Search the Community

I am a psychology major undergraduate and have a couple days to apply for a job/internship at the Centre for Cognitive Work and Safety Analysis which is a part of the Department of Defence Science and Technology, Australia. Australia is an ally of the United States of America and fought beside them in all the major wars. Australia is a Commonwealth so if Britain declares war, Australia must contribute to the war effort. Australia is actively involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war against ISIS. Australia is also part of the Korean war. My duty might involve improving the displays of fighter aircraft which would directly effect bombing missions in the middle east. Other duties I could be involved in is research, transcribing, conducting interviews and analysis. This internship would last for 4 months maximum. There are many benefits to getting this internship. There are not really any other jobs in the market for students that would challenge my research and cognitive skills. I'm thinking of becoming a neuropsychologist so it's really important, especially when I go for PhD (In Australia it is required). Also, the pay is good and I have no shame for taking taxpayer money while I am young. Also, the centre is literally in the same suburb that I live in, and halfway between my house and my university. Also, it could teach me something about the psychology of those in the military which is very unique knowledge for a libertarian to have. If it were not for the initiation of force, there wouldn't be many better jobs that I could be doing at the moment. While what I'm doing might be directly working for the military, but morally speaking, it's not necessarily different to other work I could be doing because my taxes would go towards the military anyway. Violation of the NAP is wrong, but what I could be doing could help me prevent violations of the NAP more than actually violating the NAP. Also, if I were at any time uncomfortable, I could quit. Still, it bothers me that what I would be doing would be directly contributing to the murder of innocent people. How could I find a balance in this scenario? (did you forget it's valentines day?)

Reason Vs. Emotion Vs. Belief Vs. Consciousness Reason, emotion, belief, and consciousness, have a fundamental place in epistemology and psychology but I have not found where they sit. I especially haven't found where they sit from first principles. My hope with this discussion is that these things can find their proper place. Emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational I have some ideas, each with their own arguments and evidence. From what I gather, Stefan has an implicit, specific conception of the relation between these things. The two major premises I can identify are 1) Emotions reflect belief, and 2) beliefs are always rational. Now, this second premise seems obviously false, but there is a corollary to it 3) beliefs do not necessarily reflect conscious thought. I should make it clear, by beliefs I mean what we really believe deep down and might not even be conscious of. Evidence for It's from these premises that much of the psychology in this community can be explained. We can explain the true self as rationality and the collection of beliefs. We can explain the false self as the origin of conscious thought that is not wholly informed by beliefs. We can explain free will by saying that it is a choice whether conscious thought wholly informs itself with belief. It also conforms with the evidence. It explains self-defence mechanisms where a person consciously thinks something but believes something else. It explains how personalities as a collective can be fragmented throughout history from all the evils that take place. It gives foundation to how a child protects themselves with false thoughts. It explains how psychotherapy works, by uncovering beliefs using critical thinking and self-reflection. It explains procrastination, as procrastination just reflects the belief of resentment. It would suggest we should follow our emotions as long as we identify them properly. Evidence against The issue is, there is a lot of evidence against these things. Are emotional leftist protesters simply misunderstanding their emotions? Are they masking a true self with a false self? Do people fall for propaganda because of the false self, or maybe we aren't actually innately rational? Another problem is, it seems incredibly redundant to have a true self making calculations, and then a false self making entirely different calculations about the same thing. Cognitive therapies suggest something is wrong with cognition itself. For example, schema therapy suggests that we have core beliefs that are often themselves unconscious and formed in childhood that are irrational and make us feel some ways or generate negative thoughts. It would be strange to have an extra layer to this by saying that those irrational core 'beliefs' are preceded by true beliefs. It is very hard for me to believe that emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational. But it also explains so much and makes life a lot easier. Argument for from first principles Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rather than doing some kind of trial-and-error, making observations, etc, an argument from first principles would take away a lot of doubt about the psychology taught in this community. I would think that arguing for these psycho-epistemological concepts from first principles would be the most important thing, as the psycho-epistemology kind of defines what this whole community is about. I tried to find these first principles, and I found these quotes from Ayn Rand. "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards." (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 147) All knowledge is derived from reality, so emotions follow cognition. Perhaps we could further say from this that emotions reflect cognition. And, perhaps we can assume cognition and reason that goes with it have sovereignty. Indeed, doesn't seem logical that a rational faculty would allow something like 2+2=5. It is more likely that anyone who thinks such a thing is not using their rational faculty. It would also seem strange that the rational faculty would switch off, rather than keep working at the background. In fact, I think that our very feeling of having a self and having free will sort of rest upon the idea that we have some kind of sovereignty, and that we know what is best for ourselves, and we trust our faculties to give us the most accurate information possible. Perhaps this should be self-evident. Perhaps this is self-evident to any peacefully parented individual. Argument against from first principles Ayn Rand would disagree with our second premise; that beliefs are always rational. "Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values." (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 5) also, "An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . . In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?” (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 17) Rand is seeming to suggest emotions can reflect irrational thoughts. It seems beliefs held in the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance'. She says that using the rational faculty is not automatic but voluntary. So it has sovereignty, but it is up to a person to use it. Her view does make a lot of sense. Our working memory is incredibly limited, so thinking rationally would be incredibly limited. Perhaps there is no 'true self' beyond our ability to reason consciously. If Rand is right, I believe it challenges the psychology of this community. Rather than listening to a true self, and to emotions and their origins, her views would suggest we should rather use reason alone to find what is the right thing to do and to create habits out of it. Perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no ought from an is. It makes a lot of sense to me that only emotions can tell us something as trivial as what flavour of ice cream to have and something as serious as whether I should really marry some person. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance', but maybe it a somewhat active system which holds our true beliefs, while our conscious thoughts themselves can differ. What do people think? Can these premises be proven from first principles? Maybe you think the premises I outlined are inaccurate? How do you think is the best way to approach and deal with emotions and choices? Have any podcasts/books to share about this stuff?

