Family situations that lead to Anarchism/Libertarianism

[gwho]

If exposure to power, parenting, and conditions while growing up have psychological effects that make people project, split, dissociate, suppress, repress various things to ultimately support and justify a state irrationally and emotionally at an unconscious level...then can a parallel effect occur for pushing a person towards anarchy/libertarianism... BESIDES rational objective philosophy? In other words, what childhood experiences contribute to a person being more inclined or open towards an/lib?______________________________

warning: long personal family background dump

 

I grew up very shy, bullied, not very popular with the girls, plagued by unachievable standards of morality which had a strong effect on me because I wanted to follow the rules, to be good, and to strive for perfection just naturally and not as a defense mechanism. I am still struggling with timidness today, although I am much much better. But I upon deep examination, I still have a lot of limiting factors, that the fear is still there, holding me back, not letting me fully go for what I want... etc. I have gotten so good at self-denial that I become complacent. Perhaps that's not correct. PErhaps it's my fear giving me an excuse and falsely attributing it to the virtue of self-denial. Anyway, I haven't had serious relationship to date, and I am really trying to break through currently. I have broken through a lot in the past few months, but I see there is still a lot more. I come back to the same feeling as when I moved in 2nd grade and felt shy and scared and lonely. I guess because I never dealt with it, and for the majority of my life suppressed those emotional challenges, it's just coming back up in the present. There is a lot of fear conquering I have to do.My impression of my dad is irrational, bullying. He would always have to get involved, get mad, lay down whatever he thought was right, pronounce judgement to me and my other family member who I happened to be arguing with. Sometimes he would blow things up that weren't and wouldn't have been big if he would have just stayed out of it. Perhaps I this contributes to the way I view the state: stop meddling - gtfo. you're irrational. you're contrdictory. You're self-righteous and blind to your own faults. I disctintly remember when he would overpower me verbally, impose irrationality, that I would hate him forever. I had that many times, but of course it always went away with time. To this day today, when a disagreement or an opportunity to clarify comes along, I feel like he raises his voice ad escalates things way too prematurely for an unwarranted reason. Conversations blow up way too easily with him. He is always right, always has a comeback, always makes me feel bad. Wow, as i'm writing this, I had the urge to write "I fucking hate his guts". We stay apart most of the time now, but i still see him. I've been contemplating, and avoiding confronting him and being vulnerable about everything as Stefan recommends doing. I also really dislike the image of my dad. and I hate it when I seem like him. I HATE IT.My mom and grandmother gave me very fucking poisonous, meek, terrible fucking advice for life. As I mentioned, I am very principle-oriented, and really adopted every standard I heard to achieve them. My exposure to things wasn't so various, so I only slowly discovered contradictory standards, rather than sooner. I get really easiliy annoyed by my mom. I find myself acting badly taht I wouldn't towards others. It is a combination of already knowing, what she's like and what she will do, as well as the fact that she stubbornly always does the things I object to. She doesn't learn. And the things are like offering me food. supposedly it's for me, so initially, i guilt trip myself for rejecting and saying to stop giving me food. But over time, it's just ridiculous. It's even silly that she keeps doing it "to benefit me", when I'm the one who gets to decide whether it benefits me or not. She actually is quite exasperating, stubborn, and takes very little feedback. Even more frustrating is that she will never be open or explain or respond to my questions or objections or reasoning when i critique her behavior. Why are you doing this? Don't I get to decide if I want it or not? What does it benefit you to offer me food? (She's a terrible terrible cook, literally the worst I've ever encountered - not taking feedback and sturbbornly doing her thing is part of the reason why she is such a bad cook too). She doesn't answer, and keeps things to herself,I know she has thoughts but she won't ever really say. This is all influenced by my overwhelming dad who beats down objections with his self-righteousness and his overwhelming anger and persona (there just are those types of people who can reach into your heart and strike that fear in you... my dad is one of them... my drill seargeant is another. But there are those who don't, no matter how much their words and actions go. But others can just give you that look, use that tone, and really get that into you. IDK if it's a general thing, or if certain people with certain issues are susceptible to certain queues from others). I feel bad about treating my mom that way, but I do think there is legitimate reason to get frustrated at her - she is quite an annoying person. But I KNOW I am in the wrong too. Over time, I see her insecurity grow, which I know I have contributed to. Simultaneously, had i not been assertive (and i know domineering and yelling is different from assertive, but i grew to be like this after a really horribly mentally devastating time in high school. It was and would have been very hard for me to be assertive without also doing wrong under such duress, stress. It was a time i felt all my efforts were in vain, that all of the ideals i've been taught were so wrong, that no one was there to help me, that i was being ignored under all this hardship, that my dad was a worthless body who never taught me anything or had any solutions for me, and would always end up illiciting blame, incompetence, and just generally bad feelings whenever i asked for help. Also, as a teen you really dont go to your parents for help, especially when you think they're the ones who let you down, let alone the whole coolness and feeling like a failure aspect of going to mommy and daddy.

