MMX2010

Your sentence is only half-true. RTR is internally intense when RTR is practiced on someone who we either: (A) suspect will not be receptive, or (B) are unsure will be receptive. However, RTR is not-at-all internally intense when practiced on someone who has a long history of being warm and receptive to our deepest feelings.

Here's something I didn't explain very well, but that the article did. Whomever views the situation from the "Means-perspective" (1) wants to speed the process along, (2) is devoted to the process with all of his being, and (3) is highly emotionally invested in succeeding. But whomever views the situation from the "Ends-perspective" is opposite on all three counts. The paradox arises because: (1) both people are seemingly engaged in the same events for the same reasons AND (2) "Ends-perspective" viewers are rarely honest. Before the sexual revolution, a man in the first situation above would lie about how much he loved a woman - only to dump her whenever he got bored of her. A woman in the second situation doesn't have the self-knowledge to admit that she enjoys teasing men for her emotional benefit - (instead, she either: (a) has unprocessed childhood trauma, or (b) is a very ardent feminist / man-hater who has seemingly rock-solid political reasons that men deserve her scorn). A woman in the third situation NEVER has the self-knowledge to admit how empty her life is, and how scared she is of self-improvement. And an adrenaline junkie business partner (almost) never admits that he loves losing money just as much as he loves gaining money. In their dishonesty, Ends-perspective viewers pretend at least a little bit to have the same goals and values as their Means-perspective partners. So the paradox arises from the fact that someone who appears to share your values and is engaging in the exact same activity as you are, is dramatically different from you. (So different, in fact, that when you finally discover the difference, you'll recoil in horror at your loss.)

*ahem* Josh, I've enjoyed your posts to me on this subject, but you're forgetting something that Nathan Diehl refuses to acknowledge - that a person's feelings about their own gender, as well as a person's feelings about someone else's gender, are SUBJECTIVE. Stefan has given us a wonderfully effective tool to discuss any subjective feelings: Real Time Relationships. But you're not RTR-ing effectively when questioning Kevin Beal's word-choice, because you're not discussing how you feel about his word choice. Instead, you're trying to "make him understand" how his word choice "might be offensive" to someone else - (interestingly, those "someone else's" aren't present in this thread right now; they're instead implied to be "people who Kevin Beal might meet, and might offend, so he'd better learn certain things now, so he doesn't"). Nathan Diehl isn't RTR-ing at all. He's just pronouncing certain viewpoints to be "trolling", and exhibiting no curiosity towards anyone who disagrees with him - except to tell them how offensive they are. You'll note how he tells Kevin Beal, "I think you're overdoing it, and it comes across as offensive. - but he fails to add the caveat that such "overdoings" and "offense" are perceived by Nathan Diehl, and only Nathan Diehl and have, until shown otherwise, nothing to do with how any other transgendered individual (or pro-transgender individual) feels about Kevin Beal's argument.

One of my best friends recommended this video series to me, and I'm very impressed with it. Simple, practical solutions to achieving personal happiness. Check out her YouTube channel, too. Mis-spelled her name in the title. Gretchen Rubin is the correct spelling.

In my opinion, there's only class privilege and political privilege. ("My daddy's a U.S. senator, so you can't arrest me...")

It does for two reasons: (1) Paragon Male doesn't appear in any discussion of this list of gender terms, so I'm not being represented. (2) People who insist that Paragon Males are just Cis-males are deliberately mis-representing my gender identity, even though gender identity is subjective - and therefore you cannot define or restrict someone else's gender identity for them. http://kerryg.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Your-Gender-Identity this has nothing to do with gender identity.

Rollo, Stefan, and Mike Cernovich of Danger and Play are whom I consider my three spiritual fathers. So and conversation between two of them would be amazing. The only thing I disagree with Rollo about is his conclusion that the genders are meant to be complimentary. I think they're meant to be adversarial. Stefan would probably counter-argue that I'm using the behavior of women trapped in statist cages to deduce their natural state, which is a philosophical error.

...

Before listening to FDR, I would've said that her feelings make sense because, biologically, it's easier to love an animal than a fellow human being. Now I say that her feelings happen because she, herself, was never cared for as a child. And that lack of caring is made much more poignant when she sees her child - (an extension of herself) - as a helpless child.

