Caller from "The Secret Life of a Psychopath."

[SirJamesIII]

Hello Freedomain board! Strange that I have had this account for over a year and this is my first post. I'll cut the small talk, so I'll skip an update on my personal status for the few who are curious. 

I didn't go see a therapist. I don't regret it since I felt they are more equipped to deal with emotionally distraught kids, and not those who suffer from chronic apathy (except now I'm no longer apathetic about my own apathy). It is not guidance that I seek, but gratitude, love and self-knowledge (moreso the first two since the path towards self-knowledge never ends). I'm at a point in my life where I have most of the answers that I need, and I'm just struggling with implementing and materializing those answers. My empathy issues stunt me a bit, but that's not really an issue. I'm sure there are others with empathy issues who can empathize (the girl referred to in the call) [] But my strangeness and inherent aloofness keeps the general population from forming personal connections with me even if they find me valuable as an acquaintance/colleague. 

Stef really helped me get over my comfort in isolation. Isolation is tempting and it even helps when I enter "depressed" states (I don't know if depressed is the right word). It is sort of like a reset button. It helps me isolate the variables that trouble me, but now the variable is isolation itself. I was stuck in an infinite regress of isolation. It took an outside source for me to realize this. Stef said relationships can help one offload processing power to someone else. I was stuck in a situation where the very algorithm I use to process my problems was the problem itself and only someone else could fix that. The very phenomenon Stef was describing was happening during the call. I was by default stuck in a dumb state and I had someone else who provided oversight. 

As for the girl, there still has been no direct contact. I say direct because every time I'd send her a message, there'd be a corresponding post on her tumblr as a variation on the theme of my message. It would be like clockwork. It didn't strike me as a string of extreme coincidences. At least she listened carefully to what I had to say to her and that's a heck of a lot more than what other people do for me. People think they can ego stroke their way into relationships nowadays, but since psychopaths nary have an ego (except the one we make for ourselves and we come off as egotistical), it doesn't really help their case. I could get into the details, but that would be better for another thread. I'll stay on the psycho theme.

She frequently posts gifs and quotes from the movie "American Psycho." Turns out I owned the movie on blu ray and I never watched it. Great movie, but Bateman wasn't a psychopath, he was a sociopath. But after taking a closer look, this seemed intentional. The psychopaths were some of his colleagues and his fiance. After discussing this with my film buff friend who goes to NYU Tisch, he seemed to agree describing how it was a commentary on corporate America. The first clue to his sociopathy was that he admitted, albeit subtly, to Paul Allen that he was a child of divorce. Another clues was that he wanted to "fit in" while ironically sending an axe through Paul Allen's head to the tune of "Hip to Be Square" by Huey Lewis and The News. (I'm square as fuck on the other hand and although I though A Trick of the Tail was brilliant, I still prefer "artsy" Genesis.) The most obvious clue was practically an admittance to sociopathy. Near the end of the film Bateman narrates, "My pain is constant and sharp and I do not hope for a better world for anyone; in fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape, but even after admitting this there is no catharsis, my punishment continues to elude me and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself; no new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing." I on the other hand feel little pain, even in the literal sense since apparently psychopaths tend to have high pain tolerances as do I.

So what's with the ambiguous nomenclature regarding my mental condition? As a diagnostic category, apparently psychopathy has been replaced by ASPD. On the PCL-R checklist, I recall I was either a 16 or 17 while the cut off point for psychopathy is 18. This just means I have "psychopathic tendencies." I probably do fit the criteria for ASPD though. People with ASPD are still considered to be law breakers and trouble makers. They are also considered to be impulsive. I couldn't be further from impulsive. I am quite spontaneous and eccentric on the other hand, which is similar. Someone like me who has few emotions would have great impulse control. A sociopath on the other hand, if they have poor emotional control, could be impulsive like Patrick Bateman. IMO neither psychopaths nor sociopaths are violent by definition, but rather, they have a high correlation with violence. A sociopath who's condition originates in abuse in early life will feel pleasure from inflicting pain in others since it feels retributive. A psychopath on the other hand doesn't want retribution. They inflict pain when it satisfies their self interest. Since laws are written by sociopaths that incentivize violence, there will always be psychopaths filling that void. In a free society, I can't see why a psychopath would want to be violent. Also since there are non-violent crimes that are considered to still be illegal, there will always be non-violent people and psycopaths who will be branded as criminals. This helps a lot with the silly diagnostic criteria.

