JanneW

Posting about this topic, I feel intense agitation, bordering on anxiety. I wonder why, and here's my theory. The topic of migration has "us-vs-them" built into it almost unavoidably. Stef gives good arguments on how statistically the group of migrants differs from the group of the host population. Important information, but sadly now we're talking about collectives as if they were a thing. And what's more, one of the collectives is supposed to include myself and the other doesn't. Us vs them. I'm not claiming anything about this is factually wrong, one just needs to be careful about the emotional reactions this may provoke in a lot of us. (In me, for sure.) We're talking us vs them and now one of "us" brings up the idea that another one of "us" might be wrong about some detail of the situation. Being philosophers we normally would welcome differences of viewpoint, which of course need to be supported by good arguments. But, emotionally, part of our simian brains is screaming "my god, our group is already under attack from the outside and now there's dissent from within?! danger, danger!" Could there be some truth to that? If true, what can be done to facilitate rational debate on the topic? Thanks to Yeravos for starting this thread. It may seem like a sidetrack to be talking about emotions that might exist in the community, but I'd say it's really not. The facts, such as there are, do not seem to be in dispute. Still, multiple people on this thread talk of anxiety when discussing the topic. Exploring these emotions seems to me to be the way to make sure we can even have a discussion.

Thanks for the explanation, MMD.

Hey MMD, do you think this is the best way to reply to this? Do you think LovePrevails is being manipulative? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know. If someone has feelings of fear and thoughts of being banned or ostracised, how ought he to say it? @LovePrevails: I don't recall anybody having been banned simply for stating a position, thus you might want to check your fears if they're justified by the reality on the forum or if they might stem from elsewhere. Janne Whenever I'm posting about this topic, I tend to feel intense agitation, bordering on anxiety. I wonder why, and here's my theory. The topic of migration has "us-vs-them" built into it almost unavoidably. Stef gives good arguments on how statistically the group of migrants differs from the group of the host population. Important information, but sadly now we're talking about collectives as if they were a thing. And what's more, one of the collectives is supposed to include myself and the other doesn't. Us vs them. I'm not claiming anything about this is factually wrong, one just needs to be careful about the emotional reactions this may provoke in a lot of us. (In me, for sure.) We're talking us vs them and now one of "us" brings up the idea that another one of "us" might be wrong about some detail of the situation. Being philosophers we normally would welcome differences of viewpoint, which of course need to be supported by good arguments. But, emotionally, part of our simian brains is screaming "my god, our group is already under attack from the outside and now there's dissent from within?! danger, danger!" Could there be some truth to that? If true, what can be done to facilitate rational debate on the topic?

Ok then, I'll give my thoughts. When discussing these issues I first try to lay aside any high-powered emotions I might be feeling. Fear and urgency only cloud the mind when thinking is called for. The state will constantly create emergencies to make people run to it. Some of those emergencies are real, yet the philosopher has to dig for their root. I'm still not sure what kind of action is being talked about here. Let's say it's political action - voting or influencing others who then vote. We know they never let you vote about the central structures that prop up the state. There'll never be a vote to abolish taxes, to dissolve the police - or to end state welfare. The welfare state is the devious invention that allows farms of tax slaves to be operated at low cost, since the slaves may think they and the masters are joined in doing good. With that in mind, politics will present you with two options to vote about to your heart's content: inviting the migrants and swelling the welfare state or "securing the borders" and swelling the police state. Going directly towards fascism or having a short detour through socialism, the wealth will soon be spent anyway. The voluntary option of letting people move freely without shoving stolen money at them is never on the menu. Voting can't make anyone free. Every vote cast is ever a vote to accept slavery, as participation in politics is taken as support for the state in some form. There's a theory that voluntaryism will win on the day 10% of the population believe in peaceful solutions. If I vote, I'm showing the world that I don't believe this, I act to make that day recede into the future. Those are my thoughts. I want nothing to do with state power, I won't side with the slave masters. Democracy is not my culture, why should I fight for it? Voluntaryism is my culture, and it's a small but growing web of individuals spread over the globe. We need to get ever better at creating more thinkers, anarchists. What happens to our home countries is nothing we can affect, what can we gain by entering politics, by ceasing to act as anarchists? I hope I'm not completely beside the track here. I hear your emotions, and I'm scared too. Destruction might come through the migrants or some other way - hasn't Stef predicted for 10 years that it will come? I plan to watch and listen to what will unfold in the world, and move places, if I have to. In the meantime I'm going to think and grow and love life, and I want the same for you who are reading here. Janne

