MMX2010

No. They usually use this language to express bewilderment that their child doesn't enjoy an activity. As in, "Johnny sucks at reading, but I want him to read anyway. But I also don't have any solid moral arguments with which to make him read. Why isn't Johnny intrinsically motivated to read?"

It's important because parents use those terms to erroneously "psycho-analyze" their children (or themselves), rather than focus on the task of effective parenting. J.P. explained it beautifully here, "I hate when I hear people refer to someone they admire, or a precocious child, as "intrinsically motivated." Even worse, when they say things like "she has a natural drive to learn." It is so pretentious. As if there is some elite species of human that is intrinsically virtuous. It's analogous to hearing people refer to certain children as "gifted." I can't stand it. I suspect it is a way to control or shame people who won't do something unless they get a tangible reward."

Rollo Tomassi explains it beautifully, in just three paragraphs: "The guy with the capacity to call a woman’s bluff with a confidence that implies she is to be worthy of him rather than the other way around is the Man to be competed for. Essentially the ‘chick speak’, ‘chick advice’ phenomenon is a shit test writ large on a social scale. And even your own mother and sisters are in on it, expecting you to ‘get it’; to get the message and see the challenge for what it really is, without overtly telling you. She want’s you to ‘get it’ on your own, without having to be told how. That initiative and the experience needed to have had developed it makes you a Man worth competing for. Women despise a man who needs to be told to be dominant. Overtly relating this to a guy entirely defeats his credibility as a genuinely dominant male. The guy she wants to fuck is dominant because that’s ‘the way he is’ instead of who she had to tell him to be. Observing the process will change it. This is the root function of every shit test ever devised by a woman. If masculinity has to be explained to a man, he’s not the man for her." What strikes me most about your list is that you can get all but the Third item from men. The Roosh V Forum has many threads devoted to male fashion, so that scratches Item #1. Both Stefan and the Roosh V Forum speak extensively about identifying and avoiding toxic women, so that eliminates Item #2. (You haven't lived until you've heard the phrase "Thousand Cock Stare"...) And you can just will yourself into #4. Ideally, you'll become wealthier with age. And when you live alone, you'll gravitate towards creating a beautiful environment for yourself.

When I post links, my posts have to be vetted by moderators. So if you google "the rational male empathy" and click on the first link, that article gives a lovely example of "empathy between the genders requiring personal effort". (Basically, the author, (a man), suffered a stress fracture in his foot and was verbalizing how much it hurt. Both his wife and daughter responded that "Men are such pussies..." without realizing either that their response was non-empathetic or that their similar complaints are met with empathy from both genders.) Do you notice that you've subtly altered my question from, "Do you think empathy between the genders requires noticeable personal effort?" to "Do you think empathy in general is possessed equally by both genders?" I'm not mad that you did it. Nor am I surprised. But did you notice the change?

Do you believe that the genders are biologically wired so differently that empathy between the genders requires obviously noticeable (to outside observers) personal effort OR do you believe that the genders are biologically wired so similarly that empathy between the genders requires no effort at all?

Thank you. There is a campaign, but it's probably limited to two or three individuals. And I've asked those who downvote me to explain why, but that only leads to more downvoting. (Check out neeeeeeel's "Sociopathic Tendencies" thread for one such example.) -------------------- With regard to this topic, and SashaJade's post, Return of Kings author, Raywolf asks the most crucial question: "Were women obedient, loving and kind to men because alpha men led them well? OR Because THEY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE and their very survival depended on it? Everyone's answer will be unique to their own personal experiences and philosophical rigor, but your answer will largely determine your life's path. The full article is here: http://www.returnofkings.com/30667/the-red-pill-cant-bring-back-what-weve-lost