I know that there is no context to my questions, I just want to hear your thoughts on these questions at face value. Question 1. If you listen to Jordan Peterson or know the Bible, you know about Cain vs Abel story. My fundamental question is, what system do you have in place to not become Cain? (Cain = becoming angry/bitter at God/being) Question 2. Carl Jung's concept of The Shadow is very interesting to me. How would one differentiate The Shadow versus just rage/anger. Now Jordan Peterson once said that you have to respect the shadow, what are the practical ways to do that?

In Jordan B. Peterson's 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, he expresses support for the use of corporal punishment and argues that it can be an effective form of discipline. What does the research say? Introduction: 0:00 Quotations: 0:18 Research: 3:45 Contradiction: 5:59 Ending Corporal Punishment: 6:59 Conclusion: 7:56 References: 8:52 References Durrant, J. E., Ensom, R., & Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. (2004). Joint statement on physical punishment of children and youth. Ottawa: Coalition on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. Durrant, J., & Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research. CMAJ, 184(12), 1373-1377. doi:10.1503/cmaj.101314 Gershoff, E. T. (2013). Spanking and child development: We know enough now to stop hitting our children. Child Development Perspectives, 7(3), 133-137. Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 1-17. doi:10.1037/fam0000191 Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children. (2017). Ending legalised violence against children: global progress to December 2017. Author. Retrieved from www.endcorporalpunishment.org/resources/global-reports/global-report-2017.html Mulvaney, M. K., & Mebert, C. J. (2007). Parental corporal punishment predicts behavior problems in early childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 389-397. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.389 Peterson, J. B. (2018). 12 rules for life: an antidote to chaos. Toronto: Random House Canada. Straus, A, M., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 151, 761-767. Vittrup, B., & Holden, G. W. (2010). Children's assessments of corporal punishment and other disciplin ary practices: the role of age, race, SES, and exposure to spanking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 211-220. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.11.003 Further Reading Afifi, T. O., Ford, D., Gershoff, E. T., Merrick, M., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Ports, K. A., . . . Bennett, R. P. (2017). Spanking and adult mental health impairment: The case for the designation of spanking as an adverse childhood experience. Child Abuse & Neglect, 71, 24-31. Gershoff, E. T., & Bitensky, S. H. (2007). The case against corporal punishment of children. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(4), 231-272. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.13.4.231