______________________________

Anyway, it's all kind of a random vomit of my family background here. I kind of do see some parallels of my outlook towards govenrment and my family, especially my dad. But I always find psychology and the unconscdious really counterintuitive and confusing. I have a lot of blindspots when it comes to my own. When people make statements like whatever is repressed will be recreated, and whatever is suppressed will be spread, and the state is a projection of your family exprience.s... like.. they don't ring true. I can't see the logical steps with my intuition to see that they're true. They're really unrelated claims that I am seeking to bridge the gap between. Listening to more podcasts helped me understand some of those logical steps, but I find whenever Stefan makes those statements, they aren't in every instance backed up by logical steps. I suppose it's something that rings true with Stefan, and it just comes out as a more emphatic reiteration of the claim, rather than backing htem up logically. He does in other podcasts, but not always. So I'm just pointing out my struggle to understand psychological concepts like those, not necessarily say that Stefan is wrong. I'm sure those statements could be quite reasonable, and perhaps very established in the field of psychology. I am not in the slightest arguing that those statements aren't true. I want to understand how and why they are. So if you guys see things in the limited way I described my family background here, please do share your insights. 

[Stephen C]

If exposure to power, parenting, and conditions while growing up have psychological effects that make people project, split, dissociate, suppress, repress various things to ultimately support and justify a state irrationally and emotionally at an unconscious level...then can a parallel effect occur for pushing a person towards anarchy/libertarianism... BESIDES rational objective philosophy? In other words, what childhood experiences contribute to a person being more inclined or open towards an/lib?

I don't think exposure to power, parenting and conditions result in projection. dissociation, suppression, repression. I would say exposure to ABUSE and /or NEGLECT result in these things. Every child will be exposed to power, parenting and conditions, it is impossible to avoid this. I don't think children need to be pushed towards anarchy. Instead children need to not be pushed in order for them to maintain the acceptance of anarchy they are born with. Something that stands out to me here is that you used the word "pushed" when talking about a child accepting anarchy, but used the word "exposure" when talking about a child accepting statism. Maybe a switcheroo is in order? Children must be pushed to accept statism. Children must be exposed to accept anarchy. Does that make sense?

[gwho]

I don't think exposure to power, parenting and conditions result in projection. dissociation, suppression, repression. I would say exposure to ABUSE and /or NEGLECT result in these things. Every child will be exposed to power, parenting and conditions, it is impossible to avoid this. 

i appreciate the refinement. it's certainly true that exposure to power and parenting wouldn't lead to projection, splitting, etc. i was loose with my words and not careful enough. It definitely would be negativity in one way or another, like abuse or neglect that result to these. thanks for the correction, absolutely correct. this is what i had in mind, and didn't write. thanks.

 

I don't think children need to be pushed towards anarchy. Instead children need to not be pushed in order for them to maintain the acceptance of anarchy they are born with.

good point about anarchy being the default. seems like a plausible hypothesis. with the little information i have, i would incline towards that hypothesis too.

