Eh Steve

There is likely some evidence of video games decreasing violence in society. I'd need to google it to be certain, I believe the causality is pretty difficult to parse out at this point. One reason to assume this is the case are the studies on rape statistics and prevelance of pornography. Porn has a pretty clear casual effect in reducing rape you can look into.

Thanks for the reply Sean. I am both rusty on this stuff and not trained in it soooo I'm willing to be wrong and share ideas with you to hopefully help us both sharpen our knowledge of this stuff My idea has a bit more to do with Philosophy as opposed to IFS (IFS being a proxy here). The reason I say coherence therapy can be plugged into therapies is because it is very very efficiently crafted. It is a precise methodology designed for breakthroughs in changing implicit memory. The question becomes whether or not other therapies are seeking to do this and failing, in which case they should be replaced, or if they are seeking to do this in combination with some other purpose. If they are seeking additional purposes along with altering implicit beliefs/learnings/meanings which are causing problems, and have say exploratory or philosophical aims, then Coherence can be plugged into them eclectically to fit the part of the therapy which wants to change meanings and other methods can be used for other purposes. The approach may differ slightly with each methodology, the terminology may be different, parts may be involved, the juxtapositional evidence may differ, but the steps should be very similar. I view, and I believe Ecker views, Coherence therapy as a series of steps or a methodology, which can be translated into other experiential therapies or eclectic approaches. The debate to me becomes.... If you are changing implicit beliefs about your parents for example. If philosophically you believe in something like Honor thy Mother and thy Father, you're going to run into alllll kinds of issues changing the belief to a more accurate and useful meaning. Whether philosophical beliefs are held within implicit memory or not is another curious question to me and a huge can of worms. It isn't something I can answer right now and leads to some very curious questions about the therapists approach to things like forgiveness and general worldview and how it might interact with the meanings constructed in therapy. I also am curious with Coherences approach as being brief. It is quite symptom adjusting, although they wouldn't be pleased with that phrasing, in that you come in with say panic attacks. The general goal is figuring out root causes of symptoms and changing the beliefs which are causing them. One handy tool I want to consider is taking the fast acting change from Coherence therapy and making a general road map of areas to explore and change. A lot of problems in life may not come up as distressing or obvious with clients to fix. I am thinking more holistically...where a long term approach therapy covering many many topics, each quickly alterable with coherence therapy, could be very interesting indeed. It would perhaps be a bit more therapist driven than client driven in that the sessions wouldn't always explicitly be driven by problematic conscious symptoms. For example.... In general I think one issue for many people would be life achievement / greatness / bigness. This might not come up as an apparent symptom for a lot of people. And yet I think most people's potential is ridiculously high if they accept a different implicit meaning of their own potential. This could be something a therapist could consider suggesting to a client that the client may not necessarily be aware of in themselves. I hope that helps spell out my ideas a bit further. Attempting to explain it while being very rusty with IFS wasn't a great idea. Luckily I'm moving to the bay area soon, IFS is partially centered north of San Fran, Coherence therapy people are all in Oakland, so I can keep in contact with you as I meet and chat / train with these folks over the coming months

Could be the case. In other cases I'm aware of people put on a dishonest persona to get people into bed (whether male or female). Weirdly I was thinking about this topic today and I really stand behind the idea I proposed. I wasn't aware when writing it but I figured out that I know several relationships which have broken up or are on the rocks with my friends were forged with the premise MattD posted (not that he agrees with it. I know many many relationships, all of which have a similar pattern, were forged exclusively on "I had the best sex with this person". It kind of blew my mind when I realized this, but literally many people I've known over the years have told me this exact statement. I don't know a lot of people in happy functional relationships right now, so I can't really comment with a huge sample size here. But every relationship I've ever seen that was formed on the basis of enjoyable sex has lead to the inevitable decline in infatuation and then the dearth/lack of relationship skills end up crushing the relationship in the long run. I think sex is kind of a ...lets say caveman... approach to relationships. We can go into K vs. R reproductive strategies etc.. for that. But if the basis of your relationship is how good the sex is.... Sex eventually has a novelty factor for most people. So you are going to break up if your standard of who you will be with is based on the quality of the sex. Much like choosing a woman for her looks, there is a ticking clock going on here. It just kind of stunned me how I realized I have, basically everyone I've ever talked to about their relationships at any depth, the theory MattD posted is friggen how everyone I've ever talked to described their relationship. It was always about the person they had the best relationship with. They all eventually became less infatuated. They all had very little to no communication skills and eventually collapsed. I don't mean to badger the point I'm just excited I think confidence in relationship comes from knowing relationship maintaining skills and getting together with someone else who does too. Along with that you tap into your emotions...theoretically someone who knows how to maintain relationships should be pretty pleasant to be aroudn emotionally in the first place, but yeah you can peg your emotional enjoyment of the person as well... But dammmmn have I seen the other theory fail repetitively now that I think about it.