In FDR358 (Stef's wager) Stefan argued that it is better to believe in free will when lacking information to its existence. He calls this argument Stef’s wager. If you believe in free will but determinism is true then you were determined to believe in free will so you lost nothing. If you believe in determinism but free will is true then you lost your ability for personal responsibility which is worse. In this post, I will argue against the wager and utilise my argument against the wager to provide a case for, and to defend determinism. I will not cite all my paraphrases of Stefan for obvious reasons, but that is not a problem given that others may correct me if they believe I have misrepresented Stefan. Also, phrases with single quotation marks are quoting Stefan. Free will is defined as that which any person who possesses it could have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being uncaused by any physical effect. Decisions may be caused by something non-material like a soul. Or they may be self-caused, as Stefan has favoured. This definition of free will is the same definition Stefan has used. No sane determinist truly believes that beliefs cannot be changed or that choice does not exist. No sane determinist truly believes people cannot be rational or cannot debate. So naturally, a determinist will probably not find Stef’s wager convincing given that the determinist had probably considered the ability to choose when they adopted their belief in determinism. A determinist will not believe that beliefs cannot be influenced. Therefore, I argue that a better wager would be to show the pragmatic consequences of a determinist morality vs. a free will morality. This is more in line with the original Descartes wager. Descartes did not argue that if you believe in God but God does not exist then you cannot have lost anything because then morality does not exist anyway and so free will doesn't exist and you could not have changed your mind. Rather, he weighed up the consequences of the belief without changing epistemological postulates. He said if you believe in God but there is no God then you have not changed much in your life. If you believe in no God but there is a God then you will go to hell. Nowhere in this argument are one’s epistemological beliefs challenged. The wager is a pragmatic rather than a philosophical argument. Speaking in pragmatic terms, the wager favours neither position particularly strongly. There are many changes that a person makes if they are committed to determinism, for which it would be costly if they didn't make if determinism is true. Firstly, you stop evaluating people based on the decisions they make and start evaluating them on their behaviour. This makes life much simpler because you stop judging your own desires about people. You don't try to convince yourself someone is worth your time because they are trying their best to be a good person. You don't feel guilty for being selfish with regards to your relationships. According to a study, 44% of trait conscientiousness is heritable. This study supports the claim that virtue is predetermined. Secondly, you become compassionate towards others. You understand anger does not appeal to their rationality. Given that you evaluate them on their behaviour, you can infer that they are not worthy of your time if they don't change their behaviour. You may call them stubborn without any need to grant them free will. Thirdly, you have a richer understanding of human nature. How anger could change someone even if free will is true is difficult to imagine. A much simpler approach is to understand our emotions do not necessarily have any moral content. Anger may be a fight or flight mechanism. Shame may be a way of keeping the integrity of a tribe. Hatred depends on subjective values. There is not necessarily an unconscious 'true self' that 'knows everything' and then the extra component of free will. Rather, we can understand how people think by analysing their biology and experiences. According to free will, brain damage may affect a person’s emotions or unconscious motives, but it should not be able to affect a person’s virtue or moral worth, which should be solely determined by free will, and free will not being determined by physical effect. However, a study found that brain damage can casually make changes in the way that people reason which can causally change moral beliefs. Fourthly, you become compassionate towards yourself. A meta-analysis found a large effect size for the negative relationship between self-compassion and psychopathology, r = − 0.54 (95% CI = − 0.57 to − 0.51; Z = − 34.02; p < .0001). We can come to understand that when we say ‘sorry’, we don’t really mean we are worthy of shame, but rather that we understand that we should change how we behave in the future compared to the past. We also stop comparing ourselves to others. Under the dictum that reason equals virtue equals happiness, we may feel compelled to compare our levels of happiness to others, or to compare our virtue to that of others. This is not a good approach. We can accept that we are not all dealt the same hand, and there may as well be things that determine our virtue for which are difficult to control. It is not to say that we ought not to strive for virtue, but that virtue should not necessarily be the determinant of self-esteem. What is more appropriate is to compare oneself in the present to oneself in the past. Stefan has argued that determinism is paradoxical because it presupposes that a person is capable of choice, that is, changing their beliefs, while at the same time asserting that choice is impossible. Determinism is the opposite of free will. So, determinism is defined as not being able to have chosen differently in a circumstance given that the circumstance is unchanged, hence choices being caused by physical effects. According to this definition, whether a person has actually made a choice remains untouched. So, the ability to choose and the fact that a person could not have chosen differently are compatible. Choice itself does not require free will. Choice is the ability to change behaviour in virtue of being rational. Rationality is simply conceptual ‘fidelity to reality’. This does not entail free will. Rationality distinguishes us from animals. Animals cannot think conceptually, and we can. Free will then is not required to distinguish human and animal thought. Stefan has argued that if a determinist attempts to debate because they believe others are 'inputs and outputs', then it explains why other people debate, but it would also mean the determinist is also an input-output machine. And therefore, a determinist has not chosen to debate with others and cannot attempt to debate in the first place which is a performative contradiction. To this argument I rebut. If free will does exist and we are watching two others debate, we can explain their behaviour without appealing to free will by labelling them as inputs and outputs much like philosophical zombies. A determinist simply takes that further to say that this is also a characteristic of the observer. We can still choose to debate even if it was determined. I am yet to have heard a philosophical argument from Stefan against determinism without him appealing to the argument of performative contradiction. If there is no contradiction with the belief of free will, we should look at the evidence and the simplest explanation. Stefan has acknowledged that determinism should be accepted only if it is non-contradictory given that it is simpler. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that determinism is simpler to free will for the following reasons. Firstly, everything else seems to be determined by all effects acting as also as all causes. Stefan has argued that we should not be surprised to find that the human mind possesses free will given that it is only the brain that possesses consciousness. However, I am not sure whether it's correct to assume that only the brain possesses consciousness. Consciousness cannot be objectively observed. If it were not for what we have observed in the physical human body and comparing it to our subjective experience, there would have been no way to know that consciousness resides in the brain. In fact, we still don't really know whether animals are conscious. In that regard, a rock could even be conscious in some manner, a position known as panpsychism. If a computer was capable of conceptual processing, it is likely that the computer would be conscious at a level similar to our own. Consciousness may have to do more with complexity and feedback loops than it has to do with the brain. I had a dream a while ago in which I saw consciousness and life itself arising from feedback loops, weird dream. Secondly, I do not know what it means to feel free. At least from my perspective, I see my thoughts as constant dialectics. I have said sorry enough times to my girlfriend where I really feel like I don't have much control as I thought I had. Do any men concur? Split-brain patients will often have opposing preferences in separate hemispheres. For example, one hemisphere may have atheistic leanings while the other has theistic leanings. Whether the person is actually theistic may have to do with what ever preference dominates consciousness as a unitary experience, but it does go to show the power of causality in the brain. Also, in my experience the biggest changes in my behaviour have arisen from changes in my environment rather than changes in my attitude. Thirdly, morality requires rationality but it does not require free will. Nowhere in the UPB framework is there a requirement for free will. If a person is rational, they will be moral by adopting universal preferences. Whether a person is rational may be predetermined. Fourthly, it is difficult to articulate what free will actually is. If you were asked to pick a random grass leaf from a field, it is difficult to claim you could have chosen differently. Every choice must depend on knowledge. Picking a grass leaf from a field is not an informative decision. You cannot for example say to have free will about whether to steer a ship east or west while in the middle of an unknown ocean at least without some scientific acuity. Likely, you will pick based solely upon gut feelings, or some kind of patterns of thinking or heuristics. Indeed, this is why neuroscientists can predict such behaviour before the person is aware of their decision. But even if a decision were to be more informative, like for example whether to watch this movie or that movie, there is nothing in your environment which informs you about what you ought to do. It is not intrinsically more rational to watch either movie. There is no ought from an is. Now, we can still say that morality exists. We can say it’s rational to be moral, for your behaviour to be universally preferable. However, choosing to watch a movie is not a moral decision. Subjective taste would largely determine which movie to watch, which arises from unconscious processes. If you are rational, unconscious motives will drive your specific behaviours. If you are irrational, unconscious motives will still drive your specific behaviours. Then, free will might not exist in the behavioural decisions per se, but rather in the choice about whether one acts rationally or irrationally regardless of what behaviour that entails. This is certainly what Ayn Rand believed. The point here is that free will how it is typically conceptualised as existing in every choice we make is unnecessary, and creates the problem of supposing some open system where we get inspiration or information from something that is neither in our environment or biology. To conclude, whether or not a person believes in determinism has significant effects on their life regardless of whether determinism is true. Determinism is not incompatible with the ability to choose. Therefore, it does not contradict how we act. Given that determinism is the simplest explanation, determinism is true. Determinism is defined as a lack of the ability have chosen differently. Free willers would argue the corollary to determinism is that choice does not exist. Conventionally then, determinism is also defined as the lack of choice. But I would argue that this belief is the idea of fatalism and not determinism. Given that morality exists and free will is an important concept in moral reasoning, I am in favour of compatibilism which states that free will does not contradict determinism if we define free will conventionally as the ability to choose and determinism as not having been able to have chosen differently. A person who is a compatibilist is still a determinist. I also wish not to do a disservice to free willers by abandoning the term known as free will used to describe the position of believing in the ability to have chosen differently, so I think it is appropriate to call that position free will while separating it from conventional free will.