 

Something that stands out to me here is that you used the word "pushed" when talking about a child accepting anarchy, but used the word "exposure" when talking about a child accepting statism. Maybe a switcheroo is in order? Children must be pushed to accept statism. Children must be exposed to accept anarchy.Does that make sense?

It does make sense. great point. I'm really not taking it to that level of specificity. I didn't use the word "push" to put great emphasis on the active aspect. I was just referring to the general phenomenon of people being more inclined by past causes to be more resistant or receptive towards anarchy.... I ask this because Stefan talks about childhood abuses and factors, and psychological mechanisms that cause a person to be more "pushed" or "inclined" towards statism. You see a big distinction between the two, so let's go with whatever you're comfortable with. I wasnt thinking about that distinction, so i just picked one. don't read too much into it.The only reason I was loose with the words was because it wasn't a big deal to me, or on my radar. Other times I do it to reword the same concept to add layers of clarity. Sometimes I'm miss potential points of ambiguity or distinction that should be the other way. don't read too much into it in this case. But great eye, and watching out.But I'm sure you understand the core of what i'm saying with that. My core concept isn't even that anarhcy is the default and statism must be pushed, although that is certainly adding to the conversation, and a pretty good insight.I've had a pretty bad childhood at least psychologically. Yet I gravitate immediately towards libertarianism after first being exposed to the republican platform in a very hazy, eerie, unsettling way that resulted in a loose, but confused preliminary inclination towards republicanism over democratism.....Once I heard stefan molyneux's first few podcasts, I almost immediately jumped over to anarchism. I couldn't see the feedback mechanisms, and how society would rise to solve those problems if the problems are huge. I had knowledge of game theory, and bashed anarchism because I thought the incentives would be all screwed up and the Nash equilibria in various scenarios would point towards violence and thuggery. Once I got direct, thought-out answers that made sense immediately with game theory, I totally almost instantaneously flipped my position regarding anarchy. Of course i had questions, i had reservations, but i kept devouring the information. So what makes someone like me so readiliy accepting of it, despite my childhood and resentment towards my family, to continual anxiety in society, and various other issues? That's my main point of curiosity.  although now you've gotten me curious about the point you made. perhaps they're related. What do you think?

[Emanuel]

About the social anxiety you experience now and experienced before, I know what you're feeling. I know just how crippling it feels not to be able to ask for what you want, to have that voice inside of you telling you ''you can't do it!'' or ''why would they want you?''. 

I think that self-knowledge is really the way to move forward and start living.  Have you considered psychotherapy?

[Pepin]

If you haven't see it, I'd recommend watching The Bomb in the Brain series. I have a lot of theories as to why libertarians are different, the main having to do with liberty oriented people having a strong disassociation from the emotions which leads to a reliance of the rationalistic part of the mind in times of confrontation. It isn't that the reasoning part of the brain wouldn't be shut down if a strong enough threat was present, many libertarians show this when arguing against anarchists, but rather that this part of the brain is more likely to be hyperactive. When confronted with opposing viewpoints, a libertarian or anarchist is far more likely to understand the opposing argument and do research on topics if they don't understand something, and this is more of a compulsion than a curious itch. This sort of behavior is a self-defense mechanism and can be found in others, but I'd say is the most prevalent in libertarians.

 

A major downfall to this mental framework is the overuse of reasoning and the ability to fall onto it as a coping strategy when confronted with anything difficult. When applied to irrational matters, this may result in a circular feedback loop where the person is always in search of evidence of their theory that they already believe to be incontrovertible.

 

Conspiracy theorists tend to go overboard with reason, logic, and evidence to quell the anxiety. It has been noted by many psychologists and logicians that conspiracy theorists tend to have a very strong grasp of reason and evidence, but that it tends to be the case that they will often miss or ignore large gaps in their argument, and they will not change their views when confronted. I'd put forward that this is because they are managing anxiety and fear through this rationalization, and the emotional response that does it for most people doesn't work for them.