I'm a bit of a novice in both fields so this isn't something I can do perfectly just yet. Keeping that in mind here is how I think it would go. Coherence therapy could be more aptly called "The process to trigger a disruption and rewriting of memories". This is mentioned in the end of Ecker's presentation of how the steps in Coherence Therapy can be plugged into many therapies which are similar. IFS, EMDR, Hakomi, Focusing, EFT, ACT (affect centered). These are all known as experiential therapies. They tend to have a guiding philosophy of the emotional re-experience of feelings rather than examining the cognitive components of beliefs. They also tend to be non-counteractive, which is integral in Coherence, of believing your feelings/behaviors have an emotionally compelling reason to exist. So rather than fight your behaviors or feelings you seek to understand them. The process in Coherence therapy can be translated into all these different therapies. In IFS I believe it would be phrased as a way of negotiating between your parts. You do not fight your firefighters/protectors who are presenting problematic symptoms (overeating, depression etc.). You say "I bet you are doing this for an emotionally compelling reason, lets explore etc.". This will lead you to the harmed part the protector is trying to protect, I believe these are called exiles. This is the part which is generating the need for the problematic behavior. Often we'll find that someone overeats for an example because it is the only way they can feel safe or loved, and without this symptom they feel horrible and unable to be comforted. So in a sense IFS can be a method of learning about these different parts and exploring different aspects of yourself. But Coherence therapy would be the model/method by which you transform harmed parts of yourself and no longer need the problematic behaviors from the protectors. Coherence therapy is a methodology of change, but not necessarily a protracted exploration of your history or philosophical exploration of beliefs. I believe Coherence therapy is intended to be the process by which you unburden your exiled part. I believe IFS can be more useful as a way of identify parts and self exploration, whereas coherence will be the methodology of change/unburdening. I hope this makes sense. It isn't very well put together just yet as I'm a bit rusty on these things. If you are familiar with Jay Earley...https://selftherapyjourney.com/Pattern/Beginning/Who_We_Are.aspx One of the fellows he works with does a combination of IFS and Coherence therapy (along with other experiential therapies). I'm sure there are a lot of therapists who work with both and could explain their process quite well. I just need to do some digging to find them

I had to do a quick refresher course on empathy to properly give my answer here. Your definition lacks one essential key in understanding empathy. Per wikipedia (emphasis mine): Empathy is the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.[1] Basically...people who lack empathy do not always lack an understanding intellectually of the other persons feelings. Lacking empathy is the inability to feel another person's feelings. A lot of training with autistic people to my knowledge is the understanding part of someone elses feelings, where you study facial patterns for sadness, happiness etc. And they have to intellectually remember these things to better understand people. They can't necessarily empathize genuinely, but they learn intellectually to recognize others feelings and sometimes ways to best deal with others who feel a certain way. A lack of empathy is not always synonymous with cruelty or malice. As you pointed out, a lack of empathy is not necessarily the same as a lack of sympathy. For example if someone is terrified of being weak/crying, and sees a man crying. He may empathize with that person, very capable of putting himself in that persons shoes. However, due to trauma etc.. he finds this feeling completely dangerous and will react negatively towards the other person for infecting him with those dangerous feelings or displaying them publicly. This is what comes around when certain feelings are unacceptable, it is not always a lack of empathy, more usual is a lack of sympathy (which to my knowledge is more culturally reinforced whereas empathy is an almost purely biological phenomenon with the development of specific mirror neurons from nurturing). I have some thoughts on the problem solving dilemma but can't articulate them well right now. I agree in large part with what you've proposed though so it would just be agreeing with my own spin on things Thanks for the post, it was stimulating and fun to respond to and think about.

