Eudaimonic

I think I understand what you're saying, some actions are "good" according to wether they acheive an arbitrary value if the person values it, but the NAP is the only universal good, which if transgressed, makes the action evil. Is that correct? Would you call infatuation love? I think there is certainly a difference, evil people are necessarily narcissistic, they value people as a means to be used for something else where as people who love value each other, ultimately, as an end to be enjoyed. People who love are intimate versus closed and internally alone, people who love experience each other authentically rather than what their partner pretends to be. The list goes on, but it all relates to the fact that love (between two people) revolves around the mutual exchange of real values to offer and receive between each other. As well, evil, like any habit, is not restricted in the personality. It's an incredible lack of empathy and will seep all over their relationship, the initiation of force or an actions which lack empathy can never be values because it's a win-lose action. In a relationship like that, one is in it because one is scared, values control, or is seeking a place to offload anger. Their partner is merely an object, not something they value in and of itself, in fact, something they would get rid of if they weren't pathological.

It would depend on what you're defining as power. If one has the power to initiate force against others and uses it, he becomes corrupt because there's no way to initiate force without committing an evil act. If he has the power to, but doesn't use it, then, effectively, he doesn't have power. This why power always corrupts. If power is defined differently, then maybe. Power over oneself doesn't lead to corruption, for example.

Good in terms of morallity is not arbitrary, but defined by the non-transgression of the NAP. I'm interested to hear your arguments as to how evil people can love, either each other or virtuous people and if you can give me an empirical example.

Virtue is a quality of person who acts in a way which manifests the values that he holds. Virtuous action is those moral actions (those that dont violate NAP) that acheive a specific value. Values are entirely subjective. What's meant by "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuos" in my opinion, is: "Love is an involuntary response to the actions in others that manifest the values that I value, when I myself act to manifest the values that I value, if those actions are moral."

I would say that one's internal ease/ integrity would fall under one's "circumstances." What "trumps" the other I think is subjective, but I think that if you want to be happy, generally, yes. Power is a morally neutral term. A person who could truly manipulate/control a person wouldn't face resistance to it, but you have to be really good at it and it won't last in the long run (no power has ever lasted.) A lot of people are amateur manipulators and people can smell it from a mile away, they don't have power in that area. "Control" in this context can also mean control of peoples actions against you, so defooing is an act of power, by separating from your family you limit their ability to abuse you (if they're abusive) which is an act of "control" on their actions. Master and Slave morality I think, has more to do with one's freedom, not power. One, I think, can have a tremendous amount of power, but little or no freedom. Parents who are abusive to their five-yeal old son have tremendous power over their son, but very little freedom from their son emotionally.

"Power is the measure of the degree of control you have over circumstances in your life and the actions of the people around you." - Robert Green, The 48 Laws of Power

You're ignoring the point. What you did is definitely not curiosity because you expressed no curiosity, you just said "this is not credible" in a cold, uncaring, incurious way. Now that I express this (first as a possibility, now as a certainty) you continue on in the same way, as well as minimilizing my experience, again, showing no curiosity towards me as I have towards you several times. You think that you're just arguing facts, but my response has little to nothing to do with responding to fact about IFS, but with my experience of how you treated me after providing you information. To be frank, it doesn't matter any longer how "valid" your arguments are, you're pushing the issue into the abstract and intellectualizing it, showing a huge lack of empathy. (Which is again shown by your lack of donation status; there is almost no excuse to actively use this service and not donate when Stefan provides you value and asks kindly for reciprocation. I and very poor and manage to donate 20 a month, the lowest is 5 which a homeless man could swing.) It's clear that you don't care about this conversation, IFS, this board, what I may be able to share with you, how I am affected by you or even the actual truth of the matter itself. It no longer matters how "valid" your facts or argument are anymore. I could learn as much from a book, and it would treat me with more kindness than you have. If you can't treat another person with curiosity and empathy in a basic discussion over some studies, what wisdom can you offer to me or anyone else? Absolutely none. This discussion is over for me.

Reading something does not mean curiosity. Someone can read something in order to poke holes because it antagonizes them. The only thing you said in regards to the study I showed you (nevermind the other one which lists several) was basically "the sample size was too small, not credible." That is not curiosity. I understand the concept of a credible study (though you don't always have to operate on a double-blind study to follow an exploratory correlation or trend; psychology wouldn't have advanced otherwise) but I think you're intellectualizing the issue here. I say "from my experience of it and from what I know, IFS is highly effective" and then you ask me for some studies on it's long term efficacy, I provide a couple study that have looked at it and you don't say thank you, you don't express appreciation or curiosity, you don't ask questions you just say "that's not credible because it's not a large sample size" ignoring the fact that I never claimed that the studies we're super air-tight. It comes off as quite rude, stoic and uncaring. Have you actually done any therapy, though? Skepticism is great imo, but waiting for everything to be confirmed will paralyze you. This is why you also have to act from intuition and (from an IFS perspective) lead with Self in coalition with your parts. Would you mind sharing why you think you didn't find it helpful?