Socialization is defined by a psychologist as the praxis of conditioning children to conform to the rules and norms of society. A person is verbally expressed to be well socialized if he believes in and complies with the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem preposterous to verbalize that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a revolter. Nevertheless, the position can be bulwarked. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem. In fact they are so over-socialized that they “continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions” to verbatim the Unabomber. When I was an atheist, I use to equate the SJW with the Religious Right who went on a Pedo-Satanist witch hunt during the 1980s and attempted to ban rock/metal music(I am a connoisseur of music, metal, hard rock, and punk in particular. This change when I became a Christian, this year. Albeit, I often ask myself that if I am being sanctimonious when I find myself sounding like Rick “Butt-Juice” Santorum”(I am against marijuana and yet it seems immoral to poke your nose into others business especially when it does not harm) In a way the Oversocialized Christian fundamentalist produced a mirror image of themselves(the Cultural Marxist). Anyway, enough my unintelligible rambling. My question is how to create a cultural economic policy(I wonder if the *Amish capitalism led to Crony, consumerist, and degenerate capitalism but I do oppose any if not all state intervention. In fact I think the expansion of the State’s entanglement with economic matters help capitalism to become bloated and degenerate) that will not led to a class of over socialized opposition and/or we become oversocialized ourselves? Or consider the opposite, if we try to avoid the issue, will we become nihilist, such as the fate of the Libertarian Party and their spiritual counterpart The *Church of Satan/ LaVeyan Satanism who was founded by an ex-carnie whose “dream-girl” is no other than (((Ayn Rand)))? *The Amish are know for piety and their work ethic which I admire despite me being an Orthodox Christian. *Oddly enough it is states on the Church of Satan’s website that a Marxist could join if he or she wishes. Egregious right, considering Ayn Rand is the complete opposite of Jewish Faggot and full-time Santa,(((Karl Marx)))? Albeit, both were materialism.