This is just my opinion The theory proposed seems to be that we can find the value of a persons character by measuring our sexual enjoyment with them. And understanding that pleasure and character are intertwined. In practice there is nothing particularly wrong or immoral with this theory. The question to me becomes...are we only measuring sexual enjoyment? Because this is where the theory seems to fail. A lot of people report having their best sex with crazy women. So the lesson here doesn't seem to be applying unless you happen to meet the right person to make this assessment. And are the right people going to sleep with you to help you make this judgement when biologically good women are not likely to be taking this route. The question to me becomes... can we find bodily pleasure to give us this information outside of sexual interactions? I would argue yes. You can find bodily pleasure without having sex with someone and it will give you the same indications of the persons character proposed here, without the issues of the endorphins of sex muddling your opinions, risks of STDs, risks of pregnancy etc. etc. Having conversations with people I find brings about a state similar on which I can judge whether or not the sex would be good with them. Certain people I feel tense around, or I feel they are withholding or dishonest or dangerous, other people I feel relaxed around, jovial, honest and well connected. I can use these biological markers / feelings of comfort/joy/happiness to choose who I have sex with. I don't need to have sex with someone to figure these things out. I think this individual has the idea backwards from my personal experience. And frankly the notion doesn't really match up biologically...a lot of this stuff comes out because we now have reliable birth control, without that this theory would be dead in the water. And I think a lot of the stress around sex comes because birth control never completely satisfies the anxieties we feel from sexual activities with the wrong/untrustworthy/non-loved person. (at least my experience here). I would argue there is a lot right with this theory. But I would argue rather than sexual acts which come with giant risks you can get the same principle and benefits from conversations and spending time together in a non sexual way. Thoughts?

TLDR: No, time stamps are a function of the player and not of the file itself. Some FDR podcasts are time stamped, most are not. Typically what I do in this situation is I'll tell a friend "listen at minute XYZ for the part I wanted to share with you". Here is a longer explanation of how I figured this all out: Some of the podcasts come with that automatically done in the feed for you to click on. For example: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2930/wage-fixing-and-collusion-listener-mailbag-questions-answered This one has the questions timestamped. Unfortunately it looks like (I just dug into the data to learn this ) that the podcasts which are timestamps are explicitly tagged within the code with "timestamplinks". So in the code it has a function called skipto.(stamp.timestamp) Unfortunately....when you link a youtube video it has a function where it will link with minute and second in the link. With podcasts we do not currently have this option as the timestamps are hardcoded into the player . This is a function of the player itself and not of the audio or video file itself. If the video is on youtube you can share it using the youtube player option to do this. But currently with audio files you'll have to rely on the good graces of the tech team to timestamp audio. I suspect it would be easiest to just have people go to a specific minute. If you want to create and use your own timestamps on a regular basis I'd be happy to help you figure out how best to do that. Edit: Theoretically you might be able to add some function into the audio player of your browser to do this. I currently can't figure one out or even figure out the name of the audio player my browser uses. So possibly someone will have a "yes! here is how!" answer. But right now I don't see how within a standard browser setup.

I can't really tell you what you should feel. Buuut here is my take on the matter. You might want to give Stef's recent video on make up a listen to to clear this up a bit. To me the feeling of disgust you are experiencing (and I get a similar feeling at times) is from being manipulated and lied to. I would feel a similar kind of revulsion from a christian family talking about how much they love eachother. I would argue it isn't necessarily her physical attractiveness which disgusted you, but the manipulative nature by which it was wielded. For example you cited being pouty as something which lead you to feel disgust. And I think the disgust is a good thing to feel around "sexy" women who are manipulative or shallow. It certainly beats feeling aroused or attracted to them. When I see a sexy woman who is completely mainstream and retarded it disgusts me regardless of how pretty she is. And often her prettiness / make up / vanity feeding into her air-headed conformity only serves to disgust me more. For example: Lorde singing Royals. The song is full of wonderful prose about how she'll always be a thick skinned commoner and doesn't aspire to be a royal. But it is friggen revolting because it is basically saying "well the royals suck, but we sure are great aren't we? We hard done by commoners are the best!" Ughhh so gross. The disgust to me comes from interacting with sexually manipulative women who are mainstream conformists. Who aren't interested in any sort of depth or honesty or virtue in their lives....especially when they are trying to be deep and meaningful. It is just gross. That was the thing for me as well in high school. It felt horrible to feel rejected by all these sexy girls I wanted to sleep and/or feel loved and accepted by. The problem here was they were physically appealing, but spiritually and culturally they for the most part were my enemies. So it sucks when your body goes "EGGSSS!! FRESH EGGS!!!" and your moral senses / brain / heart go "Ewwwwwwwwww disgusting human being alert!" This contradiction in experience between sexual arousal and spiritual/philosophical arousal is pretty hellish and unpleasant and drives a good percentage of us insane in our teenage years and early 20's until we get some self-knowledge under our belts and can make peace that we aren't going to find satisfying relationships with the sex-painted up muggles around us. And at that point for me was when I started to experience disgust when otherwise pretty girls would hit on me. Any thoughts? I hope this makes at least my thoughts clear on this and maybe gives you some relevant things to noodle about.