But I am a psychopathic person who chooses non-violence on principle (and also because I think it aids my self-interest). That's why I found libertarianism. But the crazy thing is that this option has only really been available to psychopaths until quite recently. Even after reading The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard, I still had to take his word for it on the NAP thing. It was in line with my intuition and von Mises had proved that it is economically preferable regardless. Only until I came across Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and Molyneux's UPB (very much two sides of the same coin and I'll make another thread about that) did I find a rational proof for NAP. 

So what have I been doing? I've been writing a little. I had a research paper to write for a seminar required for first year students. It was open ended, so I decided to write mine on legal tender law and private coinage. My thesis was largely buttressed by the research George Selgin did in his book, Good Money (good read). It deals with an episode in history during the early stages of the Industrial Revolution when there was a shortage of small coinage in England. Long story short, the Royal Mint was inept, so people started minting their own coins. From a legal standpoint, these were all fiduciary media, but that didn't matter because they were pretty much impossible to counterfeit, so instead of circulating as tokens for silver and gold, they floated freely valued at their copper weight. It is an empirical refutation of the legitimacy of legal tender law, and more speciffically, Gresham's law, which says "bad money drives out the good money," hence the title Good Money. I extended the threads of history back a bit further than Selgin did and I discovered some very interesting things. As you probably have already guessed, war is a big part of it. I begin with the point in history when precious metals were first standardized in ancient Lydia with the aid of the touchstone. I then go into the Austrian theory of the origins of money in the Mengerian tradition with a little twist that makes it easy to understand. I derived most of my theory from Hulsmann's The Ethics of Money Production. 

Anyway, I'm not done with it yet. The teacher got the shitty abridged ending, but it was a twelve page limit and I was at seventeen. I need help from one of my friends to finish it since I'm not so good with the rhetoric stuff. All the imagery is there, but writing something that gets people's juices flowing isn't one of my strong points. My friend is interested in all this wacky theory like me, but he's not as psychopathic. 

But one of the most compelling images I used was inspired by something this girl posted on her tumblr. It had to do with the seven chakras in the hindu tradition (she's kind of a yoga nut). When I saw that a lightbulb went off in my head. In Shakespeare's As You Like It there is a quote that says:

All the world's a stage. 

And all the men and women merely players; 

They have their exits and their entrances, 

And one man in his time plays many parts, 

His acts being seven ages. 

And guess what the name of the wise fool was in this play? Touchstone. The word touchstone is also used as a metaphor meaning "the physical or intellectual measure by which the validity or merit of a concept can be tested" (wikipedia).