I recently discovered the concept of Positive Disintegration from a COMMENT written on a post on DangerandPlay.com (said post is linked below) https://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/08/20/challenges-of-being-a-gifted-man/ After lots of reading and delving into the concepts Dabroski describes, I immediately related with most of the specific ideas therein. When viewed through the lens of Positive Disintegration, my own life from age 21-24 came into focus and finally makes sense. During those years I experienced a period of severe depression that was disproportional to any actual problems in my life. I "cured" myself of depression through self knowledge, self education, and my own form of "mindset" training. ( I had not yet taken The Red Pill ) I now believe that it was not an accident that I discovered FreedomainRadio and other similar resources AFTER I went through the intense, volitional physiological development described in the theory of Positive Disintegration. I am very curious to hear peoples thoughts on this, and any related personal anecdotes are appreciated. This is my first post on FDR, so I apologize if I sound like a total "noob" in this post. Link to a good starting point for learning about Positive Disintegration: http://www.positivedisintegration.com/#overview Cheers!

In arguments, I have noticed a sort of algorithmic pattern of behavior from leftists. We've been analyzing the ideas and environmental factors associated with the modern left, but we need a deeper understanding. It has been one of my greatest intellectual challenges to unravel the most fundamental emotions and motivations of their ideology. Disclaimer: I will be broadly generalizing in my descriptions. 'Leftist' is a broad term with variability in its definitions which is used to describe millions of people who are all different. Existential Anxiety and Fear: There are a great many threats in the world, and most people are aware of more than a few of these threats. Our fear and anxiety comes from an ancient part of our mind, one equipped for immediate threats and unfamiliar situations. Human beings are in a unique position of feeling our 'primitive' fear and anxiety in response to every threat imaginable. And, we can imagine so many existential threats to our lives, and to our well-being. We can also imagine threats to our ideology and mental continuity, which is an important element in this description. You may have observed someone become absurdly upset in response to an idea. New ideas can be perceived as an existential threat; a threat that was not anticipated and is not fully understood. The idea is not just a group of words, it is a gateway to an abyss. It is an implication that one is misguided, ignorant, stupid, poorly equipped for life, and/or doomed to suffer and die. The Abdication of Personal Responsibility: It can be a great relief to reject personal responsibility. It dispels anxiety, guilt, and shame. It means not having to work harder or to improve oneself. It means not having to change or to annihilate parts of oneself in order to become better. Determinism: Perhaps determinism is rational, even scientific, but that is not the main reason the modern left favors it. The modern left favors determinism because it allows them to abdicate personal responsibility, something they value far more than scientific rationality. Scientific rationality could not be their highest value because they reject the scientific claims that conflict with their ideology. Unhappiness: Let's face it: most people are unhappy most of the time. Happiness is not a common or sustainable state. "Life is suffering." We live in an era of unprecedented affluence and luxury, but people are still unhappy. The modern left has a specific response to suffering in life. Because they abdicate personal responsibility, the modern left must blame environmental factors for their suffering. Therefore, to diminish suffering, the environment must be altered. It is the only real conclusion that can be drawn from these elements. Of course, altering the environment usually means using state power. Faith in Government: It is a common response to fear and anxiety to put faith in a 'higher power' in hopes of receiving some protection from the existential threats. Just considering potential corruption in the government is frightening. Not only that, the idea of government corruption could return the onus of responsibility to the individual. To them, government is the most powerful tool we have to alter society in order to reduce suffering and make people happier. Faith in government reduces fear and anxiety, relieves personal responsibility, and it can be used to alter society and environmental factors. Idealizing Society: Instead of idealizing potential characteristics of individuals, the modern left must idealize potential characteristics of society. This too, is caused by the abdication of personal responsibility. Because suffering and inequality cannot be the result of individual inadequacy, suffering and inequality must be caused by environmental factors. Therefore, environmental factors must be changed. They pursue utopia. With these elements in mind, the political beliefs of the modern left don't just make sense. These factors make their political beliefs inevitable.

I've been a married man for 7 years now, no kids, no abuse in my background, no rap sheet. As an insult from women in my life, I have been called "crazy" at different times, in the context of "F you, you're F'n crazy" or "get away from me, you're crazy". It's always been as a parting shot, from women I've had bad experiences with that ended in bitter fights. This is not a common occurrence, but it stands out as the times that it has happened that puzzle me, because that has been their go-to insult. I'm an average guy, I have many friends and loved ones. I talk to people regularly, other people close to me have never called me crazy. These were not all from women that I had intimacy with, some were just friends. My question for men is, (assuming you're a sane, rational group) Have you experienced the same when ending it with a woman? If "crazy" is that common of an insult, what could be the reason behind that choice of words?