8-Bit Philsophy has some interesting stuff. This video in particular struck a cord as it matches the general theory we propose here. The state is a result or mirror of parenting and internal repression and a desire to make our external world match our internal world. What do y'all think?

I've been loosely studying Coherence Therapy for years but haven't been trained or experienced it personally. If the effects can be proven empirically (they only have one study out last I checked) this would be a huge deal for psychotherapy. My current plan is to work the framework of Coherence therapy into IFS as a pet project of mine. Basically a way of negotiating with various parts. In the IFS system I'm sure you could redefine the terms within the coherence model to suit the system and possibly enhance the process a tremendous amount. Here are some more interviews with Ecker if you're interested discussing coherence therapy and memory reconsolidation: http://shrinkrapradio.com/330-unlocking-the-emotional-brain-with-bruce-ecker-m-a/ https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/reconsolidation-a-universal-integrative-framework-for-highly-effective-psychotherapy/ He had two interviews with Dr. Van Nuys over at mentalhelp.net on his wise counsel podcast but I guess they are transitioning away from that podcast :/ Can't seem to find the transcripts right now. Edit: The wise counsel podcast interviews of Ecker appear to still be grabbable on iTunes if you want to listen. It is a very very interesting methodology and I really appreciate that it is more of a framework. He talks about how he formed it by studying his experience with clients and figuring out the days where rapid change happened and then figuring out why. And you can plug it into all kinds of different therapies with similar emotional experiential techniques. It has yet to be proven from a rigorous scientific standpoint but is very very promising in a way I'm not seeing from any other psychotherapy at the moment. I'm delighted to see it being posted about here, it is fascinating stuff.

Oh that is interesting. I think much like everything you can somewhat objectively predict the impact of your story on people's emotions. You don't write a tragedy thinking "ohh some people might thinks this hilarious, but I bet it will make a lot of people hungry". Emotions are subjective experiences but can be somewhat though not perfectly predicted objectively. It is mostly internally logically predictable how a story will effect people. Just as an example: if you write a gay love story some people will react differently if they are prejudiced or not. And straight people might not get the same sense of romance a gay person would by being able to empathize/sympathize with the characters. Basically the logic is consistent and predictable but people are different so you can't exactly write the same story for everyone.

Oh dude...there was some research on reddit around graphing plots of novels that was really cool I think you'd like. (found it.) CIPA or masochism (or some weird outlier) burning yourself will make you feel pain. This can probably be related to all kinds of emotions that tend to have a standardized objective predictable response in humans. Romantic love, vengence, justice, desire, can all be considered objective predictable things, but are experienced subjectively. So the plot points you are talking about can probably be objectively considered to be predictable human instincts, behaviors, desires, whatever. But we are talking about the objective measurement of subjective things. So a novel can speak to objective commonalities of subjective experience. But it can't objectively determine its subjective impact on other people as directly I imagine? Some people might be moved to tears, others bored to death. But we can all typically all respond to having some connection to feelings and experiences that are common to humans and probably most animals if you want to talk about fear and more primal things. And a novelist understanding the objective nature of his own subjective experience can express his ideas predicting how it will impact others. So maybe empathy is what turns your experience of your own feelings from subjective to objective ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So none of the above is axiomatic or I'm not even sure if it is correct frankly, but that is my amateur take on the ideas.