Interesting! And found out by a professor named Mullineaux, to boot.

Hi Yeravos, how are you doing? I hope you're well, at least apart from the issue at hand! I have 2 questions before maybe delving deeper into the details of what you said. Do you have any idea as to why you are scared to talk about this in this forum? Is there evidence that people got attacked personally for holding this position, which after all seems to be very close to Stef's? I'm not sure why one should be scared to speak about it *here* - in the world at large it would be a different affair, of course. I'm just curious. The other thing I'm unsure about is what you're aiming to achieve with your posting, which obviously took some effort, intellectually and emotionally? You didn't really specify what reaction you are after from your readers. Are you looking for a rational discussion of your position which might involve counter-arguments, or for support from people feeling the same as you, or do you want people to change their actions, or is it something else that you would want as a response? You gave some statements, but didn't ask for any kind of response, it seems to me. And it's not just you, I feel the same about some of Stef's podcasts on the topic: I'm given information, which could be discussed, but what is the intention in giving me this information, what ought I to do about it? If you have an answer to that, I'd be glad. Take care, Janne

Hi Nik, welcome to philosophy! If you're ever in Berlin, you're welcome to join our weekly meetup. (Saturdays or Sundays, you can find the link here.) Or message me on facebook, I'm "Janne Wilhelm" there. Have a good time with the great people here!

Just a little nitpicking: Almost 50% of people ARE above average drivers, assuming driving skill is normally distributed.

I sympathize with your exasperation that it's so hard to find good people. But, aren't you running into contradictions here? I get the idea that your emotions are really speaking with your question: "Where's the (my?) tribe?" Can there be a tribe made up of the kind of people who oppose cleaving to a tribe? Perhaps a tribe is too much to ask for in this complicated world, if you fully take into account all the complications that make up you. I'd say, if you can find *one* good person, who's really right for you, it might be worth moving to the other side of the country to live near this person. If you can find a cluster of two or three, so much better. With one person you can have a deep and complicated relationship, in which you can grow further. A tribe might be too much of an idealization to permit real connection and growth. Try living intimately and truthfully with one person, then three, maybe that's all of tribe anyone needs?

Very nice!

You make good points, andrew. I'll add this: 3) It's presented as a lose-lose scenario, and in these cases you should always ask: Who created the situation to begin with? Let's say a schoolyard bully yells at you: "Go and hit Terry over the head, or I'll strangle this kitten!" Something bad is going to happen, whether you agree to do it or not. But who created that situation and is thus responsible for ANY outcome? Maybe the government will conscript, maybe they won't. No good person can be responsible for appeasing the bully. Thus, the (purposefully incomplete) argument that was given serves as a justification for people who are eager to join the bullies. I'd go so far to say that as a result of their upbringing they're sadists looking to complete their training. Not that every soldier is neccessarily a sadist, but people who employ lose-lose arguments are highly suspect.

Hi sash! Fellow German speaker here. I was lucky that somebody else took the time and had the courage to start a meetup group here in Berlin. I hesitated two months before going there, since then I've been going every single week, if I can at all make it. I get a lot of strength from talking with people who are a) empathic and b) rational. You can send me a message, if you want to talk. I haven't got my skype set up right now, but I'm working on it.

