond to it in terms of putting you in her shoes, you'll find out whether you'd do something like that and would still find it respectable. If the answer is no, then that's all the thinking you really need.

I remember last year, I listened to a podcast with a caller who's mom would take him on vacations, give him money, but never really spend quality time with him. Stef said somewhere in the call "she substituted love for money" and went into that topic. The problem is, I want to find it again as it is applicable to my situation, but I'm not able to find it while looking through the various feeds. If anyone remembers what call in show I'm talking about, please help me out! Thanks, Travis

I mean, it's cheaper and you can be a lot more discriminator in your desires for attributes of a therapist, but yeah the filter of internet conversation is a lot less beneficial to face-to-face, in the same room type of conversation. I'd always thought it'd be better to have a therapist that fits all of my needs rather than a sub-par therapist that's in the same room with me. I just started with someone here on the boards, I'll PM you about it.

It's nice to hear from some people in Utah, and the trials of Mormonism. I also live in Utah and know what you guys mean.Are you guys in the SLC meet up group?

This may have crossed your mind, but have you thought of doing therapy through Skype/Google Hangouts? It surely gives me a lot more freedom to have selectivity about who I choose for myself--especially when we come from such a small community as this.What do you think about that option?

Wow...I got really tense just reading that! That seems like a very uncomfortable situation, and I'm glad you had the courage to share here, for us and yourself. In a tertiary way, it's another piece of evidence on how RTR-ing can really show the true colors of someone. And even though you had a postponed RTR with him, think of how much time it did save when you did do it (even though it ended badly, which is of course truly unfortunate).I appreciate your courage. That's not an easy process to go through.

Learned the approach: I initially heard this in a podcast from Stefan, at least the inspiration for doing it. Experience: Well, I just viewed it as two differing voices--the one that wanted to help me go try and new things, and not be so out of the moment, and then I had the voice that wanted the opposite. This voice was always not recognized as being different; as being a subself. I always would try to reason with it, usually flipping perspectives on how I don't really care if anyone looks awkward, let alone most people really don't. I tried to add that same empathy to myself, but the voice didn't care. I was reluctant to examine it since I had learned that self-attack is never really a good thing, but this isn't self-attack--it's attacking a harmful and destructive internalized alter; it's like my body fighting off a virus. I never really knew that it was a health "self"-attack and that it was a subself until I confronted it; I was really tired of being anxious to do simple things like go to the bank, or go practice my didgeridoo at the park, etc. I hated the way it made me feel like crap and not have fun in the moment. I just always would internally confront it with questions at first, but of course it just backed up because it didn't run on reason. It was like a microscopic voice that didn't respond to reason, and always controlled me out of my conscious awareness--i.e. my mother. Success: I think I have much greater control over not being over-controlled...haha. The negative analytical "all seeing eye" (which I think might be part of the reason the Eye of Mordor was present in the LOTR series--after all, when it looked at the hobbits, it paralyzed them for having the "ring," maybe symbolizing something like the truth..?). Ahem. The negative analytical "all seeing eye" does not have as much power over me as before--but it's still a work in progress. I don't ever want to abuse my true self in truing to confront my anxiety provoking overlord, so it's a bit of a reserved assault unless it's really apparent. It takes a lot of focus and RTR. Come back or resolved and content? I mean, I bet the voice will keep coming back for a while. Every time I do confront it in the moment, it doesn't really stick around for the next couple of days. But then it like...comes back again. I didn't really believe this subselves stuff until I saw how closely these voices resembled "selves" inside of me. For those few days, I feel content about winning another battle. Gives me more experience. How do I typically feel about myself? Wow that's a lot haha. Day to day, I am really focused on scheduling and getting things lined up in a row. I usually try to look to the next thing, once in a while being spontaneous. I have better days when I act more, and worse when I stagnate and let my analytic voice dominate.In general...I mean I've always been dominated by this voice until relatively recently. I feel like I go back and forth--that I'm really competent, smart, intuitive, lots of skills, but also that I don't know how I'll make it in the world (being 19 and trying to decide on a major, etc.) Socially, I usually feel like I'm under a microscope, and that I'm afraid of rejection and being viewed as unnecessarily "weird" in the bad way. I mean I don't know exactly how much you want to know about me, and you could ask more specific questions if you'd like, but there is some stuff pertaining to the post.

