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.

You riff to insult people who make bad arguments in front of people in order to discredit their position as ridiculous. If you riff on people that you're trying to convey the truth to, you isolate yourself. If you just expect everyone to take your bullying, no one is going to want to talk to you for very long except for fellow abusers. You become the ass clown of the group rather than a guy who makes a few funny jokes (about himself and others.) In fact, to not call you out for being abusive would be the pussy thing to do here. You also don't seem aware of the hierarchy dynamics. @shirgall is a respected member of this group for a reason. You sound like you have a lot of Internet courage

Only the non-Jungian type... Freud definitely used it for not so ethical reasons, but he still 'discovered' the unconscious, which is a huge step forward for psychology. Jung and his vein of psychology actually tried to develop a real, healing psychoanalytic therapy (generally based on multiplicity,) which has culminated in the development of Internal Family Systems therapy, which is massively effective. Behaviorist and CB therapists deal with some surface level stuff and are generally better suited for short-term solutions to bad habits. Imo, btw.

Oh, well I was talking about the perception on JQ aware people and the lack of genetic testing on the JQ. I don't think name calling is productive in a discussion generally. Especially if you're not friends with the person. I wouldn't debate for long with someone who did that, so I have to say that I don't support the behavior @Erwin

None has been done on Jews, most people don't consider them a race and if you think genetic testing of other races riled people up, just wait until you suggest the same testing on the Jewish people. People who push the JQ are hounded out of almost every political movement for no real reason other than questioning (and fear of a repeat Hitler.) You yourself called JQ aware people "shit posters." Much of the evidence is anthropological, read The Culture of Critique, it will blow your mind, seriously. Just check out the reviews!

Jews have an evolutionary incentive to be subversive towards the cohesive ideals of their host nation, they will work like crazy (especially in the arts) to push against any ideas that would rally a people to a defense of itself (why white men are cucked) even against invaders. Whoever is in the majority they seek to break down their cohesiveness and numbers in order to better survive themselves.

But I'm not saying to attack them, just like I wouldn't say "let's attack black people because they're majorly dependent on welfare." We learn about biological/evolutionary bents in a people to better understand how we've gotten here. If everyone becomes conscious to the fact that Jewish people are behind almost every subversive and leftist position today, they're less likely to be influenced by them and (if you frame it correctly by which I mean make the connection for people) question why it is that certain minority groups are able to wield such power (government.) They're all over Civic Nationalism, killing it from the inside (Shapiro against Trump; Milo revealed to be a borderline pedo.) Jews were the intellectual force behind the immigration acts of 1965 (the main problem that is forcing us to focus more politically rather than personally,) the birth of Communism in Russia (one of the worlds major killers) and they are the major intellectual force behind multicultural ideas/philosophical relativism. To ignore them, to me, is to ignore the one of the leading evolutionary causes for the situation we're in today (nevermind their influence of parenting and circumcision.) We need a "Truth About the Jewish Race."

Even the state of the Jewish population today could cause concern. 1. Jews tend to occupy positions of influence. 2. Jews tend to lean left. 3. Leftism is not good for western society in general. Therefore, Jews generally aren't good for western society.

I beg to differ. The idea that the Jewish problem has anything to do with a world wide conspiracy or Zionism is shit posting, but Jews have an evolutionary bent towards subverting their host culture and pushing for multicultural (and leftist) policies in order to protect their own minority, highly cohesive in-group. Other races have now adapted the strategies Jews have been using since before the birth of Christ. This is generally unconscious, but manifests in their behaviors none the less. Especially in the 20th century, Jews were the intellectual force and roots behind almost every leftist position or culturally subversive position today. The Culture of Critique (a book written by a University of California PhD) and the two volumes written before that, detail extensively the evolution of the Jewish people and their numerous connections to subversive and leftist ideology. It's certainly not a world wide conspiracy, but it is something every Anglo-Saxon white male should be aware of.

That's a wild connection you made with it possibly being unconscious I have no idea wether or not it was and no way of figuring that out that I know of, my experience was just typing some random keys. For death, I think that we probably understand it through a combination of seeing others die and our own experiences with being unconscious (or reflecting on unconscious states.) Doppleganger seems like you just experience aspects of yourself and then experience a similar number of aspects in another person, like seeing in a mirror? I couldn't imagine someone understanding something the aspects of which had never been experienced by anyone. Perhaps it's not mirror neurons themselves per say, but something that acts similarly such that certain sounds (which you've learned; which bring up how we learn to connect experiences with audio-visual cues) create mild experiences of whatever concept is being conveyed, thus allowing you to 'understand' the concept being talked about. I was thinking about it as a connection from the physical to the abstract, if it could be proven. I've heard postmodern complaints about how language and concepts aren't related to reality; they're just arbitrary things we make up and just another fog to deceive ourselves of knowing the truth. This would provide a connection from objective reality to concepts, making such concepts at least potentially accurate. Mostly it was just an interesting thought I had.

The missing link is Peaceful Parenting. This is what will ultimately change society from violence based to voluntarily based. You should listen to his earliest podcasts, especially the first 500. There's a lot of information that deals with these issues. Later on you'll understand the motives for his current positions. Welcome to the board and enjoy your journey here!