First off I'm sorry about your childhood and the resulting fears and issues it has given you to deal with. I understand these childhoods are basically the norm but I do sympathize that you didn't deserve that as a child and it wasn't the right thing for your mother to be doing. The behavior you are proposing is that apologizing for half-truths, ignoring the good aspects of something while only focusing on the bad, is UPB. It is something everyone should do and is the right thing to do in this situation. I agree this is true. The question then becomes: If this is a universal standard of behavior, do you hold other people up to this same standard of behavior? Has your mother apologized for the verbal abuse she inflicted upon you? I genuinely don't know how your relationship with her is going, since you haven't talked much about it I'd assume she has not. Because such a drastic change in a relationship is pretty dang noteworthy I'd say it's likely she hasn't to any significant degree. I don't think her abuse had the intended consequence of your desire for success or immense fear of failure. I doubt it had much long term intention outside of immediate anxiety avoidance. So to credit her abuse with long term success isn't really fair. I don't think she was screaming at you thinking "This will turn him into someone terrified of failure, but...he'll be a big success!" She was as you described a screamer who wasn't particularly interested in your development. When we talk about evil/abuse we need to ask ourselves "Is this right or wrong?". And not get too hung up on the results of the abuse. If someone tries to shoot you and ends up shooting someone who was going to stab you...you don't credit them with saving your life. I think you can be thankful to the part of yourself that interpreted her verbal abuse and your upbringing in general and spurred you onto financial success. I think if you've been hard on that part of yourself you may in fact owe it an apology. As it was the one who looked towards your future development and made you successful. But your mother wasn't a factor in that, she just screamed at you with as you claim no great sense on what impact it would have on you long-term. For all she knew you could have become schizophrenic and homeless as a result of her verbal abuse. But fundamentally that would credit her with even considering your future which it sounds like she never did. I don't feel you owe her any sort of apology for something she never intended or considered happening. Let me know what you think. And once again I'm sorry what you've been through. And even on top of that I'm sorry you now have to consider that abuse might have made you stronger, that is a weird sort of hell to be put into and figure out.

I can help you in digging up this information. Here is a general subject that doesn't address sexual arousal but will give you some hints on the general science behind emotion vs. IQ. I'll dig around for the actual IQ and arousal studies as I recall actually reading them at some point. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/leading-emotional-intelligence/201104/where-did-my-iq-points-go Heh... one link down on my google search: here is something more relevant: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-interacting-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired/ I'm googling IQ drop sexual arousal right now as I search for the studies.

A funny thought crossed my mind... Define: Benefits. We are talking about sex specifically as a benefit. But theoretically, joke telling, intimacy, honesty, intelligence, someone to go rock climbing with, someone who loves the same things you do, these could all be considered benefits as well. In my head I kind of wonder... maybe sex with friends is depriving us of these other benefits. And if this person has all these other benefits why not just date them exclusively? And if they don't have other benefits you find irresistible..to what extent is having sex with them taking away time hunting down someone you love. I've personally never been able to separate sex from bonding with anyone I cared at all about. So it always seemed the only option to me was one night stands with people I didn't particularly like, sex with friends which ended up becoming romantically interested, or sex within a committed relationship. The problem for me has always been sex with people I don't particularly care about isn't any fun. And sex with people who I'm friends with or like...well we either don't get the time to get to know eachother which makes the bonding feel weird, or we spoil a relationship by having sex before knowing eachother. I never found a way to suggest friends with benefits was a good idea. Especially as I'm getting older and wanting kids...it just seems like a big waste of time in a more significant way than other wastes of time, since your heart gets muddled and takes a while to repair.