 

I hope this was clear. I could write a twenty page essay on this topic as it is something I've done a lot of thinking and research about, mostly in relation to myself. I think I just got lucky with my coping strategy which with enough time developed into a high ability to reason and use logic.

[gwho]

If you haven't see it, I'd recommend watching The Bomb in the Brain series. I have a lot of theories as to why libertarians are different, the main having to do with liberty oriented people having a strong disassociation from the emotions which leads to a reliance of the rationalistic part of the mind in times of confrontation. It isn't that the reasoning part of the brain wouldn't be shut down if a strong enough threat was present, many libertarians show this when arguing against anarchists, but rather that this part of the brain is more likely to be hyperactive. When confronted with opposing viewpoints, a libertarian or anarchist is far more likely to understand the opposing argument and do research on topics if they don't understand something, and this is more of a compulsion than a curious itch. This sort of behavior is a self-defense mechanism and can be found in others, but I'd say is the most prevalent in libertarians.

 

A major downfall to this mental framework is the overuse of reasoning and the ability to fall onto it as a coping strategy when confronted with anything difficult. When applied to irrational matters, this may result in a circular feedback loop where the person is always in search of evidence of their theory that they already believe to be incontrovertible.

 

Conspiracy theorists tend to go overboard with reason, logic, and evidence to quell the anxiety. It has been noted by many psychologists and logicians that conspiracy theorists tend to have a very strong grasp of reason and evidence, but that it tends to be the case that they will often miss or ignore large gaps in their argument, and they will not change their views when confronted. I'd put forward that this is because they are managing anxiety and fear through this rationalization, and the emotional response that does it for most people doesn't work for them.

 

I hope this was clear. I could write a twenty page essay on this topic as it is something I've done a lot of thinking and research about, mostly in relation to myself. I think I just got lucky with my coping strategy which with enough time developed into a high ability to reason and use logic.

^ FASCINATING. one of the first posts that reaches the level of my expectations on FDR boards.I hope you do write more.

[STer]

GWHO,

 

You might want to look into personality type schemas, as well. There are a few different ones I find very helpful. But in any of them, some people are more analytical, some more emotionally-driven, some more focused on individuality, some more concerned with their status or conformity to the group and so on. We can get pretty frustrated when we expect everyone to act like our personality type when many of them are of very different personality types.

 

Also, how you react to issues that come up in childhood has a lot to do with what your personality type is. A child of one type might be incredibly hurt by a certain environment at home while another brushes similar things off their back.

[gwho]

GWHO,

 

You might want to look into personality type schemas, as well. There are a few different ones I find very helpful. But in any of them, some people are more analytical, some more emotionally-driven, some more focused on individuality, some more concerned with their status or conformity to the group and so on. We can get pretty frustrated when we expect everyone to act like our personality type when many of them are of very different personality types.

 

Also, how you react to issues that come up in childhood has a lot to do with what your personality type is. A child of one type might be incredibly hurt by a certain environment at home while another brushes similar things off their back.

i studied MBTI for years. and know a good amount of socionics. NT types tend to be overrepresented in an/cap libs for sure. Personality theories have been immensely helpful but I feel like i've been thinking about them too much. I want to try to approach things from different perspectives, as I feel the personality theory paradigm has reached its limit for me. I really love the psychological and neuroscience stuff that sheds light onto issues.good point bringing up personality theory.

[STer]

i studied MBTI for years. and know a good amount of socionics. NT types tend to be overrepresented in an/cap libs for sure. Personality theories have been immensely helpful but I feel like i've been thinking about them too much. I want to try to approach things from different perspectives, as I feel the personality theory paradigm has reached its limit for me. I really love the psychological and neuroscience stuff that sheds light onto issues.good point bringing up personality theory.

Personality theory only goes so far for me, as well. I've gone way beyond that into deeper psychology and also spent a ton of time focusing on psychological defense mechanisms, personality disorders, psychopathy and much else to make sense of things. All the various levels interact and are part of the picture.