Right. And framing the question that way presumes that most women are capable of raising children effectively, whereas my question, "Do Women Really Have A Nurturing Nature?", is open to the possibility that most women aren't capable. In my opinion, hypergamy is anti-social / sociopathic, whereas evolutionary biology is amoral. People who wish evolutionary biology is false will incorrectly label it as anti-social / sociopathic, but it is completely unconcerned with either maintaining / destroying civilization. Hypergamy, on the other hand, prefers to destroy any civilization. My question doesn't want to let anyone off the hook for their violent actions. Instead, it's focused on "the degree to which women pad their resumes by extremely large amounts, in order to garner resources from men and society". If women do indeed have a nurturing nature, then my general distrust of women is idiotic and harmful to everyone. But if women don't have a nurturing nature, then anyone who presumes that women are nurturing in nature is idiotic and harmful to everyone. Not yet, but it's on my reading list. I don't agree with your definition of child-rearing. I'd say, "Preparing your child for the reality of the adult world they will have to operate in, while also minimizing the amount of pain / suffering caused to the child." When I frame child-rearing this way, it automatically asks, "Do the majority of parents actually minimize the pain / suffering they cause their children?"

I think it was customary, but I cannot say for certain. You may not realize it, but you're really asking the most explosive possible question in this modern society, "Is it intelligent or crazy to assert that a young woman knows more about parenting / raising a child correctly than either her elders (who've done it before) or the scientific community (who, ideally, studies parenting both dispassionately and without agenda)?" If it's crazy, then the default assumption that "Mommy knows best because she is Mommy." is wrong.

I liked your video a lot, J. P. I posted this on another thread. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/06/amy_schumer_offers_you_a_look.html It's a very long, meandering article by "The Last Psychiatrist" - but the take home message is in the middle. The tie-in to your video is the parent who witnesses their child struggling with an activity, and withdraws the child from that activity because of the struggle. This withdrawal perfectly reinforces the "Doing Awesome" is better than "Feeling Bad About Yourself" is better than "The Mental Work of Change" - because the parent prefers that the child feels bad about himself by saying "That activity is pointless, and I don't have to engage in it.", rather than allowing a child to struggle through the difficulty of acquiring the skill. Furthermore, have you ever noticed that most people's hobbies are activities they're good at or enjoy doing, despite being terrible. Few golfers or video game players are hobbyist who initially sucked at golf / video games - but worked hard enough to become experts. They're almost always naturally good athletes or gamers who persist in the activity, because they're awesome at it. ----------- Lastly, a discussion about "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" motivation is toxic (most of the time). This is because the question, "Am I intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to accomplish Task X?", attempts to label oneself as "Good" or "Bad" depending on how one answers the question. But that same article says, "in narcissism believing something is preferable to doing something because the former is about you and the latter is about everyone else." So discussing your own intrinsically-motivated or extrinsically-motivated personality shifts the focus away from the actions you'll undergo - (a) avoid the activity, (b) do the activity reluctantly, or © only do the activity if a helpful, friendly expert is guiding you - and towards a self-focused, introspective inquiry. Parents, in my opinion, would be better served focusing on the task a child is struggling with and determining whether they-themselves value the task before imposing anything on the child.

WastachMan, am I correct in presuming that you didn't downvote my first post in this thread?

I don't see how anyone who read "The Origins of War In Child Abuse" can seriously believe that women have a nurturing nature. The book chronicles, in gut-wrenching detail, the ubiquity of violent parenting practices from the dawn of man up until about 1850. At this point, the author confidently states, "Every child born on or before 1850 can be classified as a battered child." In anthropological terms, this means that only six generations of women have thought, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be violent towards our children. Maybe there's a more peaceful way to raise them." And even today, Stefan has repeatedly cited studies indicating that 75% (or more) of modern women support violence against children. Thus, there is no evidence to support the argument that "Women have a nurturing nature". If anything, the available evidence supports the opposite argument that either, "Women have a violent nature." or "Women have a non-nurturing nature." Agree or disagree?

I haven't watched your videos, but will watch them later. I agree with your statement here: "I feel that labeling yourself or someone else as "intrinsically" or "extrinsically" motivated is a fallacy that leads to negative consequences for many people. That's what my whole video series is about. "An action imposed from an external source" makes no sense and is completely unscientific." - because I think the majority of people study psychology to control other people. And so I don't trust people who study "intrinsic motivation" versus "extrinsic motivation". To me, you either "Did The Thing" or "Didn't Do The Thing". Actions are more important than beliefs or motivations.