Maybe you just need to get mad at the voices. Like, if the incapacitating analytical voice were another person, I think you'd be pretty annoyed with them all the time. And if you were forced to be with them, it would take someone very dissociated to not break into a fit of rage about how this condescending person was being to them; their growth, their happiness, anything.My guess is this voice is something internalized, but only a guess. So maybe if you know someone in your life that has an overbearing and paralyzing effect on you, I'd pursue that and confront them. But anyway, to deal with this internal voice, you may need to recognize it as someone else who is sabotaging your efforts at living in the moment and feeling what you actually feel. And, if you've already tried to talk to it rationally and it isn't working, I would try another route--because I think the internalized voice (or self, or whatever you would want to call it) isn't founded on listening to reason, at all. This route would include anger. Like saying "What the hell are you doing for me? You're not really interested in helping me at all, are you? Because empirically, all you try to do is ruin my life and prevent me from growing as a person, so much to the point where I can't even respond to external stimuli! You're literally making my life an internal hell, you fuck!" I mean, you can address it to the specifics of the analytical voice's nature, and so on, which I bet are many. But that's the framework I'd use--confront that voice, attack it, RTR it. Say no to it running your life.

Yeah, this is a rather tough question to answer. It's hard because we don't know how amazing or different a free/functional society will be, or when it will, and so on. In general, I think the complexity of human life and interaction would still benefit from therapists--maybe in a modified role, but I think they would still be needed. I've thought about how I want to become a therapist (one day later in life) and then I thought on how my pay "depended" on people not being functional, so I have an "incentive" to make sure there are psychologically traumatized people so I can earn a living.. But that's as juvenile as saying that doctors (in a free market) would benefit from sick people and thus keep treatments from them--I mean, in a tertiary way this is the case, but their purpose is to reduce that suffering and are compensated for the value that they provide, just like therapists. Maybe that's the metaphor for me--therapists are like "mental doctors," and I don't think we'll ever not have a good use for them, just like physicians and so on. Because like medicine, psychology is a field, and we'll probably all need a couple dedicated people that spend their lives studying the stuff so that others can benefit from the division of labor. Their role will likely be in somehow different, but a patient-therapist relationship is one you can't always find in your parents or your friendships, (due to the voluntary nature, the hierarchy, the ability to use the therapist for only your needs, etc.) They have their own special role. Maybe some of that I can't articulate clearly, but that's my take on it.Good question!

He seems to be a little more impatient with the listeners, if anything. It's a mixed feeling for me. Sometimes the listeners are really needing someone to make them uncomfortable and pierce their defenses (I know I would need that in some areas), but I think the "hardcore" Stefan is a good change. I trust he knows pretty well when to try to strike down defenses, or to nuture people along in a call. Since he has many podcasts not being more "aggressive" (which doesn't compare to the type of atrocities that his callers have dealt with due the their families, usually), it gives the library a variety. It might have repercussions for sure, but the truth will have them no matter what you try to do.Also, I think as Stef puts out new shows, regular listeners--like most of us on the board--might get caught up in thinking that his current shows are his entire image, which of course it is a large part of how new viewers take him. But, sometimes we might have to remember that when he changes things, he changes them from what he already did; there still exists thousands of podcasts from 2006 onward that are available to consume. Essentialy, it's just a preference, and I see what you mean luizpauloalbers. Truth is the truth though. As he said once, "As long as they spell my name right!"

Jesus christ. People are real lunatics. I would be surprised if you didn't feel this emotional anguish when sadists came to you like this. You handled it well with the second interaction, because you took their power from them. You proved that you wouldn't be a target for their dysfunction, which you, (I think very accurately), assessed in you epiphany. And of course, those epiphanies come when we are more in line with ourselves, where the "revolving door" of feelings, erased by rationalization, erased by feeling etc. are when we might not be as self-trusting (like maybe you were before you wrote this topic for the first time). That's some pretty good progress from one board post, and I think that's excellent. It sounds like you are just in a vulnerable job...and you have a vulnerable history with the same people. That sounds really hard. But, I think it is a good sign that your supervisor let you go and understood. Hopefully the therapist you emailed is going to be competent enough for you're level of introspection.