That's a fascinating topic! Years ago, long before I'd heard about IFS or the like, I noticed that I had several modes of talking to myself. Sometimes I would say "I", sometimes "you" and sometimes even "we" when addressing myself. These different choices of pronouns was what led me to discovering the existence of "sub-personalities" within me. It was later that I noticed that there were more than just three of them and that they differed in tone and content as well, but it all began with me noticing the strangeness of me addressing myself as "you". Like in: "You blew it again, now did you!" or "You can't do a thing right!" It took me years to separate this voice from the rest of my inner dialogue and to trace its origins to a black figure hiding in the cracks of the walls, trying to bring me down with endless criticism while taking not a shred of responsibility upon itself. Then I found another part in me, the part that was actively doing this exploration, the only voice that would use "I" to describe myself. I found that this "I" had to take responsibility, to give the structure and solidity that all the "you" and "we" voices lacked. Today, things are more relaxed within my mecosystem. Whenever a voice speaks up like: "You need to have everything ready before the guests arrive! You spent too much time on your own stuff!", I usually take notice and greet the voice: "Hello. Take a seat and say what you have to say. Who's that 'you' you're talking about, doesn't that include you too?" Then I rephrase all the sentences with "I". Oh, *I* need to have everything ready? Is that really true? Would it be the end of the world, if everything is not ready? To what extent do *I* find this task important? And I feel much, much better. Thanks for bringing this up! I'd certainly like to hear more of the inner 'yous' of all of you!

MMX2010, I'm sorry you had an unpleasant experience at the meetup. I know you only through your posts on this board, which have often been of value to me. And even in this post, writing about your negative experience, you provided two links to concise, informative articles, I thank you for that. Since it is relevant to the discussion, I provide my recollection of my inner processes on reading the first lines of your post: I felt a sadness in my gut and a picture came up inside me, a hypothetical but still in that moment very real image of myself being in a room with other people that I want to connect to, but can't. A feeling of loneliness and despair came over my body. (Not all-consuming, but clearly felt.) Up to this moment, my "head", my rationality hadn't had time to react, but now my rational system came on-line. (Rationality is much slower than gut feelings.) I reminded myself, that I don't know what you felt, that it is possible that you felt something else entirely. That I do not know the people you met there, that I know you only a smidgen through your posts. It was then that I realized that you didn't tell what had happened to you there, you only gave your conclusions - that you have the theory that your unpleasant experience may be related to the definition of empathy used within the FDR community. Ok, I'm stopping my recollections here. This illustrates that, at least for me, the emotional response usually comes first, that it is very visceral and can be very intense. Emotional empathy, if you wish to call it that. With a small delay, rational considerations followed and called up experiences that I've had where my emotional empathy has led me astray, where I had jumped to conclusions in the past. I was still concerned with your experience, but more detached, thus, if I was in a position to give practical counsel to you, possibly more helpful as I was less drenched in my own emotional experiences and more open to wider possibilities. We may call that rational empathy, BUT: At least for me, the psychological "fuel" to concern my rational thoughts with your unpleasant experience comes from my emotional reaction to what you wrote. Without "emotional empathy" there would be no "rational empathy". My rational mind would just as happily dive into the abstract definitions you provided and have a blast looking for inconsistencies or interesting insights. It was my emotional reaction to your post that focused my rational thinking on what might be of help to you. (Realizing then that I possess far too little data about you right now to be of much use.) For me, my emotional and rational systems are not competitors but instead work in tandem within me. Each is there to help the other out and to catch errors that my current amount of experience allows me to see. At the moment I'm not finding within me a third system to ascribe compassionate empathy to and I didn't much care for the very short definition given for that term in the article. I'm generally suspicious of "helping". The best help in most situation to me seems to be honesty, yet this is almost never what people refer to when they talk about "helping". I still want to know what really happened at the meetup, if you'd like to share more. Thank you for the stimulating topic! And Anuojat has written very well on the proper focus of therapy, not a lot I'd add to that. I also like MMX2010's short-cut questions, it seems to me that both could be compatible.

Very well done video. Thank you, Darius!