There are even parts of my essay that seem to correlate with the progression through the stages. There is the earth chakra and in lydia there was schist (the rock used for the first touchstones). There is the water chakra and an important part of the essay deals with the little ice age and when rain turned to snow and how that stimulated innovation required to overthrow the Royal monopoly on coinage. Warmer clothes were invented and so were buttons. The button makers repurposed their machines to make coins. The quote I used describing the little ice age refers specifically how the lakes froze and how this disturbed the ecosystem creating food shortages. There is also the steam engine, which harnessed the power of water and was used in the largest factory in the world during the era of private coinage to steam press coins. There is the fire chakra and this was what kept people warm during the little ice age. This was around the time when the chimney was invented and only the metallurgists who were minting coins, or forging weapons, knew anything about the physics of drafts. You also need fire for metalurgy and to power steam engines. The fourth chakra deals with love. With the invention of the modern chimney, people began to live in modern houses that were warm throughout the year and cities where people work all year around. People started having more sex because the modern house provided privacy and warmth and since they made money all year, they could provide more, so the population rose, which increased the amount of wage earners, setting up the stage for an increase in demand for small coinage. The fifth chakra deals with truth and is blocked by lies. The housing boom increased the demand for glass, which caused decreased the supply of wood greatly because wood furnaces were still being used. The Crown wasn't so pleased so they introduced a slew of legislation prohibiting the felling of trees in certain areas so they could have more wood to build their navy. They also needed wood to heat the furnaces that would smelt their bronze cannons. Bronze is an alloy including copper, which was what small change coins were made of. The biggest lie of course was Gresham's law, which originates back to an exchange Queen Elizabeth had with her financial advisor, Sir Thomas Gresham. Queen Elizabeth happened to be the woman who was pissed off by the shortage of wood. The sixth chakra deals with insight. In order to make glass without wood to side step the bullshit laws, the first coal furnaces were invented. It also took the insight of entrepreneur, Mathew Boulton, to connect all the dots, employ James Watt for his steam engine and to use cylinders for the engines bored out by John Wilkinson in Coalbrookdale, so the engines could operate efficiently. Boulton was responsible for opening the competitive market for private coinage. The seventh chakra deals with some paradise stuff. We haven't gotten there yet, but we saw a sneak peak during the era of private coinage. Perhaps there's some confirmation bias, but the parallels didn't take any effort to uncover. 

Yesterday the girl posted this picture: 

It is a lyric to the song Heaven and Hell by Black Sabbath. 

Here's the whole song:

[The King or Queen addresses the fool (the court jester kind) in the first verse]

Sing me a song, you're a singer 
Do me a wrong, you're a bringer of evil 
The Devil is never a maker 
The less that you give, you're a taker 

(if you don't allow institutionalized theft, then you are a free rider)

[Dio then sings...]

So it's on and on and on 
...it's Heaven and Hell, oh well 

The lover of life's not a sinner 
The ending is just a beginner 
The closer you get to the meaning 
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming 

(they say a free society is a fantasy and that we need government)

So it's on and on and on 
Oh it's on and on and on 
It goes on and on and on, Heaven and Hell 
I can tell, fool, fool! 

Well, if it seems to be real, it's illusion 
For every moment of truth, there's confusion in life 
Love can be seen as the answer 
But nobody bleeds for the dancer 
And it's on and on, on and on and on.... 

They say that life's a carousel 
Spinning fast, you've got to ride it well 
The world is full of Kings and Queens 
Who blind your eyes then steal your dreams 
...it's Heaven and Hell, oh well 

And they'll tell you black is really white 
The moon is just the sun at night 
And when you walk in golden halls 
You get to keep the gold that falls 
It's Heaven and Hell 

(The immorality of government is justified through propoganda. Truth is moral and lies create violence. The government is parasitical to production yet they convince us that they know the path to prosperity.)

[Dio then yearns]

No no fool, fool! 
You got to bleed for the dancer! 
Fool, fool, look for the answer! 
Fool, fool, fool!

I'll finish this way too TL:DR post with a quote by Touchstone from As You Like It. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." Being a fool was Touchstone's job after all. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Welcome to the board.

It may seem inconsequential, in light of your entire post, but the second line of the second verse of "Heaven And Hell" is:

The ending is just a beginning

Been a Sabbath fan since the early seventies, when I was quite young. Luckily I had Uncles who listened to heavy music.

If you consider Black Sabbath's lyrics of note, you should check out Nevermore and Testament.

There's a thread on this forum entitled "Are Anarchists the Only Legitimate Opponent's of Rape". I would contend the only legitimate celebrity advocates of liberty and critical thinking are a few Heavy Metal Bands!

I'll leave you with this:

It is futile to live in the past, difficult to live in the present, and impossible to live in the future.

[Wesley]

I would like to say welcome. I was very interested by this call and the idea of psychopathy in general.

I am quite interested to see what you have to contribute in the conversation from your seemingly unique perspective. I hope to see you around. 