You're welcome--it was fun for me! I guess that's what we're here for on the boards--to look out for each other.I'd like to hear developments when they come, as well.

You've really got an ability to self-examine yourself; firstly, I say kudos to you. So, my first reaction is that you coming across these people might be either of these two reasons. 1. You are somehow unconsciously attracting these people into your "orbit" because of unresolved issues. 2. The propensity of people that are like your parents is just very high--sociopaths and narcs let alone--people are just generally psychologically broken, can't negotiate, etc. Or, it could be both, in some degree of relationship. My guess is that you could have resolved your issues and be mistaking them being unresolved for option 2. (Because if you're this introspective and cautious, I would infer that you have a strong hold on the question of unconsciously recreating your childhood) Also, I think your anger is healthy. It might suck and be detrimental for the rest of your sales that day, as you say, but to be angry at people who resemble your parents, (or just general dickheads) means you have what some call "emotional immunity" to dysfunction. So this anger might be something healthy, rather than something that you seem to want to be fixing. Even if you do overcome the trauma's of your childhood, the pain button will always be there to some degree. So maybe the fact that people's destructive behavior with you "gets under your skin" is not indicative of unresolved trauma, but a healthy recognition of dysfunction, (that also happens to be similar to your dysfunctional environment in your childhood). I don't think this is a bad thing--if you were starved from attention and had little influence, I think it'd be great for your growth process to be put in an environment when that changes. It's like coming up for air when you've been drowned your entire childhood. And it makes sense that you used to be socially anxious and took a night job to avoid dealing with people--because now you've overcome that anxiety (that was most likely a result of unresolved issues). It seems like your initial emotional reaction is that it is their fault--i.e. a dispositional judgement. But then the second half of this quote, you seem to retreat into a rationalization of "I take full responsibility for my performance." So, these are two very different things. Maybe it is one or the other, or both, or you haven't noticed this discrepancy--therefore I felt like pointing it out. And who's to say it's not their fault for being unable to communicate/negotiate/be a decent human being? You seem to be initially feeling that it's them, and then retreating intellectually to criticize yourself. Some of those introspective criticisms might be legitimate and helpful, but I think some of them are you not trusting your emotional instincts, which often are right, (especially being self aware, as you seem to be). I hope that all helps!

Yeah, I mean indoctrination doesn't have the same immediate effects of say peer-bullying, because your entire environment is doing it; it's normalized. I agree with you. And maybe I'm using the term bully in other contexts as well, like using it to describe how parents are in a community that is emotionally distant towards their child, i.e. some sort of neglectful behavior. But yeah--maybe I mean bullying in a different degree or type. And for sure it doesn't feel the same to the child in the moment; I think that is due to indoctrination's detriments becoming a very internalized aspect of a child, rather than receiving detriments in an external, immediate source from say peer-bullying. Although, I still think it is as, (if not more/in different ways), harmful to a child's well being, even though it is harder to detect.

An LDS article that totally misses the point; in fact I would say it makes an anti-point. I don't know how far indoctrination will go in religion. I thought I'd seen some pretty messed up stuff... but then someone posted this article and it showed up in my Facebook feed. I live in the most concentrated LDS part of the United States; Utah. The amount of unacknowledged trauma in this state is overwhelming. So infuriating, so sad. http://ldsliving.com/story/76598-the-sad-truth-about-bullying-at-church Myth: "Church is supposed to be a safe place for our children" Fact: Church could arguably be the most destructive place for your child's development. Say goodbye to self-esteem, critical thinking, and a joy of existence--say hello mental health problems. False Premise: Only children in your church (ward) can bully your children. True Premise: The very act of taking your children to church is a very extreme form of bullying, because they are inculcated against any refuge-seeking, since their caregiver(s) are indoctrinated in the very system that abuses them. Etc...You could tear apart this article for days. Of course, the author is blind to how the fact that bringing your kids to church, (especially this breed of mormonism in Utah), is much worse damage than any peer-bully could do to her. And how could a mother be so unaware of this bullying? Oh yeah, by not having a real connection with her daughter in the first place--a connection to where the child would feel she had a secure base to assert herself in the face of bullies, let alone just telling her mom about the bullying. So you must ask...what are other reasons that the child doesn't just tell her mother about these awful events? I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it's because the child knows, deep down, that her mom is a bully too. Done.