Hey everyone, I think that it would be wise and valuable if we were to share what books have aided us in our pursuit of self-knowledge. I think that it would be nice to have a summary of the book and the relevant parts, and share what you have gained from reading the book. Healing the Shame that Binds You by John Bradshaw Shame is such a powerful emotion. It is especially powerful when we do not realize that we are experiencing shame. Bradshaw talks about the difference between healthy shame--accepting one's natural limits--and toxic shame--believing that we are fundamentally unworthy of love, me-plus. He takes the theoretical model of a shame cycle--we feel bad, we cope, and then we feel bad because we have coped, so then we cope more to relieve our negative feelings--and applies to real people. The antidote to toxic shame is love, and so much of trauma and dysfunction is the result of not receiving the love that we needed when we needed it. Reading this book and understanding shame has helped me clear up a lot of self-attack and generalized negative self-beliefs. I have been able to recognize that when I cope, it is because I am seeking comfort and love, and that to attack myself is just to further the pattern that was my childhood, a traumatizing and dysfunctional pattern. I really recommend reading this book, because in my experience toxic shame has been such a challenging emotion to identify, and the moment that I have been able to identify it for what it is is the moment that I have been able to start making progress and healing.

Are you thinking about trying therapy, but aren't sure or don't believe you can afford it. Well, you can! In this video, I talk about how you can find a therapist to work with in long-term, regular psychotherapy, even if you can afford to pay very little or even nothing at all! Check it out and please share! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgjhsMOoFYE Also, check out my website and blog!

YouTube Description: Clinical psychologist Jay Joseph details medical science's 30-year failed quest to find any link between genetics and diagnoses of mental disorders, and debunks widely held beliefs in the psychiatric profession, including the idea of 'genetic predispositions' for mental illness. Jay is the author of The Missing Gene: Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes and The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology Under the Microscope. http://www.jayjoseph.net/

Hey all, check out my latest blog post, in which I talk about how we tend to repeat unsatisfying patterns in our relationships and how to change those patterns.

Often, what we fervently believe to be true about people in general is the reality that we have trouble fully facing about people in our own lives. For more on this, check out my video here.

Check out my blog post about depression! In it, I talk about my perspective on the nature of depression and how to work through it in therapy, based on my own experience in dealing with it and more recently helping others through it as a therapist. Please share, if you like what I wrote. Thanks!

Hello FDR community! I've been listening to FDR for several years, have gotten so much value from the work that Stef, Mike, and others have contributed, and am excited to announce that I have opened my own private psychotherapy practice in Seattle. I am currently accepting new Seattle area therapy clients and thought I would put the word out here. You can check out my website and blog here. Feel free to contact me through the contact info on my website with any questions or to set up an appointment! Ben

http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Emotional-Brain-Eliminating-Reconsolidation/dp/0415897173/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437409086&sr=8-1&keywords=unlocking+the+emotional+brain&pebp=1437409088489&perid=1D8PX6XESXTMFM741QS2 Hey everyone, this book has so far been the most interesting and informative thing in Therapy and Psychology I've read, so I wanted to put out a recommendation and overview here, as I'm sure a lot of you would find it very interesting as well. The book starts by providing an overview of the research that was going on over the last two decades, both in analysing psychotherapy in detail and neuroscientific findings about how emotional learning works and can be changed or erased (which was something that was thought to be impossible only ten years ago). After that the author explains the steps that are now known to be necessary to produce that change and then goes to show a lot of examples of how that worked in therapy. The main focus is on therapists using Coherence therapy, however, since there are quite a few therapies that unknowingly use that same steps to create changes, they also show how the same things looks like in some other therapy forms. The steps themselves are fairly simple in principle: (Re-)trigger the emotional learning to access its contents, then juxtapose/mismatch that content in order to erase the original learning. Obviously, in practice that can require quite some work, as the content of the learning is all subconscious and has to be unearthed first. The author is clear that there is no one single best technique to do any of those steps, which means, you can use the whole plethora of available techniques and see what works best for you (or your patient, if you're a therapist). However the steps themselves can be found one way or another in different therapies, although often without the explicit knowledge of the therapist about them, which makes it sometimes more a game of chance whether or not that patient can be helped effectively. Also it is important to note that so far this is the only process we know of that can actually change emotional learning. This works regardless of how deeply rooted the emotion or symptom is, or how intense or long it has been going on. This still relatively knew knowledge alone is quite a big breakthrough for Psychotherapy and anyone interested in self-knowledge/self-therapy, as it essentially changes the discipline like the atomic model changed Alchemy (trial and error) to Chemistry (an underlying explanatory model for how and why the process works). Anyway, I'm kinda bad at writing summaries and overviews for an audience, so I hope this gives you a good overview, but obviously ask if there's stuff you're curious about where I wasn't clear or if you have more questions about the content. Either way, I hope you're gonna check it out, it's really a great book with great content.