These ideas aren't from links or professionals just my own amature noodling. This isn't anything I've dealt with for a child or even something I've struggled with myself so take this all with a huge grain of salt: So instead! I googled a bit more and found another useful tip from a non-amatuer http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/11075311/Children-and-the-fear-of-death.html The basic idea here..you can read more, but basically you set up a ritualized time in the day for him to have his worries and discuss them with you. That takes a lot of the randomness and bed time prompting out of it... which is when his mind is going to wander and these fears come up. And gives him a certainty that these worries will be discussed (among others worries he may have in his life at some point). I think it takes a lot of stress away from your son to know he doesn't need to come to you when he's worried, that it is sort of a routine thing you two deal with daily at some point. The advice at the end is interesting from a positive psychologist moment: basically adding the reasons being alive is fun rather than focusing too too much (though not ignoring) the unpleasant reality of death. Now onto my non-sense that may or may not be helpful. So it sounds like he is intellectually understanding he's in no actual danger. If this were not the case I'd consider talking a bit about illness and doctors visits and maybe data on how long people live. Dying at his age is really really unlikely, that might be useful to figure out. It is possible in my mind a doctors visit to give him a clean bill of health might be helpful. And perhaps one for you and any partner you may have might sooth his mind if he's worried about others. He's been worried about this for what seems like long enough to consider heading over to a child psychologist. I'm not sure if he's there yet but what I've found is typically a six month period. If I recall correctly he's a few months into this worry? I think taking advice from professionals is good stuff, whether that be in articles or with a real life counselor. And it helps not having to worry whether that Eh Steve guy is giving good advice (which frankly I don't know if I am ) It is interesting he's saying his body and mind disagree on the fear. That would be an area to explore perhaps asking him what his body has to say about it. One interesting thing that comes to mind is....the way I see it there are a few fears of death. Fear of death itself as an experience, fear of dying or being ill at some point, or being afraid you are currently at risk of dying or feeling ill. It is pretty typical for kids to be afraid of robbers breaking in or monsters in the closet which resemble this fear, which is less of death and more of being attacked or unsafe. It is also curious to understand exactly what his fear of death feeling is. Could it just be that he is trying to get a good grasp of the concept of self-generated fear? Perhaps that is a possibility that he's not particularly used to fear, especially fear generated by his own thoughts. I hope some of this is helpful. I think the idea of a sitdown time each day to talk about worries is a pretty good idea. Though a sitdown time in general to talk about hopes and dreams and cool stuff might help to not get overly negative. I hope things get better Diaz, let us know how things are going if you can

1. How can I prove/test this theory? 2. How can I get a sense of identifying each part as being separate personalities rather than differing perspectives of a singular ego? 3. Do my different parts get names? Will they have unique voices? How will I recognize them? 4. How do I balance negotiations when all choices we make are inherently going to deny other choices? -For example: How do we balance the desire to self-medicate vs. the desire to not self-medicate? -How do we get the parts who are self-destructive to communicate verbally rather than through actions? 5. How do we quickly negotiate towards happiness and away from corruption? 6. What do I do with anger towards myself and parts who are hostile? 7. How can I negotiate with my parts to continue this therapeutic process? I'm super excited for your book my friend! Let me know if you need any help from someone not well versed but enthusiastic and supportive I'm about to enter IFS therapy in a few weeks. In time I want to try both IFS and Coherence therapy and see if I can blend the two theories into something tangible. Coherence therapy is less of a system and more of a methodology and I really want to see if it can expedite negotiations with parts

https://youtu.be/z4rrKt7OPFk?t=34m22s The conversation seems to start more around here a minute and a half back. The sarcasm I was picking up on here is more around him mocking the idea that his mother would have new boyfriends. As the conversation continues he talks about how DeFOOing came to him at a young age which is basically saying he disliked his parents at a young age. The amazing cat woman thing....I think if he was alone Stef would have been like...wait what? But he wanted to get onto the girlfriend and move the topic forward. The emotional tenor in his voice definitely lacks his prior sarcasm and does come off with like glowing reverance, which is bizarre because it doesn't match his previous tone or what seems to be his actual opinion. I prefer not to throw things off as "oh that was just an accident", but there is something there which doesn't make sense. I don't imagine he likes his mother but like most people probably still has some issues to work out there. I also picked this up a bit at the beginning where I linked where he rapid fires through his mothers divorce and later dating. A lot of the problem I had with this couple was that sort of lack of appreciating the depth or importance of the subject matter. But I can't say that is a hard and fast rule and one I know for sure I'm right about. Just seems to be how these subjects struck me. What do you think if you start back a minute further?