[SirJamesIII]

 

It may seem inconsequential, in light of your entire post, but the second line of the second verse of "Heaven And Hell" is:

The ending is just a beginning

Been a Sabbath fan since the early seventies, when I was quite young. Luckily I had Uncles who listened to heavy music.

If you consider Black Sabbath's lyrics of note, you should check out Nevermore and Testament.

 

Love Nevermore. I'm a guitarist so I'm a big fan of Jeff Loomis and Chris Broderick. 

I'll edit the op. I copied and pasted that from some lyrics site. 

 

hmm seems the edit timer is pretty quick on this site. So scratch that. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

Love Nevermore. I'm a guitarist so I'm a big fan of Jeff Loomis and Chris Broderick. 

I'll edit the op. I copied and pasted that from some lyrics site. 

 

hmm seems the edit timer is pretty quick on this site. So scratch that. 

 

Don't trip on the edit; that's what us nitpickers are for.

Here's a quick quiz for "supposed" Nevermore fans: Where does my user name come from? (Spoiler: it's a trick question.)

As to the concept of psycopathy: How does the DSM quantify a person who feels only one emotion, anger? Because that's me! I'm the most rational person I've ever met, but I definitely experience intense anger. Given the state of things, do you blame me?

Isolation is not, necessarily, a dysfunctional condition. As in everything, it depends on too many variables.

I guess I'm either lucky, or spent to much time analyzing [6], because I'm OK with myself (by myself), or with others, even others I've never met.

And the new version is:

"All the world's indeed a stage

We are merely players

Performers and portrayers

Each another's audience

Outside the gilded cage."

-- Rush, Limelight, from Moving Pictures (1980)

[SirJamesIII]

 

As to the concept of psycopathy: How does the DSM quantify a person who feels only one emotion, anger? Because that's me! I'm the most rational person I've ever met, but I definitely experience intense anger. Given the state of things, do you blame me?

Isolation is not, necessarily, a dysfunctional condition. As in everything, it depends on too many variables.

I guess I'm either lucky, or spent to much time analyzing /emoticons/emotion-14.gif, because I'm OK with myself (by myself), or with others, even others I've never met.

I am not a bitter person. I lied about not having primary response emotions. While we're on the topic of music, I feel direct emotional responses from great aesthetic input, and that is why I study and play music. Spoken language is a terrible system for emotional communication. It can be riddled with contradictory phrases that people are free to assume are true. Music on the other hand, is much more rigorous. It doesn't take a genius to notice the difference between the dissonant sounds from the harmonious sounds. So as a language, I find it much more effective at communicating emotion than spoken language. The girl in question probably feels similarly to me. She is probably even more disconnected from spoken language than me. She is a visual artist. 

I think one reason for the way I am is that I was probably desensitized by my parents. I was showered in art and love, even though my parents aren't even the artsy types. There was no censorship in my house. Word around the neighborhood was that my family was the fun family and we let kids watch R rated movies. I traveled all across the world at a young age as well. And being educated in a private school, a lot of the kids who went to these places were raised similarly. Now I go to a college full of kids who probably weren't raised correctly and they have no idea what love is. Love is my one emotion (I define love more as an act though) and I give it unconditionally. But people now are just straight refusing it or they don't acknowledge it when I give it to them, and for the first time I'm feeling something similar to anger. 

I don't think isolation is dysfuctional or bad. I'm "ok" by myself too and I'm not ashamed of it. But social cooperation is more productive than hermitism. Now when I'm alone, I think about all the things I could be doing with people if I wasn't alone. I have dear friends and they value me as well. I find my social situation to be better than the majority of people. I pity those who crave superficial relationships. They are just a waste of time. 

 

And the new version is:

"All the world's indeed a stage

We are merely players

Performers and portrayers

Each another's audience

Outside the gilded cage."