Recently I became a bronze donor to this wonderful experiment in philosophy, and I've been going through some of the bronze files. I came across this one recently: https://board.freedomainradio.com/files/file/115-preparing-for-launch/ (Can't access it? Donate! ) and Stefan said something which really got me thinking. About 1/4 of the way in, the listener speaks about how he is an introvert, which he thinks is a contributing factor as to why he can't get his life 'off the ground', so to speak, and Stefan replies, "if you are introverted, the last place you want to be is at home, because if you are introverted then it may have something to do with the way that you were raised. So if you're at home, you're going to be continually exposed to the same environment that contributed to your introversion." Stefan also later expresses his sympathy for the listener being an introvert, which implies that introversion is a negative thing (I'm not saying it isn't, that's what I'm asking about). So my question is this: are introversion and extroversion even real things? Or do all people who had decent childhoods naturally turn out as what we call extroverts, and what we call introversion is just a negative effect of a poor childhood? If this is the case, is childhood always the deciding factor? If this is not the case, is introversion necessarily a bad thing? I'm asking because I am what you might call an introvert myself. I abhor any kind of social interaction - I don't even answer my phone if some one is calling me, or answer the door when some one is knocking, so by asking this question I am trying to glean how broken I am in personality, how I might have turned out if I'd had a good childhood, and how to fix myself if I am indeed broken.

A very important message regarding a painfully common misconception about having psychoemotional struggles, feeling unsure, being "weak," and looking for help.

Hello everybody. Long time lurker, first time poster. I wanted to bring up the subject of comfort objects that many of us attach to as children (i.e. stuffed animals, blankets, etc.) In my case, I had a blanket that I would cling to. I wouldn't be able to fall asleep without it until the age of 6 or so. With what I've gathered from reading articles about it, the consensus seems to be that it's a perfectly normal and healthy thing that even helps a child develop. I'm not sure if it's been discussed on the podcast or this forum before, but I find myself questioning the dogma that it's normal and healthy. I can certainly see that if a child isn't having their needs met and they aren't forming a healthy attachment to their parents, they could end up forming an attachment to an object instead. I'm curious to see what thoughts you guys have on this. It's something I started thinking about and I haven't made any conclusions yet. Did you have a comfort object also? Is it normal and healthy?

My newest video on the concepts of optimism, pessimism, and realism, and why optimism can be ineffective, harmful, or even dangerous.

I posted on Self-Archeology's blog an excerpt on the origins and effects of Freud's Oedipus Complex Theory: http://blog.selfarcheology.com/2015/12/on-freuds-theory-of-oedipus-complex.html

From my blog: Not Perfect All defensive moves look the same. When someone is about to throw a punch we instinctively raise our arms to act as a shield. It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that we developed a wide variety of strategies for attacking, based on the regional climate or environment. However, when defending against predatory attack, we have only an instant to react to the threat. Thus, we evolved with just a few mechanisms of defense because we didn’t need variation; we just needed something that worked. Most of us aren’t afraid of being punched on a daily basis. (If you are, you need to read a different post.) But many times, we perceive an attack when facing criticism from colleagues and friends, even when they’re genuinely trying to help us. The defensive move is very simple. We say, “Yeah well, nobody’s perfect.” It’s true that nobody’s perfect. But context matters. Do you think an Olympic ski jumper would refuse the gold medal because his or her landing was a little too far to the left? Of course not. And if you pointed this out, the other person would probably laugh at you and ask why you didn’t enter the competition, since you clearly know so much. However, if the roles were reversed and an Olympic ski jumper was giving you instructions on the bunny hill, it would be silly for you to say, “I’m not perfect, you know.” That’s the point — you are nowhere near perfect, which is why you’re taking a lesson from someone who is much better than you in this particular area! There are probably skills you have that your ski instructor does not. When someone says—so and so is not perfect—they really mean, “I don’t worship this person in an unhealthy way and I recognize that he or she has certain flaws like everybody else.” Most people will agree with this statement when confronted about it, but psychology indicates there may be something happening on a deeper level.* As infants and young children, our adult caregivers are naturally viewed as perfect. They are so much bigger and more intelligent than us, and they have so much power over our lives that they literally feel like perfect gods in our tiny world. So when the perfection retort is used to fend off criticism against parents, whether one’s own or someone else’s, or even someone who has filled the void left by an absent parent, we are talking about a feeling that goes way back to when we were helpless and dependent newborns. The tactic shifts the blame onto the person broaching the topic, implying that she is criticizing an Olympic ski jumper for a slightly botched landing, rather than someone whose skills are sub-par and didn’t even bother taking lessons to improve. Let’s face it, criticism towards parents is usually extremely volatile. Much more so than heckling some Olympic sport from the comfort of your living room. And yet, parenting is arguably the most important job in the world. We have to get over our fear of potentially, maybe offending someone—the stakes are too high. In any other area of the market, we would hold people to a much higher standard because we recognize that quality matters; without it customers will go somewhere else. If we excuse the behavior of our friends, parents, and partners by stating truisms like ‘nobody’s perfect’, we aren’t able to have any control over our relationships, and the improvement that deep down everyone wants will never happen. It may feel to us like a just defense at the time, but the only person it hurts in the end is ourselves. *Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist and the content of this post are merely my opinions. Please consult a trained psychotherapist if you are seeking help with mental health.