A funny thought just struck me. The cure to d#$knapping (kidnapping) is d#$k napping (putting down for a nap)

I'm glad this is helping you Sasha I'm not sure if Richard intended for these videos to be shared freely. I am fairly sure they are part of his overcoming narcissitic abuse course. Here you can see the information about the course and sign up if you're interested: http://spartanlifecoach.com/overcome-narcissistic-abuse-course/ It also seems to come with audio files and written exercises. He asks $48 for the course on his website.

Poor Unfortunate Souls from The Little Mermaid sung by the guy who wrote it: Howard Ashman. I enjoy his vocal performance, especially certain flourishes. The lyrics are remarkably well done, evil promises you love / wealth for the cost of losing your voice and them owning you for life all under the guise of being a benevolent force whom occasionally makes mistakes.

Thanks for the reply Oh was it 15-20? My bad...lemme recheck that before I go spitting out bad math and making wrong conclusions :X My apologies if I am wrong about that. My interpretation of the mom issue for the male caller.. I also had a horrible mother (who didn't really...) But my interpretation was they were so certain of her negative qualities and were being sarcastic about how great she was. I don't know a whole lot about the emotional implications of sarcasm vs. being more blunt/honest about your opinions. I'm interested to hear you found their sarcasm problematic, though I'm not certain you picked up on the sarcasm. Sarcasm may be a defense of laughing off tragedy without facing it fully, I'm not really sure myself. The sarcasm to me played into a bit of their overall intellectual approach without the emotional depth around the topic. Often in this situation when people laugh about tragedy Stef will say "It's not funny", I am a bit curious about his approach to sarcasm compared to nervous laughter. Lloyd Demause did a lot of this laughing off tragedy stuff in his various interviews with Stef that never felt quite right to me. I also had a lightening of opinion around them towards the end of the call when they considered the pro arguments around having children after having the over-population and other concerns taken down. I think that was the main issue in my experience with these callers, which they worked on at the end, was they were so certain in their beliefs. Once they were flexible to the data and flexible to arguments that contradicted their beliefs and actions I felt better about them. To me it seems crazy to come in going "I have this messed up history but I have these conclusions I'm very certain about". Without the certainty you've dealt with your issues emotionally I find the idea of being certain about conclusions very unsettling.