-- Rush, Limelight, from Moving Pictures (1980)

 

Besides Iron Maiden, Rush is my favorite band. I don't listen to much rock nowadays, but I have recently revisting a lot of old stuff and I'm discovering that metal was probably the biggest contributing factor to my skeptical nature during my youth and it was how I got into music.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

I don't think isolation is dysfuctional or bad. I'm "ok" by myself too
and I'm not ashamed of it. But social cooperation is more productive
than hermitism. Now when I'm alone, I think about all the things I could
be doing with people if I wasn't alone.

 

Yeah, I'm a loner, but I recognize the advantages of relating to others. The thing I hesitate about is "when I'm alone, I think about all the things I could
be doing with people if I wasn't alone". Why not just "be alone"? Granted, I have bonuses on that point. Just look up Forks, WA. I can sit by the river, sit by the mountain, sit by an open meadow, sit by the beach. In any case, I don't consider myself alone. Sitting, and thinking, about what I could be doing with other humans (or, so-called humans) doesn't have an entry into the equation.

Life's too short to get caught up in "someone else's" vision.

Know this: if you do not infringe on another, no matter what you do is right, and proper.

That is ONE of the principles of freedom. The other is: Don't expect a positive outcome. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.

That is the idea that many do not understand: Freedom is a two-edged sword.

Many talk about THEIR freedoms, but forget to mention the freedom of others. That's when the edge of the sword bites the hand that wields it.

As to music, I totally agree. I've been "studying" guitar for over thirty years, and my conclusions coincide: music conveys emotion far better than words alone.

Language is meant as a logical construct, no matter how some abuse it. Emotion is not so logical, and requires a different outlet.

[SirJamesIII]

 

Yeah, I'm a loner, but I recognize the advantages of relating to others. The thing I hesitate about is "when I'm alone, I think about all the things I could
be doing with people if I wasn't alone". Why not just "be alone"? Granted, I have bonuses on that point. Just look up Forks, WA. I can sit by the river, sit by the mountain, sit by an open meadow, sit by the beach. In any case, I don't consider myself alone. Sitting, and thinking, about what I could be doing with other humans (or, so-called humans) doesn't have an entry into the equation.

Life's too short to get caught up in "someone else's" vision.

Know this: if you do not infringe on another, no matter what you do is right, and proper.

That is ONE of the principles of freedom. The other is: Don't expect a positive outcome. Freedom includes the freedom to fail.

That is the idea that many do not understand: Freedom is a two-edged sword.

Many talk about THEIR freedoms, but forget to mention the freedom of others. That's when the edge of the sword bites the hand that wields it.

As to music, I totally agree. I've been "studying" guitar for over thirty years, and my conclusions coincide: music conveys emotion far better than words alone.

Language is meant as a logical construct, no matter how some abuse it. Emotion is not so logical, and requires a different outlet.

 

I think you are misunderstanding a bit. I've been doing the whole loner thing for a while and I have no issues with it. I just want something better. I do the whole sitting by rivers thing. I enjoy my own company. But to equate social interaction with getting "caught up in 'someone else's' vision" is a gross exageration. In fact I know for sure that I cannot materialize some of my visions without the help of others (I do not ignore the division of labor). I've only been recently having these thoughts. The view of this river is fantastic, but I would like to share this view with someone else because they may offer a different perspective. Is that not what Stef has made career out of? Is he not sharing his view?

[Guest darkskyabove]

Yeah, I went on a beer-fueled political tirade about freedom last night in another thread, and some of it bled over.

So, I do get it, and agree, about moving beyond being alone. The "okay by myself" thing can be used as a safety net when establishing a new personal relationship. I've watched how some people get into difficulties which are aggravated by their need to not be alone. But it can work badly the other direction, also. Being a loner can be a barrier to intimacy. Finding the right balance is usually worth the effort.

[Duderio]

goodbye

[SirJamesIII]

1. You do need therapy. Therapists don't need to be UPB-fit anarchists to be helpful.

Would still like to, but I'm not something that is broken that needs to be fixed with therapy. I am curious if I have ASPD (if that is a real thing and I have my doubts). Mind if I ask what your credentials are since you're the expert? 