On medium this, to my great surprise, has become my most successful article yet, being my most viewed (767) piece with the largest read ratio(595 reads) of 78%. I shared this article in only two narcissistic abuse facebook groups before I went to bed around midnight and only 6 hours later both posts have gathered over 20 likes and much praise. And the thing is, this is one of the simplest things I've written. A piece which my inner critic usually opposes by telling me the next piece has to be a dazzling display of my analytical capacities being pushed to the max, with research and sweeping rhetoric. The lesson? Empiricism is the way to go. You just don't know if that thought you're having is boring or not until you share things. The “Narcissistic Dull” Much has been written about narcissists, in great length and in great detail. Such work has even spawned the invention of new terms and lingo to better describe characteristics that are typically displayed by narcissists as well as to establish a clear distinction between a behavior when its exhibited by a narcissist versus someone like you or me. For example, there’s rage and then there’s “Narcissistic Rage.” Anybody who’s encountered such fury will know that there’s a clear difference between the two. For example, I rage sometimes, like when I yell at electronics that aren’t working the way I want them to. However, it’s totally a guilty indulgence for me and something that if you happened to witness on accident, I’d feel pretty embarrassed about it and would be keen on persuading you that it’s not something I do a lot or think is ideal. When a Narcissist rages she feels no such shame. She does not consider the boundaries of others nor how her screaming tirades impacts those around her and if she does, she feels self righteous and that the abuse is justified. Even if she’s aware of how immature and mean her behavior is, she does not care. If anything, she feeds off the thrill of power and feeling of omnipotence she gets from provoking fear in others. However, there is one such characteristic that I’ve encountered repeatedly in narcissists I’ve interacted with that I don’t think I’ve ever read about, which is that they are so often incredibly, painfully boring. I’d like to introduce my own term by calling it the “Narcissistic Dull”. Think about what makes a conversation enjoyable. For me, it is when the other person brings curiosity into the interaction, is truly interested in what I have to say, listens and asks questions. This is what helps to keep me engaged. But, despite the narcissist’s wit and charm, that flashy novelty wears off during conversation because they never ask you anything, don’t listen, they never are interested in you and they just go on and on and on about themselves. And because they (wrongly) think that they are interesting, they won’t neglect to mention the tiniest details. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to listen to my mom say while we’re at Subway, “You see, I’ve never really liked bread. If I eat it, I like it burnt.” Sure, anyone can be dull, but if what I’m saying is a little boring to a friend, we can express ourselves and find a way to make the conversation fun again. When the narcissist is dull, she is extremely dull, doesn’t notice how bored you are or does notice, in which case she doesn’t care about your experience in the conversation and if so so happen to make your experience known, she will not take kindly to receiving any kind of feedback that isn’t what she wants to hear.

When I see someone with a tattoo, I wonder if they thought of the long term when they got it. I wonder what their capacity was to understand the long term was when they got that tattoo? I think that by definition, to get a tattoo means to destroy cells somewhere on someone's body to replace it with something "better." I do not think this is a moral question, but a question of functionality and evaluation of compatibility between myself and other people. I am a single male, 25, who is trying to see the virtue through the boobs. I want to know, and come to understand what causes such a degree of self destruction, and I imagine that all the people around were condoning you doing it to some degree, or are the specific reason that you regretfully had so much pain, from a bad choice that you chose. It may come off as judgmental, and it certainly isn't a moral argument, or even a moral question to be sure. I apologize if this seems offensive, as I'm sure it will. I really think this is an important question, and shows us that we should pay attention to what we see, to empirical facts, reason, logic and evidence of behavior. This is just my thoughts and I would love to be shown I'm wrong. Don't give me the exceptions though, I want to know if you think I should not pay attention to this symbol that they have created, this idea that was so powerful they needed it on their body. I want to understand the air that they breathe, that is if they are the mother of my children.