[jonagelle]

Yes correct. That whatever environment he is from, he will bring it to his adulthood. It may be develop, improve, or change in a negative way. So it best to mold a child positively and make use of his childhood stage where he must learn much of good things. He must be molded while on his early life. So the environment where he lives must be safe, a good influence, and helpful to him. Let him experience life to its greatest so that he will grow into a better person. Let him build good values in himself. Let he grow with the initiative to make changes if there is a need to. Let him express what he has in mind or what he feels. Nourish him as a better person. Acknowledge him of what is good and what is bad.

 

Nathanael King is a Clinical Hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner and weight loss & nutritional therapist. He also helps people suffering from panic attacks or social anxiety. He has written a book on how to build confidence instantly using NLP techniques. Please click <a target="_new" href="http://dailyimproveself.com/instantconfidencefree/">here</a> to download now. You can also sign up for weekly newsletter at <a target="_new" href="http://www.SelfProgress.co.uk">http://www.SelfProgress.co.uk</a> for your growth.

[Wesley]

Yes correct. That whatever environment he is from, he will bring it to his adulthood. It may be develop, improve, or change in a negative way. So it best to mold a child positively and make use of his childhood stage where he must learn much of good things. He must be molded while on his early life. So the environment where he lives must be safe, a good influence, and helpful to him. Let him experience life to its greatest so that he will grow into a better person. Let him build good values in himself. Let he grow with the initiative to make changes if there is a need to. Let him express what he has in mind or what he feels. Nourish him as a better person. Acknowledge him of what is good and what is bad.

 

Nathanael King is a Clinical Hypnotherapist, NLP practitioner and weight loss & nutritional therapist. He also helps people suffering from panic attacks or social anxiety. He has written a book on how to build confidence instantly using NLP techniques. Please click <a target="_new" href="http://dailyimproveself.com/instantconfidencefree/">here</a> to download now. You can also sign up for weekly newsletter at <a target="_new" href="http://www.SelfProgress.co.uk">http://www.SelfProgress.co.uk</a> for your growth.

Dangit! This account spammed too many times that I can't even downvote them all without hitting my cap allowance for the day.

[Pepin]

I had a pretty good connection come to me the other day. It is pretty simple and perhaps it has already been stated, but I think it explains a lot and it feels new to me. There is the idea that seems to be empirically verified that the best way to break the cycle of violence and to stop being a victim is to get angry. Those in the libertarian movement tend to have quite a lot of anger in regard to emotional arguments and are rather impervious to them. Many would prefer that emotion stay out of arguments all together. I would hypothesize that many people are libertarians because something in their childhood made them angry about emotional manipulation.

 

Now to go off on in another direction, I think there were a few large factors that allowed me to accept anarchism. I was one of those people who accepted it almost instantly, though I spent a month or two looking at opposing arguments. I really didn't have any clue what a government was prior to this, I mean I could give answers, but they didn't make any sense internally to me.

 

The biggest factor I believe is having a rather isolated childhood with neglectful parents. I've never felt any strong emotions to my parents or to anyone in my family. A number of years ago, far before coming to FDR, I came to a question about "do you love your parents" and I thought about it for a second and thought "no". I really didn't care to ever see them again. The idea of "missing" them never made sense. Provided that the "the state is a projection of the family" theory is true, I don't think I had any real family to project upon the state.

 

The next two factors are an overly rational mind with a pretty innate understanding of logic and an avoidance and almost complete repression of emotion. It was actually a conscious decision I made when I was in 6th grade where I came to the conclusion that emotions were causing me too much difficulty. At the time, I was overly sensitive and cried quite easy and this caused a lot of issues. It was something I really couldn't help either which I found annoying, if someone started making fun of my speech impediment, I would try all these mental games to stop the tears, but it'd happen anyway. After finding repression, for years and years of my life, I really didn't feel much at all. The way I'd describe it to close friends at the time is that I had emotions, but most of them were felt in very close ranges.