Article reacting to Leelah Alcorn's suicide. The takeaway message is: "In the vast majority of cases, children who say they’re transgender and act that way change their minds about being the opposite sex—if you just leave them alone. According to a recent Hastings Center report, gender dysphoria does not persist into adulthood in up to 73 to 94 percent of cases (citing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which noted dysphoria continuing in only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls.) Here’s just one testimonial on that experience." ------------------- Link to full article here: http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/09/leelahs-law-is-bad-law-and-bad-medicine/

The people who weren't convinced by the arguments I mentioned above also arrived to the discussion with both pre-conceived notions that were impossible to disprove AND with "faith-based" arguments that were (wrongly) deemed acceptable. But their "faith-based" arguments were meant to provide answers to science-based discussions, which is, in my opinion, a far greater crime than using faith/religion to answer metaphysics and epistemology questions. I couldn't get one chick to say, "Even though I, personally, wouldn't laugh at an abused child the same way you laughed at an abused child in this thread, I must admit that the person you laughed at found it helpful." To my mind, she isn't religious and fully believes in the NAP - but she was non-convincible in the same way that religious idiots are non-convincible. That is just one of many examples I've encountered, so I don't think you can generalize "faith based" problems to religious people. If anything, the fact that religious arguments are so easily debunked makes me prefer a religious idiot to a non-religious one. ------------------------------------- Edited to add: I ask myself why these sorts of ridiculous resistances happen, and I believe it's one, some, or all of the following: (1) The promotion of gender equality in a democratic environment has become subtly twisted to the promotion of personal equality in all scientific discussions. Roughly translated, "Because we live in a political system wherein everyone gets one vote, it is always true that a non-scientifically acquired opinion is equally likely to be true as a scientifically-acquired opinion." OR "Because I have the right to do whatever I want so long as no one is obviously harmed, including the right to reject a scientifically-supported perspective that I, personally, find uncomfortable, then you've no right to forecast that my rejection will make me less happy, less romantically valuable, less intelligent, or less-of-anything. You have to acknowledge that I'm equally like to be happy and successful." (2) The presence of women on this message board enables certain men to seek out women for romantic companionship. This isn't necessarily bad, but it does allow certain men to accept and promote "pro-female" attitudes and opinions in the hopes of getting laid. My other preferred message board is the Roosh V Forum, which strictly limits (to near zero) the postings of women and homosexuals. On the one hand, you'd predict that such a "sausage fest" would be boring. But what happens is that the absence of women and homosexuals means that the discussions are more free. They get heated, especially with regard to race, Islam, marriage, and women's essential nature - but you get both a more diverse range of opinions AND a civility with which those opinions are presented. There, I find myself both speaking less (out of respect for the elders of the forum) and censoring myself less than here. (3) The (correct!) belief in peaceful parenting has been twisted into an (incorrect!) belief in peaceful interactions everywhere. Parental aggression, including making your child "submit" to you is correctly frowned upon. But people lacking peaceful parents have already been trained in such aggression, and therefore only understand "dominance" and "submission". So people who expect "peaceful interactions everywhere" don't know what to do with someone-like-me, who is always willing to be aggressive when necessary. This erroneous expectation of "peaceful interactions everywhere" leaves many FDR members out of sorts when their peaceful appeals to "Don't abuse your child like that!" are met with hostility and aggression. (What? Really? An abusive parent was hostile towards you when you asked her not to be abusive? You don't say....)

It's pretty to think that "Women are naturally loyal towards men, but economic factors pervert women's loyalty." But I think the truth is that "Women only pretend to be naturally loyal towards men when their freedom is curtailed, and the unprecedented amount of personal, interpersonal, economic, religious, maternal, and political freedom that women currently possess has revealed to everyone women's natural disloyalty towards men." Edited to add: I can support my argument above with scientific references, and I doubt that the downvoters (who always remain anonymous, even when asked to identify themselves) can do the same.

