gemccarty

I think we're working with different definitions of "intellectualization". I was speaking in the psychological sense of the term. Here is a formal definition: "In psychology, intellectualization is a defense mechanism where reasoning is used to block confrontation with an unconscious conflict and its associated emotional stress – where thinking is used to avoid feeling. It involves removing one's self, emotionally, from a stressful event (Wikipedia)." In this particular case he expressed what I understand to be the psychological phenomenon of intellectualization. I'm so sorry I did not make this clear in my post. --------------------------------------------------- Also, let's forget for the moment the delineation I've put forth between "sympathy" and "empathy". There is so much conflicting information about the two terms that I refuse to even try to apply "sympathy" to anything, as it is either described as a condescending and patronizing feeling of pity, or an idealization (in the psychological sense) of others who are suffering. Many go on to explain how it is similar to "rapport" (understanding between people; common feeling), which I find mind-boggling. So let's just forgo the term for now. The claimed intellectualization will be my focus for the remainder of the post. We can open a separate thread on sympathy if you would like to further discuss that topic. David Ottinger describes the subject's own experience in this example of empathy. This is not in line with an actual communication of empathy. Empathy is one's ability to understand and share the feelings of another, not draw an intellectual parallel based upon your own experience. He has avoided the experience of the person he is talking to, and moved the topic to his own intellectual analysis of the situation. Feeling the other person's experience in the moment, as they describe it, is very different from this description. Unless he expresses his experience of empathy, I don't know about it. He certainly has not communicated the presence of any empathy in this example, or accurately explained how "someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize". It is more likely that a person having a difficult time communicating their empathy, if present, would communicate in a way that is similar to the example David Ottinger has provided; which is not a crime, I am only pointing out the reality of his example. Note: I don't mean to put down David Ottinger with my replies, as empathy is a very difficult concept. It's not easy to put empathy into an example, as it is an internal process of the mind. However, the concepts put forth in Real Time Relationships ​not only make this possible, but exceedingly easy (with practice) to outwardly express empathy. I would highly recommend reading the book if you haven't already. Does that make sense?

Go to the 54:00 mark and see (statement starts around 54:30). Stef did not say that even remotely. Here are some direct quotes: ​"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who are traumatized and those who reject those who are traumatized. And the second consider themselves very good people." ​"It's horrifying to me... um... the degree to which supposedly healthy people from supposedly healthy backgrounds have zero fuckin' empathy for the victims of child abuse." ​"It is the great horrifying... horrifying... disorder of the world." ​"[...] if you're so happy and healthy and fine, where is your compassion for people less fortunate than yourself?" ​ ​"The indifference of the supposedly healthy people to the victims of child abuse, their discomfort when somebody says 'I had a bad childhood'... do you know that is fundamentally what allows abusers to hurt their children?" ​----------------------------------- ​Seeing the quotes above, I can only suspect slanderous intent, as he said the opposite of what you suggested. ​I think I can fairly say you need to review the source before posting. ​----------------------------------- Empathy is formed very early on in our development. Stef has referenced this with the difference between himself and his brother: Stef having an attentive and loving caregiver (who later named a son of hers after him) as an infant and his brother being "cared" for by his mother. The topic "Why don't people with 'good' childhoods have empathy?" is begging the question. Why? Even though you have used quotation here to mystify the term, it has a meaning. It can't be used to describe any child rearing practice except peaceful parenting. I'm going to give you the respect of not having to explain that statement here. Now, there is the question of degrees of evil, and how do people escape their childhoods with any empathy? Well, the answer is above. Some parents are caring early on, but begin outright abuse around the age of 2. By this time empathy, mirror neurons etc. are formed. There are the considerations of eye contact, attention to needs, and mirroring that affect the degree of empathy that is allowed to develop during infancy. Any absence of these needs is abuse. Whatever degree these things were lacking is the degree to which empathy development is hindered. Also, factors of intelligence and genetics play into this logically. If I can process information faster, my brain can construct the complex systems of empathy faster with less input. We wouldn't say a mentally challenged person has the capacity for empathy, even if they were raised relatively peacefully. Sympathy is a branch of empathy that includes parallel or similar situations. It doesn't need to be complicated by intellectualization. Thanks for reading!