 

Another factor is that I was rather shy and had a speech impediment, so I tended to observe social interactions more than I participated, especially in groups. As on observer, I noticed so many irrational and weird psychological things go on with people that didn't make sense. For some reason, my third grade music teacher started talking about Socrates one day in class and started explaining the concept of self-knowledge and why it was needed, and this really made sense to me because of my observations. That combined with being somewhat of a loner has given me so much knowledge of myself. FDR really kind of shook my up because there was this whole part of me, namely my emotions, that I really didn't have direct access to.

 

One last odd thing about something is that I really didn't like how people acted like different people depending on who they were with. I wanted to be consistent in my personality because I equated this with being honest, so in the fourth grade I started that project. There were a lot of weird and irrational thoughts that went into that idea, one being that I had a fear of explaining myself my actions if they contracted an "alter-ego" or whatever it'd be called. I also stopped visualizing and day dreaming around this time because I couldn't figure out where the image was coming from, which confused to no end. Anyway, I am pretty this had a decent effect, not sure how.

 

I could probably go on and on with things that I think helped contributed to my road to reason, but I think summary is essentially that I got lucky as it could of ended up pretty bad. In the 4th and 5th grade I had been getting this sense of superiority to everyone, like only I could do things and only I understood things, that I was special and unique. I realized this was completely irrational and had to keep telling myself that this wasn't true. From talking to a psychologist about this, they told me that when this happens to people in their childhood and they go with it, it ends up very bad, and that it is amazing that I dodged that bullet.

[gwho]

Dangit! This account spammed too many times that I can't even downvote them all without hitting my cap allowance for the day.

 

nice internet marketing attempt. but i hate shit like that. i can spot the salsey copyright marketing style and site in an instant. i guess it still works, that's why people still use it. if more people werel ike me, that kind of marketing strategy would have died out a long time ago.emotional leap: it's because people are so illgoical and stupid that they still prefer those types of pitches and style, that they don't see the style and paradigm of internet marketing video copyrighting strategies (i do ,so i instantly turn them off), and that they purchase at the end of the presentation. If they had more insight, those triggers would flare up and alert and close. and that style would die out so fast.

I had a pretty good connection come to me the other day. It is pretty simple and perhaps it has already been stated, but I think it explains a lot and it feels new to me. There is the idea that seems to be empirically verified that the best way to break the cycle of violence and to stop being a victim is to get angry. Those in the libertarian movement tend to have quite a lot of anger in regard to emotional arguments and are rather impervious to them. Many would prefer that emotion stay out of arguments all together. I would hypothesize that many people are libertarians because something in their childhood made them angry about emotional manipulation.

 

Now to go off on in another direction, I think there were a few large factors that allowed me to accept anarchism. I was one of those people who accepted it almost instantly, though I spent a month or two looking at opposing arguments. I really didn't have any clue what a government was prior to this, I mean I could give answers, but they didn't make any sense internally to me.

 

The biggest factor I believe is having a rather isolated childhood with neglectful parents. I've never felt any strong emotions to my parents or to anyone in my family. A number of years ago, far before coming to FDR, I came to a question about "do you love your parents" and I thought about it for a second and thought "no". I really didn't care to ever see them again. The idea of "missing" them never made sense. Provided that the "the state is a projection of the family" theory is true, I don't think I had any real family to project upon the state.

 

The next two factors are an overly rational mind with a pretty innate understanding of logic and an avoidance and almost complete repression of emotion. It was actually a conscious decision I made when I was in 6th grade where I came to the conclusion that emotions were causing me too much difficulty. At the time, I was overly sensitive and cried quite easy and this caused a lot of issues. It was something I really couldn't help either which I found annoying, if someone started making fun of my speech impediment, I would try all these mental games to stop the tears, but it'd happen anyway. After finding repression, for years and years of my life, I really didn't feel much at all. The way I'd describe it to close friends at the time is that I had emotions, but most of them were felt in very close ranges.