Religious arguments are more easily falsifiable than all of these: (1) Women are naturally nurturing towards children, but society makes their nurturing instinct corrupt. (2) Women are naturally loyal to men, but society makes their loyalty corrupt. (3) We shouldn't discriminate against anyone who has tattoos or piercings. (4) It is never okay to laugh at an abused child. (5) It is never okay to refuse association with transgender individuals, solely because they make you uncomfortable. (6) Any American who wants restricted immigration based on the racial composition of immigrants is automatically racist and evil. Those six arguments are examples of NOT religiously-motivated perspectives which, when I've argued them on the FDR message board, have been met with hostile, non-philosophical rejections. Some of those rejections refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence supporting my perspective. So if you think "religion" is so fundamentally "anti-reality" that we should never extend an olive branch to anyone who promotes it, then what should we do to anyone who promotes just one of those six arguments above?

To neeeeel, you're being given two sets of mutually contradictory advice. On one hand is the "pro-therapy" crowd, who states that you need to get in touch with your childhood wounds in order to recognize why you deem yourself a "sociopath". Once you unlock the reasons, you'll undo the series-of-thoughts that produced your conclusion. On the other hand is me, "the anti-therapy" crowd, who states that words like "sociopath" are answers to the question, "What kind of person am I?" But the question, "What kind of person am I?" can't be answered with existential thought, existential philosophy, nor therapy. Worse, whenever you ask that question out loud, you invite everyone to help you answer it. And not nearly everyone who answers will have your own best interests in mind. The anti-therapy crowd states that the only way a man should define himself is by his actions. And it asserts that asking questions like, "What kind of person am I?", always first produces inactions. Therapy, in these cases, prevents you from living life more aggressively, more firmly, and more separate from other people's opinions of what kind of person you are. And the first question the anti-therapy crowd asks is, "What really important, potentially highly successful, potentially life-giving and life-destroying thing have you avoided embracing with full gusto?" For most men, this is either sleeping with lots of women, finding a wife, starting his own business, devoting himself more fully to a potentially money-making hobby, physical fitness, and/or cutting himself off from friends and family members who hold him back. Once you know which of these apply to you, the solution is to fully act upon those answers - even though you've no idea whether your decision is for good or for ill. Then, after you've devoted yourself, for some time, to these life-giving / life-destroying actions, you'll find that the answers to the question, "What kind of person am I?" have "magically emerged" WITHOUT you devoting so much thought-time and talking-time to answering them. In short, you are not your words, not your thoughts, nor other peoples' reactions to your words and thoughts. You are your actions, for good or for ill, for now and forever.

A better question is, "Does fractional slacker have extensive experience running his own business, ideally one identical to Convenience Store Owner?" If not, he's asserting that his own non-experience with business ownership is superior to the business ownership experience of those who called the cops on Garner. Such a claim ought not be accepted for the sake of argument, not even in a non-verbal / implied sort of way.

I've seen the movie and Stef's review of it, but haven't read the book. Rollo Tomassi's blog is my go-to source describing women and relationships. And his article entitled Estrus is foundational in understanding women. My post, #21 here, is a complete copy of the article: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42431-mgtow-not-all-women-are-like-that/?hl=estrus#entry392635 The three major things I get out of that article are: (1) A woman's uterus programs her to be double-minded and inconsistent about every important moral decision. About 80% of the time (during her non-ovulatory phase), she wants peace, stability, comfort, gentleness, and loyalty. But the other 20% of the time (during her ovulatory phase), she wants dominance, violence, aggression, discord, and rebellion. (2) Because women are generally smaller than men, they cannot, (usually), commit violence themselves. They instead must incite men and others to perform violence on their behalf. (3) A woman's double-mindedness is especially frightening to herself, so she spends the majority of her life vociferously convincing others that either: (a) She experiences no desires for violence, dominance, and rebellion OR (b) She does, indeed, experience those desires - but they don't really count because they're "not really her" - meaning that she should be defined by the majority of the time where she's not-violent. In short, the majority of people will assert that Amy Dunne was freakish in nature, an entity so far removed from "basic, biological womanhood" that her behaviors shouldn't be evidence of a woman's essential biological nature. I say that Amy Dunne's behavior is evidence of a woman's essential biological nature: the only "freakish thing" was the way she refused to hide it.