I know this thread is somewhat old... but I have some experience with this phenomenon. The point of this situation is that she was not a pure victim. She was complicit to a degree. She may have avoided responsibility in the conversation you had about this topic and, if so, that would be your cause for discontent. This avoidance may or may not have been part of other conversations as well. If things just "happen" to her, then why couldn't they just "happen" again? Are you in danger of perpetrating this kind of behavior? Yes! We all are! Regardless of how well you intellectually understand that you won't, your unconscious knows your capacity for evil. If you think things can just "happen", your unconscious says "we could do this and *insert disaster scenario here*". It's not you imagining the others, it's you imagining your own capacity for evil, and your unconscious universalizing the principle of "stuff happens". I think, with the humility that I may we way off, you need to talk about this with her in a gentle and caring way. I am not blaming her or trying to put her down, just putting forth a possible scenario for what is occurring. In my experience, it is most beneficial to get to the reality of the situation and process that. If she already has, it is something else. Please let me know if this is the case. I know from experience that there was great anxiety in thinking about past harms done to my wife prior to fully fleshing out the circumstances. How did she get there? What were the signs early on? How did she feel in the beginning, duration, and end? Understanding how and why these situations are completely avoidable lifted a huge weight off our chests. I realized that my capacity for evil can be respected and universalized in order to help myself and my wife avoid any kind of abuse in the future. Never again will we experience these kinds of negative interactions. Note: We don't have contempt for those who have put themselves in dangerous situations unless they willingly and repetitively deny the full extent of their involvement. Too little or too much responsibility in comparison to reality will cause great discomfort for both of you. We can only connect in reality, and this might be your key to doing just that. ***an amateur opinion, thanks for reading Edited 18 Oct 2016 - 10:15 PM, to respect community guidelines (swearing and all caps)

Hi, my name is Grant. I have been studying philosophy through Stef since October of 2014. My journey to personal freedom has included shedding of all/false relationships and the gain of a single real-time relationship in February of 2015. The one remaining relationship is with my wife, Kellie, who is a beautiful and extremely intelligent woman I adore. Despite our histories of abuse, we have been able to achieve a previously unthinkable level of happiness that we continuously work to refine. Our shared desire to believe things that are true has led to great grief of a life un-lived, and the resulting joy of freedom from falsehood. Thanks for reading!

My wife and I are interested in the potential for great relationships with our fellow Young Philosophers. Grant (20) and Kellie (22), US We are genuinely interested in valuable relationships where mutual growth of knowledge occurs and "anything goes". We cherish the benefits of openness and honesty together, and would love to extend that to others. I discovered Stef in October 2014 and introduced Kellie to the ideas in February 2015 when we met. We understand all of the core arguments, and recognize the value of personal freedom. Most of our time is spent refining our relationship, which has been quite the learning process. My knowledge of philosophy is more extensive than hers due to the higher level of exposure. But don't be fooled, we watch and listen to Stef together all the time and it's always a running commentary/conversation between us. Unfortunately, we have not been to therapy. The self knowledge we have gained thus far has been through our joint efforts and commitment. Our intelligence has been the greatest factor in our ability to work through many things in a productive manner, without professional assistance. I'll just answer for myself: My expertise is fitness, particularly barbell training. Thank you for considering our "application"! I'm not sure if I have access to PM's yet, so here is my email: [email protected]

Hey Kyle! I'm new to the boards as well. I have found that the greatest move towards happiness is through shedding bad personal relationships (personal freedom). Who you spend your time with has much more power over you than the state ever will, and I fear you are focused more on the state than your own relationships. I could be way off here, just going from instinct based on what you decided to include in the post. I would argue that the story does not start in Afghanistan, but back at home. Let me know what you think!

Ed and FDR listeners, feel free to email me with personal fitness questions: [email protected]. In reply to the above posts, Here's how programming works: Compare desired adaptation to current state of the body. Compare current stimuli to biological principles. Adjust stimuli based upon biological principles, and in relation to desired adaptation. Compare resulting adaptation to desired adaptation. Adjust stimuli based upon comparison of resulting and desired adaptation. Repeat 4&5 until desired adaptation is achieved. Proper guidance is not prescription based upon biological principles alone, but discovery of the individual stimuli combination needed to achieve the desired adaptation. There is no quick answer unless you have exceptional genetics, use drugs, or are willing to accept higher body fat.