2. You take too much pride in rational/intellectual thinking.

As opposed to what other kind of thinking? Creative thinking? I am a musician. Should I not take pride at all in any thinking? 

3. You don't write much about your childhood and parents. Your true self was probably completely neglected.

Projecting a hypothesis here. What evidence do you have of my neglect? Are you asserting that I am in denial? My threshold for incompetence has been low since the day I was born. If I had neglectful parents, I would have ran away. 

4. You are obsessed with rather useless details.

Another projection. As an INTJ, I'm more of a big picture guy than a details guy. Pardon me for mentioning my research paper, which is usually the kind of paper that deals with details.

5. Why are you referencing chakras and the one artist who made it to the top of the art/culture hierarchy within our western statist fascist system?

If you read carefully, it influenced the imagery I used to get my arguments across in my paper (these images were not the substance of my argument. They are for embellishment.) The seven chakras thing reminded my of the seven stages in As You Like It by Shakespeare, which coincidentally had a character named Touchstone which was also the innovation required for the standardization of prescious metals in Ancient Lydia. 

If there would be any value in Shakespeare's plays, he would not be known today.

Absurd. Please elaborate because there is no argument here. 

Symbolism is no achievement, it is not even hig school standard, it is completely pointless. People use Symbolism as a substitute for real experiences of the moment.

You would not be able to communicate this to me were it not for symbols.

Reciting contentless lines written by someone else before you were born won't lead you anywhere. Don't try to impress the wrong kind of people.

Who said I was trying to impress anyone?

Fictional Novels, Plays, Movies, Poetry, Visual Art, Music are a all waste of time. There is nothing to be learned from Fantasy land.

Absurd yet again. No argument here, so I'll have to ask you to elaborate again. 

If you pursue these things professionally you will only encounter neglected children trapped in adult bodies who use escapism as a coping mechanism. Both as collegues, "friends" and worst of all, "fans".

Who said I was pursuing these things professionally? My college research paper was on an economic subject. Pay attention.

And so what if I do pursue that as a career? Money is money.

If you are one of the few with simple original ideas that can make a profit, you will furthermore be exploited by people who are more deranged than you yourself think you are and can manipulate you more subliminally than you could not imagine is even remotely possible.

6. Have you ever worked a shitty job?

Yep. Speciffically one that involved animal shit once. But I prefer making my own money, which I do. But I guess those who have never had shitty jobs are worse people than those who haven't. Right? Plus kids nowadays have to compete with 50 million mexicans for the shitty jobs. 

7. Stay away from that girl.

Elaborate or stay away from this thread.

Do you seek pleasure in putting down people whom you think you are smarter than? So far I've read empty criticisms and unsubstantiated advice. If you are a troll, I warn you that you cannot get a rise out of me. It's the psychopath thing. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Excellent example of troll dissection. Chew 'em up, and spit out the gristly parts!

[Andersfilosof]

 

I didn't go see a therapist. I don't regret it since I felt they are more equipped to deal with emotionally distraught kids, and not those who suffer from chronic apathy (except now I'm no longer apathetic about my own apathy). It is not guidance that I seek, but gratitude, love and self-knowledge (moreso the first two since the path towards self-knowledge never ends). I'm at a point in my life where I have most of the answers that I need, and I'm just struggling with implementing and materializing those answers. My empathy issues stunt me a bit, but that's not really an issue. I'm sure there are others with empathy issues who can empathize (the girl referred to in the call) /emoticons/emotion-5.gif But my strangeness and inherent aloofness keeps the general population from forming personal connections with me even if they find me valuable as an acquaintance/colleague. 

 

 

 

On what experience are you basing your opinion that "they are more equipped to deal with emotionally distraught kids?"

[SirJamesIII]

 

On what experience are you basing your opinion that "they are more equipped to deal with emotionally distraught kids?"