Okay, that's really interesting. Thanks.

Oh, hell no. The last chapter of Real-Time Relationships gives targeted advice. Have you read it? This is a link to a free PDF version of that book: https://freedomainradio.com/old-free/books/FDR_3_PDF_Real_Time_Relationships.pdf -------------------- I'd say something like, "I feel sad whenever I think about my childhood." Followed by, "I feel sad and angry whenever I think back to those times when you spanked me." Such statements invite the other party to either: (A) respond with genuine empathy and compassion, or (B) respond with one of many evasions and defenses outlined in the book. Either way is a victory, because either way provides closure.

Mike Cernovich, from Danger and Play, has very quickly become "my other Stefan". He may not call himself a philosopher, or maybe he would. But he's a man's man, dedicated to helping men discover the best part of themselves. Mike recently released this video on motivation, which I hope you find helpful.

That's interesting. Why wouldn't you want any Paragon Males to be a significant part of your life?

What do you think of my description of my gender identity, Paragon Male?

Within four weeks, Stefan had a rant during a Call-in show which answered the question, "How am I supposed to be creative without self-attacking?" (or something like that). It went something like, "When you're creating something, don't observe yourself - just be. And when you feel yourself self-attacking, get angry! Ask those self-attacking parts of yourself, 'Hey, do you want to do all the work here? Come on. I'll step aside and let you take the wheel, since you're such an expert on creativity. What's that? You can't do it? Well, then, if you can't do it, then why not step the fuck aside, because I'm trying to work here?' Then, after you've gotten your self-critical aspects out of the way, you can create in the moment. And only after completion can you step back and say, "That part's great. That part was horrible; let's do better next time."

I could try to solicit an apology from my father, but I would never do so without the help of a therapist. Nor would I do so without a solid grounding of Real-Time Relationships. Even still, I wouldn't expect my father to be apologetic, because he's spent his entire life blaming other people for everything. In my opinion, separate therapy indicates whether my parents are serious about helping me and understanding me. If I can go to therapy to confront my inner demons, so can they. And if they don't go to therapy, while I do go to therapy, chances are fairly high that they'll dismiss anything I learn from therapy. Once they do that, I've no reason to be in their lives.

I disagree, and I can prove it with an example. After pondering my own gender for quite some time, I've finally discovered what my gender is - Paragon Male. A Paragon Male is a man who believes that his gender is best expressed by becoming a paragon of masculinity. He believes that all men should strive for physical fitness, emotional control, scientific and mathematical prowess, financial independence, philosophical virtue, and should assume the leadership role in all heterosexual relationships. A Paragon Male doesn't have much patience for non-physically fit men, because non-physically fit men lack discipline, which is essential to being Paragon. Nor does a Paragon Male have much patience for physically-fit men who fail to assume the leadership role in heterosexual relationships, because such a man is easily controlled by her whims and needs - and therefore isn't Paragon. How do you respond to my gender identity?

I'm not speaking from experience here, so I don't know how true this actually is. But I think a good rule is "It's a good idea to attend therapy with a parent who has shown a consistent number of sincere apologies. But never attend therapy with a parent who hasn't provided this consistent number of sincere apologies." So, personally, I would never attend therapy with my dad, since he's unapologetic about his failures as a parent. My mom, though, I only might go into therapy with her. On the one hand, she's been very apologetic. But on the other hand, I believe that therapy should be undergone separately first - and neither of us have begun any form of therapy.