Howdy Y'all. I wanted to share some thoughts about this call in show, particularly the last caller is on my mind. But I also think I'll share a brief opinion on the other topics. Edit: I'm now realizing this is no longer brief at all So here are my long opinions on things, I'd be happy to hear your opinions as well if you listened to the show or just thoughts on my thoughts. This is pretty off the cuff and caffeine induced, I hope it is pleasant but at times I express well frankly throughout I express a lot of criticism. Let me know what you think if you're so inclined And just to be clear this is all my off the cuff opinion so I could be totally wrong or other people could have valid differing opinions Edit: I have pg13'ed up my swearing, I can't recall if there are kids around Topic 1: Boyfriend and Girlfriend call in to discuss criticisms to the Truth About Sex video. If you listen very closely at the beginning, even in the email they wrote to Mike, you can perfectly predict what the call will be about. They don't debate the facts very strongly. The girlfriend primarily has had a lot of sex with people, and the facts behind that were uncomfortable for her and fudged. "Mostly long term guys". But she claims to have been with one guy for 3 years, a few guys for about a year, other guys for six months, and had 25-30 sexual partners in a 10 year sexual history. The numbers simply didn't add up and she didn't want to talk about the fact that her flings far outnumbered her serious relationships. That is at least six years of single partner with 3-4 partners. Not including the six month guys who were not given a specific number. So that leaves 4 years of 21-26 guys (averaging 5-6 guys per year or about 2 months per) if you do the math based on what she told us. Edit: She said 15-20 so my conclusions were hasty and misinformed. Sorry about that. Anyways.. I just found that a bit telling. They were upset with the information and had a lot of history with repressive irrational sexual parents etc. etc. But they weren't forthcoming on the implications the information had on them that was actually distressing them. It was somewhat difficult to sit through waiting to get to the point. Haha a funny way I thought of it at the time was the imagining the girlfriend saying to Stef: "Are you basically calling me a whore?". That was the unspoken discomfort throughout the whole damn call that was never addressed and was fogged and avoided continuously. Overall I didn't feel like very much was accomplished in the call. I did like the clarity that the "numbers game" is certainly not deterministic and that self-knowledge can overcome the tendencies. But it was just so clear when the subject of having kids coming up that they were sort of spaced out to the realities of their decisions. She was early 30's and still hadn't made up her mind about having kids...I just got the sense they didn't take things very seriously yet were coming in with criticisms. Which seems like...i dunno not very UPB. I care a lot about this and must debate with you! Now I will hide all the pertinent facts and pretend to be laizze faire in my opinions! It seemed disingenuous and they were clearly uncomfortable discussing the personal ramifications the data had.. Topic 2: The validity of persuasion in Marketing. I felt like this conversation really kicked off when Stef started talking about make-up. I think people get too abstract when caring about the ethics of business etc. etc. Stef was on the nose when he said "Do you believe in the product?" "Are you lying to people about the product?" "Then you're fine, no moral issue here, fair play" The issue of manipulation and persuasion has sooooo much more to do with your personal life. The fact that this guy isn't comfortable with it is precisely why he needed to hear about makeup. If you aren't comfortable with manipulation and you're abstracting it into semi-abstractions you are missing the point. People are trying to manipulate you in real life, in your personal life. Figure that shit out and then worry about the minor ethics of marketing. Topic 3: Okay so this one got my goat and it is something I've been thinking about lately. So this guy calls in with what I believe is a very very common issue for Smarty von Smartypantses. Certainly myself included. The basic gist of it was "How do I build intimate relationships with people". And then he goes on and on detailing how he discusses his ideological beliefs with people. It's not friggen about ideology. Like really... And seriously if anyone is so inclined I'd love to hear some opinions on this because I could be totally wrong. Here's my mini rant: Screw rationality and screw your ideologies. In a lot of ways screw morality in any abstract sense. Because that isn't the damn point! It is a guideline and yes it is very important and interesting and useful and lifesaving and world saving. But talking about honesty isn't honesty! Talking about Anarchy isn't Anarchy! Talking about morality isn't morality! Get out of your damn head! It was sooo clear and I was so happy when Stef asked this guy to change his tone. The endless drone of the smug superior intellectual with his cherished ideas but no emotional connection to them. This guy had nooooooo emotion, no passion, no spark, no integrity in the emotional sense, no connection to the topics he was discussing in any gut level. It was all abstractions! There was no "how do I appear to others" from him. Understanding how you appear to others is friggen intimacy! Your beliefs are only going to ring true to other people if you actually do it! He had no emotional connection to his ideologies that he was fond of discussing. He was setting a standard of "People just aren't being intimate with me" "What is wrong with them?" It was pure projection! He wasn't being intimate. He wasn't being honest. And he got all bitchy and snippy at the end when that was pointed out. Good lord did I find that irritating...I'm clearly still irritated TLDR: Caller 1 was offended and not forthright. They likely experience a fear of commitment and haven't processed a lot around the topic yet. This was also indicated by their traveling lifestyle and unsurity around children. They are not emotionally comfortable with commitment. Caller 2 needed to develop emotional knowledge about manipulation in his personal life before abstracting it into business. He seemed like a fine fellow but a bit too stuck in abstractions and not understanding his concerns were because he understands manipulation on an intellectual level, but not at an emotional or social level. Caller 3 needed to connect emotionally to his beliefs and was experiencing a lack of intimacy because he's stuck in his head. He did not have a great grasp of how he appeared to others and was placing blame on other people without analyzing his own behavior. He has not confirmed his ideological beliefs empirically and thus comes off as disconnected emotionally in his conversations. He isn't truly certain about his beliefs from an emotional standpoint. This manifests in poor connection with others. Anyways! Thanks for reading if you made it this far. What did you think about the call in show? Any thoughts on my rambly thoughts above? Have a great day and I look forward to a discussion or to hear others thoughts

Bieber was racing a car at night with the road closed off. This woman was driving her children around, picking them up at school around countless other children, for years and years. Bieber is a wreckless millionaire young man. This was a mother endangering her children repetitively in an area highly populated with other children. Different situations.

Just a heads up, they show some actual beating around 3:00. Before that is small amount of the grand mother's verbal tirade and the news people analyzing the video. I'm happy the people were arrested. For some reason I thought this might actually be legal, I suppose it might be in some states besides Michigan.