Hey everyone, I haven't posted much on the board, especially in the past three months, and I would like to share what I spent my past summer doing. DCI, or Drum Corps International, is marching music's major league, where many different corps compete for the title of best in the world at the World Championships in Indiana. The corps that I was a member of, the Troopers, received 14th at Finals, and this is our final performance. I thought it was a great piece of art and entertainment that I could share with all you cool cats here at FDR. I hope you enjoy!P.S. I know the show is about the Abraham Lincoln (and praising him, basically), which I didn't really care for or agree with, but I hope you can enjoy the show for it's more essential qualities. -Travishttp://youtu.be/C3YmesvmLAo

This is a really good review. I had my own thoughts about the movie, after a lot of face palming while watching it for the first time. This review is more of a metaphorical view on the movie, and it makes more cohesive sense. For example, some of the quibbles I had with it were mostly disconnected, not overarching. I didn't like how they defined love as putting someone's needs before yours, (as if there is a dichotomy between people's needs when they love each other), how Anna, when going to search for Elsa, was warned that she would die, or that Elsa would harm her, but she just said "No she won't, she's my sister!" This reminded me of the cult of the family, especially how it contradicted the evidence that Elsa did hurt her in the past, and basically left her all alone in her childhood. Of course now, this makes more sense with the theory that Anna and Elsa are false self and true self, respectively. The only criticism I did have of it that was covering the totality of the movie, was that I didn't how understand how Elsa ended up being so powerful and virtuous--as well as most the other cast in many aspects; Elsa just caught my attention--when they all had significant emotional trauma. Anna and Elsa's parents died, then neglected in a huge castle, Cristoff's only real friend was a Reindeer, and Hans was ignored by his brothers for 2 years, brushing it off, (although, Hans' identity by the end of the movie did make sense with his abuse and ignoring of it's pain that it caused him in his childhood).But now, I see most the criticisms I had were surface level. I still didn't like the film, (also because of the portrayal of ordinary, mostly boring, and "fixer-upper" characters), but I can appreciate the psychological aspects, which I sensed. Thanks for your review!!

I do often feel this. Not only in regards to others that I'm trying to give a bit of advice for, but also myself. With others, I used to be more "discounting" as you say--to say that they shouldn't feel it or explain it away. Obviously here you were in more of a curiosity/understanding mindset which is better. With myself, I've found that when I accept the full reality of the emotion, whatever it may be, and then find why I'm having that emotion and what it means for the future, it tends to go away. Paradoxically enough, my (mostly "negative") emotions go away when I let myself feel them, and they come back and are very stifling and stubborn when I don't consciously experience them and let myself feel them. I guess a way I would deal with it when it comes to others, is to tell them that they are feeling the emotion for a reason, and not to be hostile to it. I guess you could show them by example on how feeling your emotions is important. So, maybe just help them understand emotions in general, rather than feel like discounting their particular emotion. Of course I think it is good to help a child understand if he feels something from a horror movie, that it's fake etc. but also that the emotion is an important part of life, that it means something.

I would say businesses that lobby, and use the force of government, (subsidies, regulations, barriers to entry), to achieve their ends, rather than the voluntary actions of individuals, are immoral indeed.But at the same time, we can see that the incentives in place are supporting and encouraging immorality. This does not justify immorality, but we can see what the cause is. Another analogy Stef used was the problem when a hockey net becomes bigger, but business that don't lobby are still trying to shoot the puck into the smaller, prior version of the hockey net. I don't know if anyone has heard the idiom "Don't hate the player, hate the game," but I think it's pretty applicable here; even though the businesses that collude with government and use force to get what they want are in fact immoral, we should look at the root of the problem which is the political-economic system that is in place. It is the precondition to lobbying behavior, creating huge incentives to be immoral and use force to get ahead. To focus more on the immorality of the lobbyists, rather than the government, is to not see the essential problem here.