I read this article from therawness.com about two months ago, and its arguments have been strongly resonating in me ever since. http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-means/ --------------------------------------------------- The most important paragraphs are as follows: Two people can engage in an action that seems identical on the surface and in the short run but for each person has wildly different consequences and implications depending on whether that person views the action as a means to an end or an end itself, with no higher goal in sight. Conflicts arise when people think they’re dealing with one type of motivation for the action when they’re actually dealing with the other. These misunderstandings lead to much frustration. Here are some examples: A woman regularly has sex with a man because she wants a permanent monogamous relationship. For her the sex is a means to an end. He is only interested in the sex for its own sake, making it an end in and of itself for him.A man tolerates being sexually or emotionally teased by a woman because he wants sex and/or a permanent relationship. For him enduring the teasing is a means to an end. For her the ego boosting validation she gets from being chased is an end in and of itself.A person is putting up with constant drama and emotional rollercoasters while dating a raging drama queen narcissist, believing that the drama is just something they need to go through short-term in order to grow together, and that eventually they’ll emerge stronger and closer with a more peaceful long-term dynamic if he just weathers the strorm. It’s a tumultuous means that must be endured to get to a peaceful end. For the narcissist however, causing the drama and emotional rollercoaster is the end goal. The narcissist needs the drama to (1) keep herself constantly distracted so that she spends no time alone contemplating the emptiness of her inner life, (2) to transfer frustration onto him because misery loves company and dragging people down is always easier than pulling yourself up and (3) it convinces her her life is much more interesting, emotionally meaningful and adventurous than it really is, thereby allowing her to remain convinced of her unearned sense of superiority.One business partner is willing to tolerate the riskiness and incredible highs and lows of high-stakes entrepreneurship because of the larger, long-term payoffs of wealth and stability he pictures awaiting him on the other side. For him, the riskiness and unpredictability is a means to an end. For his adrenaline junkie business partner however, the riskiness and unpredictability is an end. Avoiding mundanity by getting thrills, even if they’re only short-term, is a higher priority for him than long-term stability. You can see this dynamic at play here.The means/end paradox occurs in when two people are caught in a dynamic where one person’s viewing his actions as means to an end, thereby accruing losses, or psychic sunk costs, while the person viewing his actions as ends is mentally maximizing wins. Thanks to the principle of loss aversion, the means-motivated person becomes more heavily invested and winds up in a sunk cost trap. And the end-motivated person increasingly feels less invested because he’s only been accruing psychic gains the whole time. As a result, the means-based person will usually have more trouble walking away from the relationship and being more tempted to invest more resources than the end-based person. ----------------------------------- Can you think of examples that are personally relevant? I think one of my friends (possibly soon to be former-friend) is on the wrong side of two means/ends paradoxes. He has been trying to get his wife to grow/mature into a stronger woman for quite some time now. But she may be viewing the "make you grow talks" themselves as the major source of emotional connection in her life. Therefore, she extends the presence and frequency of these talks by growing as slowly as possible - while he is eager to have her grow as quickly as possible. Means/ends paradox. Part of him has been trying to get his wife to grow/mature into a stronger woman for quite some time now. But what if part of him enjoys the feeling of superiority over her? Or what if part of him needs to focus on her growth, because his growth is so terrifying for him? In either of those cases, the first part of him wants her to grow as quickly as possible, but the second part of him needs her to grow as slowly as possible - (because slow growth extends the presence and frequency of these "help you grow" conversations).

I posted the following to iHuman. Declaring Gender to be a subjective experience has many philosophical consequences. (1) To declare that your own feelings about your gender are subjective is to universalize that "Anyone's feelings about their gender are subjective." (2) To declare that, "No one is allowed to look down upon my feelings about my gender." is to universalize that "No one is allowed to look down upon anyone's feelings about their gender." (3) To declare that "Gender is purely subjective." is to declare that "No one has to scientifically explain, rationalize, justify their experiences of their own gender." Do you agree with all of these? If so, I experience pro-transgender as a social movement, because the majority of pro-transgender people simultaneously: (1) Argue that gender is purely subjective and (2) Violate every one of the blue-colored implications above.

I am glad that you were able to reach this compromise. Have you considered locking / barricading your door while you sleep? I'm not saying that you mother is going to assault you, but I'm saying that you can't be too careful.

Wrong question. Right question: "How do I design a multi-faceted system - comprised of therapy, multiple conversations with others, and multiple explorations into other kinds of music - which maximally allows to me to simultaneously test both conclusions, so that the correct answer will spontaneously emerge?" Best of luck; hope that was helpful. Please tell me if it wasn't.