 

What they offer for free is "short-term counseling" called "talk therapy." From what I understand, the people who provide these services come from a wide range of professions. It could be a psychiatrist, a social worker, or a nurse practitioner to name a few. They do offer psychiatry services at a charge, but I don't need meds. If I were to see a therapist, which I want to and I have asked my parents about it, then I'd like to go see a psychologist or psychotherapist who is fulfilling their full job description. This "short term counseling" just seems like a pain numbing thing to me. 

If it was an emergency situation then I would have probably rushed to get counseling. But since it was the end of the year and all, I was more preoccupied with keeping my stress levels down, which I can do on my own perfectly fine. I don't think it was the right time to fill my head with distracting thoughts about myself. But I guess something clicked once a lot my peers became depressed and stressed themselves, so the timing wasn't all that great. 

So I don't really have any experience to base my opinion off of. The only thing I could tell is that these counselors mostly get traffic from kids who are stressed out. That's the biggest reason why they are there. I probably will do some counseling down the road. 

[Guest darkskyabove]

I'd say the fact of your ability to analyze what a so-called therapist would do makes you qualified to do their job for them. Some might call it self-therapy. I call it getting in touch with reality.

[SirJamesIII]

 

I'd say the fact of your ability to analyze what a so-called therapist would do makes you qualified to do their job for them. Some might call it self-therapy. I call it getting in touch with reality.

 

But herein lies my problem. I am so adept at this "self therapy" that I am totally content with my solitude, which isn't wrong or anything. I do think this means I have an advantage over other people, but it creates some issues. Amongst my peers, the impetus for forming relationships (the deep meaningful ones) is a desire for some sort of therapy. A lot of kids have a desire for codependency. It isn't such a bad thing that they look to others for support, but they seem to require it. This was made abundantly clear with my last girlfriend. From what I understand, I think a lot of kids nowadays has an internal sense of righteousness. They fulfill their duties as students, but they know from experience that they live in a bullshit world. My last girlfriend had pretty strict parents. She sort of used me as a standard to judge her righteousness. She trusted my judgement greatly. Whenever she'd have an episode with her parents, she would ask me if agreed on her take and I would (so would her therapist). But she wasn't perfect. Nothing about her escaped my judgement. She ended up breaking up with me because she said I made her feel bad about herself. I never insulted her personally or physically, but she never could muster the ability to agree to disagree with me on my criticisms. I try not to be arrogant with my personal assessments. I try to only make suggestions. I'm only come off as arrogant in certain subjects. 

The problems were created simply because she was insecure and people who are insecure lie to themselves so they can feel comfortable with their own "flaws." (Most often traits aren't even flaws. They feel that they should fit a mold and if they don't they feel insecure). Her issue was that she required superficial affirmation in order to feel comfortable in her own shoes. This was probably induced by chronic criticism from her parents. Her parents expected perfection and this probably programmed her to think that she should expect it from herself. If she wasn't told she was perfect, then she'd feel like a failure. I on the other hand just had parents who expected competence, but encouraged perfection (excellence is a better word) if they saw I had the capability. I remember I had a knack for hitting a baseball really far when I was a kid. My dad saw this as an oppurtunity to invest in my skills. He would take me to the batting cage pretty often and he would be excited to help me achieve my goals. It was him who took the time to selflessly adopt my goals as his because he loved me. My girlfriend on the other hand probably had parents who wanted her to achieve their goals. Whenever my girlfriend was not motivated to achieve her parents goals, this probably invited discipline from her parents. But goddamn was she studious. I mistook that as self-discipline. But it was probably just fear of criticism from her parents that motivated her to be studious. I think she realized that a bit when she met me. I was taught the value of self-discipline at a young age and that intrinsic motivation can be incredibly powerful. She started reading for pleasure because she saw how much I enjoyed doing that on a daily basis. 