Yes, and how did Neeeel respond? When I noticed that someone had downvoted my post, I PM'ed him to see if it was him. He replied, "hi, nope, I had no problem with your posts at all." -------------------- Later on, when it became obvious that you downvoted my post, he stated, "I feel that if my dad had done as you suggest, throw the board against the wall , I would have taken that as mockery, and that would have been the same as laughter. If someone else had done it, I may have taken it in the spirit intended, but that would depend on the person doing it." So he may have taken my laughter in the spirit it was intended. So neeeeel, the abused child you're supposedly championing, has no problem whatsoever with my laughter. Why, Kaki? I asked you a very simple question, "So why can't you say, "MMX2010, I would never do what you did, but I'm glad that neeeeel found it interesting and helpful?"

It's not only telling that they didn't ask the girls to slap the boys, but they also didn't test whether girls would be more willing to slap boys depending on who is doing the asking: mother, father, same-sex friend, opposite-sex friend, same-age same-sex stranger, same-age opposite-sex stranger, stranger male adult, stranger female adult. It may be true that girls are much more willing to slap boys, no matter who asks. Or girls may be more willing to slap boys only as long as a female asks.

You may find this statement helpful. "Narcissists love talking about their beliefs but hate talking about their actions. This is because one's actions are always about everyone else, but one's beliefs are always all about them."

To the (currently) two people who downvoted the post above, please explain yourself. Everything I asserted is factually correct, and everything kaki asserted is factually wrong. (1) Kaki asserted that I said, "I would laugh at a severely abused child." But I said, "I would laugh at you, too." - in a post directed at neeeeel, about neeeeeeel. (2) I asserted that my comment to neeeeel encouraged him to expand on his childhood. My comment was, "I don't think you really want to discuss whether everyone has sociopathic tendencies. I think you really want to discuss your childhood. So why not give us more details about your childhood, especially the event you recently remembered that caused you to post?" And he responded by doing exactly what I asked. (3) Lastly, neeeel has not (to my knowledge) complained to the mods about anything I posted. Nor has he posted that he finds anything I said offensive, wrong, nor demeaning. So, please, identify yourselves. And explain why, when the facts are entirely on my side, you're not agreeing with me.

If, (and it's a very unlikely if), I knew that America would be engaging in a large scale war against an Islamic nation, I'd convert to Christianity. The only respectable thing that religions does, (more so than atheism), is galvanize people around a common cause. I know that religion doesn't always galvanize people around the right (or moral) common cause. But I don't see how atheism can glue people together sufficiently to defeat a religiously-glued opponent.

I don't know how you can be so non-confrontational, and so NOT ANGRY at anything your father did, and yet believe yourself to be a sociopath. I get that you're hurt and confused, but you're not-at-all angry. ************************ I never said that I would laugh at "a severely abused child". I said I would laugh at neeeeeel in the particular situation he described. You inflated that one example into a pretend situation where MMX2010 laughs at abused children, every day, all the time. And you downvoted me, multiple times, based on the pretend situation you created. Do I have to spell out how annoying it is to have one example inflated into hundreds (if not thousands) of examples? Do you think it's honest, curious, empathetic, and RTR-orgasmic for you to do that? Do you intend to apologize? ------------------------ This thread is about neeeeeeel. Neeeeeeel posted this thread because he honestly wonders whether he's a sociopath. My comments encouraged him to expand on his childhood. And when he expanded on his childhood, a host of FDR posters rushed in to help him. So why can't you say, "MMX2010, I would never do what you did, but I'm glad that neeeeel found it interesting and helpful?" Oh.