Presumably, the effects of the TAU condition were strengthened by the relatively frequent addition of antidepressant medication and/or group therapy to the individual therapy. Specifically, 53% of participants in the TAU condition and .06% of participants in the IFS condition started antidepressant medication immediately before or during the course of therapy. No participants in the TAU condition discontinued medication, whereas one participant in the IFS condition did so. Additionally, 33% of participants in the TAU condition and no participants in the IFS condition participated in group therapy. This is the first known study to evaluate the efficacy of IFS in treating depressive symptoms among female college students, and only the second known study to test IFS as a treatment modality for any mental health condition. IFS treatment was compared to treatment as usual (TAU), which consisted of CBT or IPT. Results demonstrate a decline in depressive symptoms for both conditions and no significant differences in the magnitude or rate of change between IFS and TAU. Such results are promising because the treatment outcomes of IFS were compared to the “gold standard” treatments—CBT and IPT. Presumably, comparing IFS to a no-treatment control condition may result in statistically significant treatment impacts. Consistent with Shadick et al.’s (2013) study, the results of this study indicate that IFS may be a promising treatment modality for depression, which should be subjected to additional tests of treatment efficacy and effectiveness.

I would direct you to the fact that I initially said that the approach of IFS is highly effective in my opinion (i.e. according to my experiences and limited knowledge.) I provided some links that I knew of which backed this up to some extent, to be clear, there are not many studies on IFS. Notice that you don't say something along the lines of: "Huh, that's interesting! I mean it's a small sample size so certainly not conclusive, but definitely promising for the efficacy of IFS to be in such a close range with TAU. I'm excited and curious for more studies on this, it could potentially really help people!" but went straight for the jugular, trying to discredit the study by pointing out that the sample size was small, not at all curious to what this study means for IFS in the context of it's pilot status. Have you completed any therapy yourself? I get a sense (which doesn't mean it's true) that this is not coming from a curious place. I would be interested in exploring your skepticism, considering the fact that IFS has only been in the semi-mainstream for fifteen years or so (so there wouldn't be many studies on it), that self-reporting on the experience tends to be positive, that IFS is an evidence-based practice, and that IFS is on par with CBT in that pilot study (whether or not they 'controlled for drugs' which is not what I was saying) and that I myself have experienced positive results from it (along with others on the board.) You seem to be attempting to deconstruct a therapy approach which has been helpful for people (perhaps potentially helpful for you?) If you haven't actually gone through any IFS therapy, I would recommend reading through Jay Earley's Self-Therapy series and completing the exercises (if you're really ambitious, seek an IFS therapist) then drawing your opinion from your actual experiences of it. If you have tried IFS therapy, I would be curious as to a discussion of your experiences with it. Ultimately, I am cognizant of the fact that different therapy approaches may work for different people.

I don't know much about it and couldn't credibly say why he developed the theory, in The Culture of Critique they argue it was because he was a Jew and the idea of an unconsciousness is subversive to Western Society. I tend to lean toward the idea that his sexual-complex stuff was just a way of explaining away the famous Dora case study ("it's her fantasy rather than her father raping her") which is incredibly vile. Yes and Yes I find the second link to be especially interesting as they compare the efficacy of IFS to a combination of CBT and drug treatment (considered "the gold standard" in psychotherapy) and IFS alone was able to produce the same results in terms of the reduction of depression and depressive symptoms. Caution: Second link is a PDF download

I've heard good arguments from both sides and my intuition says bad parenting, but I'd like to know if anyone has some really strong arguments for either side. I'd like to be a parent some day and if it is really just a phase, I'd like to be aware so that I can be supportive. As well I think it would put my teenage years in a slightly better perspective. Perhaps it's a combination? I also realize that I put this in the wrong forum, my mistake...

I appreciate that, I think at the very least it will be interesting for you to read and put some history in perspective (similar to reading The Bell Curve imo.) As well, I think you can get the Kindle version cheap if you don't want to invest in the actual book. I also agree that we should treat individuals as individuals but stay open to the idea that a post-violence society may naturally segregate for specific biological/anthropological reasons, that a multicultural based society may not be the most efficient society.

At this point he's trolling for our attention... He's enjoying this.

Why try to change the Mafia from the inside? Try a different forum. All I smell is internet courage and it's not useful here.