But so many kids nowadays who are righteous are also insecure. Another thing that promotes insecurity is failure praise. If the kid is not perfect, then the parents see the solution as simply telling them they are perfect. But they aren't so they are always in for a rude awakening. I usually help with that rude awakening. I'm blunt. The worst thing is that a lot of other kids do the same thing to me as my girlfriend did. They ask me for my opinion on their righteousness because they find great value in my opinion. But I won't always agree with them. So I probably just invoke the same feelings that their shitty parents do. Probably even worse though. I do a good job with convincing people that they don't need to fit into a mold. I'm pretty out there compared to most people and they see that I'm still happy being strange. But there's always some point where I'll point out something in them that they are afraid of changing. 

[Duderio]

goodbye

[SirJamesIII]

I've never said have no empathy; I have empathy issues. I also have emotions, they are just more difficult to arouse, and music has helped me with this. I've never said I didn't want to go to therapy; I just said I didn't go see a school counselor. I have friends and the relationships I have with these people are meaningful, unlike the superficial ones my peers have. I'm good at detecting what people are trying to communicate when they are too afraid to say it because they think explicitly communicating it might not impress me. I make it clear that I have no desire to be impressed, but they think that is how they earn a relationship from me. I give the things to people that they want, but they were to afraid to desire and get for themselves. This is the love I give. To me, love is a kind of intangible property you can give to someone. Despite being intangible, it is also scarce because its quantity is limited by how much love the person wants to give. There is a cost associated to love, but it has no price for the person recieving it. It requires that you recognize the desires of someone else at the expense of your own desires. It is a selfless act.  I come off as an asshole on the internet, but I'm pretty nice in person. I sound like your average kid. I seem perfectly functional at first glance, although perhaps I'm a bit strange to some. I speak open and honestly to everyone I meet. I'm a loner because I don't feel compelled to bring up my issues with my friends because they never have good advice. Most often I prefer my own company during difficult times than others. I have meaningful relationships but I have trouble staying in touch for extended periods of time. Most of my friends aren't close by anymore now that I'm in college. The amount of shitty people I have to sift through at college is a lot greater than it was when I was younger. I have made one good friend and a few great professional relationships. I've met a lot of nice people, but few that I know will make me happy (that's possible for me btw). I don't have patience for people who refuse the truth. They keep things quiet then problems begin to arise later on in relationships. I see this happening every day and that is not what I want. If someone has an issue with me, I'd prefer they state it explicitly so we work it out like adults and not wait for the emotions to build, which just results in a shit show. 

I also had no clue about my ex-gf's issues. These things are realized as the relationship progresses. I'm not some relationship clairvoyant. Where do you get the idea that I was exploiting her?

And no you did not give me a taste of my own medicine. If you did, then you would have arguments to back up your silly claims. 

I have directly communicated with this girl. I've met her in person and she is the one who is intimidated by me and not the other way around. I know she likes me since since acts apologetically around me (I try to get her not to), but to everyone else she seems cold and kinda scary. She's very quiet, but I've had good conversations with her. But most importantly she is a good listener and she remembers the things I tell her, which is leaps and bounds above what most people do. I don't think I've seen her sustain a long conversation with anyone else though.

I'm not afraid to approach people. I'm a pretty intense person. Yeah sure she is pretty, but that is incidental because there are a lot of other pretty girls whom I could mess around with and have messed around with. I'm not a loser. I hang out with the "popular kids" and I'm not the quiet nerd type. I look like a northeastern preppy jock douche bag. 

I'm on a family plan for health insurance, so why I should I pay out of my pocket for therapy? My parents don't really think I need it, but they are a willing to set me up with someone. 

You have still not given me any reason to believe why art is superficial. In my opinion that just your arbitrary assertion. The way you use the term symbolism is how you see fit. But all language is the manipulation of symbols through semantics and syntax. There is a grammar for spoken language, music, math and even visual art. Spoken and written language is probably the most arbitrary and cryptic out of the languages I have listed since contradictory phrases and words can be assumed as true. This is not so much a luxury in math or music, for instance, although paradoxical phrases can exist in these languages, but that is a very deep philisophical discussion. Would you deny that Stef's philosophy was heavily influenced by the fiction of Ayn Rand? 

 

[Duderio]

goodbye