Exactly. By the by, this was the oddity that I saw in the Objectivist argument for "voluntary taxation", which if logically applied is more like a DRO system than a state. Any taxation cannot be justified from it's effects--even if we did accept that the state was "legitimate" in having the police, law courts, and military, we could not then justify taxation from that.

That's what I was kinda doing, or trying. But apparently it wasn't "attractive" enough for her, even though she said she really appreciated and respected our conversations about the topic. I felt like I wasn't given the chance, particularly, to be intimate in any other form than in conversation. I didn't negotiate with her about that, and it felt like I didn't have any power to negotiate. I don't know if that would be possible to teach her specifically, while being in a romantic relationship. She just felt too uncomfortable with that, i.e. she wasn't attracted to me. As for the "other women that were possibilities"...there aren't really many haha. Either they don't come around, or I don't really go searching for the. I haven't been actively looking for a partner, and I guess it was a spontaneous opportunity that I thought I had. The reasons that we started getting involved with each other was basically proximity, though; same scholarship group, shared 2 classes together, she lives across the hall from me on campus, etc. I mentioned earlier the reasons that I liked her, quoted below. Oh geeze. Haha. Basically, my dad is the breadwinner. A bit of a workaholic, but he is a successful supervisor and general contractor for a construction company. He really does a lot of things for the company, and works on multiple job sites throughout Utah. He got an associates in Construction/Architecture or something.My mom used to be an accountant, but now she works as a secretary for a small methodist church. She's been trying to leave the job for 2 years but always puts it off, putting herself down that she doesn't really have marketable skills, and how she doesn't want to go back to school (if that's the only way to gain skills, as I've challenged with her). Taken that into account, I basically see my dad has more qualities than my mom in the relationship, and brings more to the table. As far as how they relate emotionally, I don't ever remember them showing too much affection, or being open about it, or anything like that. My dad once said "sometimes it hasn't been the perfect marriage, but we're fine most all of the time." So it sounds like they don't really have a super strong, principled, etc. relationship. They converse a lot, but I never hear them talking about their relationship, or trying to teach me any important things about relationships, (by example or by words). To be honest, I don't really know a ton about it, something that I've been meaning to ask about lately. I get the feeling that it's kind of "something we don't talk about", because of the fear/awkwardness I feel when I start asking them about their relationship.A thing I've seen in relation to my recent ex, it seems like my dad compromises for my mom, in terms of their values and virtues (using those terms in a loose sense). I bet that last part has something to do with how I usually get with girls who I fundamentally don't think are equal to me (as was the case with this last girl). I hope that description is useful.

Yeah, that answers it. The whole growth panic; The need to normalize abusive behavior from her caregivers, so she would have to find people who act out that same way as they did, or else she will have to face the reality that she suffered evil by being with someone who is their opposite. I don't think I'll know, but I don't think it was sexual. I think that whole ploy of her saying "I'm afraid of rape and I associate that with sex" was a copout to basically tell me she didn't think I was attractive. Maybe not...but when I asked her about that and expressed my concern, that's what I understood from her. Possibly verbal. She doesn't like that her traditional asian mom made expectations for her, and she always talks about how "society" tries to put you in a box; I always tell her to not mistake her mom for society...but she doesn't receive it as well as pretty much everything else I say.

In what way is the way she is acting her recreating unprocessed trauma? Too true. I need to conquer this self-erasure problem. It's funny...because I'm an intellectual advocate of Ayn Rand's conception of selfishness, and that sacrifice is a bad/self-destructive thing, but then here I am in my personal relationships not understanding it on an emotional level.

Interested! Skype name: Travis Boren (I think)

My question is--why is cycling through these "obsessions" necessarily a bad thing? Not saying it couldn't be, but I don't see that reasoning in your post.I mean, if these are things you all really enjoy, then maybe that's a good reason why you like to think about them. It seems a little odd that they happen in cycles, but I think if you like those things you shouldn't worry about changing your focus, as long as you act towards what you like.