I've posted this many times in the past two days, but no one has either commented on it, nor stated that a single thing I've said was non-factual: There's a philosophical disconnect between simultaneously arguing: (1) "Transgender is a medical reality." and (2) "No individual needs to have his/her transgender feelings confirmed by a medical diagnosis." You can easily escape the philosophical contradiction by choosing to believe ONE of those, but you can't believe them both simultaneously. I don't mean to put words into Josh F's mouth, but he seems to have chosen Item Two and rejected Item One. Nathan Diehl, (whether he's aware of it or not), has also adopted Item Two and rejected Item One. (I only question whether he's aware of it, because he's questioning me about my "subjective experiences" without seeming to realize that, according to Josh F's answer, gender is also a subjective experience.) Declaring Gender to be a subjective experience has many philosophical consequences. (1) To declare that your own feelings about your gender are subjective is to universalize that "Anyone's feelings about their gender are subjective." (2) To declare that, "No one is allowed to look down upon my feelings about my gender." is to universalize that "No one is allowed to look down upon anyone's feelings about their gender." (3) To declare that "Gender is purely subjective." is to declare that "No one has to scientifically explain, rationalize, justify their experiences of their own gender." Do you agree with all of these? If so, I experience pro-transgender as a social movement, because the majority of pro-transgender people simultaneously: (1) Argue that gender is purely subjective and (2) Violate every one of the blue-colored implications above. ---------------------------- Your words here strike me as adopting the "Transgender is a medical reality." position. I actually like that position, because it has many strong points. And its strongest point is that it moves completely away from the "Gender is purely subjective!" argument. Not to be crass or off-topic, but I very much like the artist Lorde. I think her music is excellent and that her voice is beautiful. South Park spoofed her and her music in the same episode that they spoofed the pro-transgender movement, and I experienced momentary annoyance and discomfort with the spoofing. It got so bad that I was briefly tempted to stop listening to her altogether. But then I realized that my appreciation for her and her music is purely subjective. No one else is obligated to agree with my appreciation for her, but no one else can derive any reliable information about my personality or moral character based on it. Those are the rules for ALL subjective experiences: (1) You can never impose them on others. (2) All attempts to deduce someone else's character or personality based on their subjective preferences is mostly BS. Once you argue that "Transgender is a medical reality.", those two rules are obliterated and replaced by: (1) You have to acknowledge the truth of transgender, because it is truth. (2) Anyone's refusal to acknowledge this truth is highly revealing of their character. (To the point where you can legitimately say, "Look dude. I understand that this topic makes you uncomfortable, but your feelings of discomfort don't get to override the truth; that's a rule which applies to everyone on every topic." Someone who truly has a medical condition, who shouldn't be made to suffer for possessing it. I don't think people are positively obligated to like you as a person, but people are morally obligated to never let your condition form the major reason why they either like/dislike you.

I'm not sure whether this will help, but I think it will. I have a similar educational / job background as you. I felt strongly pressured to become a doctor by my parents, studied hard enough to get very good grades on the MCAT, and then realized I didn't want to be a doctor. Then I studied to become a chemistry teacher, did that for three years, hated it. Then I discovered that I was very good at SAT tutoring, and have done that for the past eight years. But SAT tutoring was always "just a job that I was very, very good at". I did enjoy it, and I still do enjoy it. But it was never something that I absolutely burned to do. Until this month. A lot of things have happened to me. But the long and short of it all is: (1) A man who presented himself (for years) as a very good friend who would stick with me no matter what has turned out to be the opposite. (2) I'm running out of money, and now need to live with a new set of friends. (3) In the midst of all this, I've decided to create over sixty YouTube videos of me giving free tutoring advice AND market myself to a boatload of guidance counselors as "a highly successful SAT tutor who's willing to tutor many of your students for free -- (just allow me access to the building, I'll do my thing, and ask for voluntary donations when we're done. Oh, and guess what? When they're not meeting with me, they can study the videos on my website, too.)". I've been making my videos for about three weeks now, and I'm fired the fuck up. There are times at night when I explode out of bed in the middle of the night, because I'm excited about how great of an idea this is. Sure I'm pissed that my best friend can't support me through this process, but I'm glad that I have another set of friends who is seemingly willing to do so. And now I find myself thinking, "This is what I was meant to do. I'm so good at it. And think of the many people you'll help, freely, just because you can...." ------------------------- tl;dr - Don't expect the glorious feelings of "calling" and "love for work" to happen right away. Keep putting the work in to whatever you're interested in, and wait for transformative feelings of Calling and Love to sneak up on you.

I am not yet well-grounded enough in public speaking and philosophy to intervene the way you do. But I am inspired to reach these goals through your example. Thank you, Joel.