 

Another factor is that I was rather shy and had a speech impediment, so I tended to observe social interactions more than I participated, especially in groups. As on observer, I noticed so many irrational and weird psychological things go on with people that didn't make sense. For some reason, my third grade music teacher started talking about Socrates one day in class and started explaining the concept of self-knowledge and why it was needed, and this really made sense to me because of my observations. That combined with being somewhat of a loner has given me so much knowledge of myself. FDR really kind of shook my up because there was this whole part of me, namely my emotions, that I really didn't have direct access to.

 

One last odd thing about something is that I really didn't like how people acted like different people depending on who they were with. I wanted to be consistent in my personality because I equated this with being honest, so in the fourth grade I started that project. There were a lot of weird and irrational thoughts that went into that idea, one being that I had a fear of explaining myself my actions if they contracted an "alter-ego" or whatever it'd be called. I also stopped visualizing and day dreaming around this time because I couldn't figure out where the image was coming from, which confused to no end. Anyway, I am pretty this had a decent effect, not sure how.

 

I could probably go on and on with things that I think helped contributed to my road to reason, but I think summary is essentially that I got lucky as it could of ended up pretty bad. In the 4th and 5th grade I had been getting this sense of superiority to everyone, like only I could do things and only I understood things, that I was special and unique. I realized this was completely irrational and had to keep telling myself that this wasn't true. From talking to a psychologist about this, they told me that when this happens to people in their childhood and they go with it, it ends up very bad, and that it is amazing that I dodged that bullet.

 

your storys sound a lot similar to mind. I actually think it's a propensity for INTJ, and other NT personality types to be anarchic libertarian, statistically... and that tend to have the same types of struggles growing up, statistically, especially INTJ and INTP. the introverts.i didnt' have the i'm special bit you mentioned at the end. it really is good you dodged that bullet. who did yo usee? how much was he? i'm trying to find soemthign affordable. $100/hour is like geez, wtf. man. lolI also am naturally logic-oriented. I also dealt with things that troubled me emotionally by suppressing it. i got quite good at it, and had a virtue and skill built up around doing so. it was also the most practical short-term way without having to confront my greatest fears. I was shy too. Yeah, i didn't really connect with peopel on an emotional leve, except for some. and they would often be the not-outspoke, and perceived to be losery type , although i certainly had close friends who weren't. Friends overall were just rare. I too almost immediately accepted anarchism after hearing explanations of how this problem and that objection and that issue would potentially get solved. i was libertarian at the time of my anarchic conversion. Also, my conversion to libertarianism when i was confused/very loosely republican leaning was also very immediate as well. I think i just never heard it much - and that i already had a propensity for it. It's like a lion living in a land where there are no gazelles, and then suddenly one comes by - yum, instintual, yes. i woudl totally have eaten that gazelle, i just never saw one before and this land was barren of them.by the way, are you attributing all the factors you mentioned to be generalized as your hypothesis to why/how people end up being inclined to be libertarian? (geez that was a grammatical feat), or just sharing as your own personal factors anecdotally? 

 

If it's generalized, i agree that a logical mind is a factor. I would question whether HYPERrationality is a necessary factor. of course, we haven't even defined that, and it's sort of a relative term, but yeah. If yo meant it as just more logical than normal, then absolutely. i just get the instinct that there is some extreme trigger from some kind of trauma or circumstance when i hear "hyperrational" it's just the image and impression i get from hearing that term. If so, then that is what i would be questioning and potentially objecting. My intention is not to nitpick or argue, it's just my honest thought and initial impression. 

[Pepin]

by the way, are you attributing all the factors you mentioned to be generalized as your hypothesis to why/how people end up being inclined to be libertarian? (geez that was a grammatical feat), or just sharing as your own personal factors anecdotally?

 

Just sharing my personal factors which i hope will help others in identifying their own. I think some of my personal reasons may be similar to others, but I think there is a lot of diversity based off the very wide range of "how did you get here" stories.

 

I like how you described the instant conversion, I think it captures it pretty well.