The Childhood of an FDR Board Member

[Wesley]

There may be some evidence here or it could be just random postulation, but I would like to pose a question and I would be curious to hear feedback.

 

If you were to compare the childhoods of FDR members to the average public would the be worse or better? Would there be certain threads that might make one more likely to not trust authority or question things? Is there a particular type of abuse or neglect that would be less present as that type would tend to be too much for the mind to then be able to transfer to these kinds of ideas?

 

Maybe there is no discernable differences, but it would be interesting to think about the histories of FDR members and what (if any) common threads there are. It could create bias in the ideas of members, make certain people more likely to be able to be reached or not, and many other possible implications. 

 

I don't have any particular theories currently, so I am interested as to what others think.

 

Addition:

 

As a resource that might be helpful, people can self-asses the Adverse Childhood Experiences Test here:

 

http://acestudy.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ACE_Calculator-English.127143712.pdf

 

I score a 3

[MysterionMuffles]

It's hard to say because people outside of FDR are more likely to frame their childhoods in a way that is minimal compared to how vulnerable and open people are here.

[corpus mentium]

It might depend on which traumas they experienced too. I'm not sure how willing people would be to share such information on a public forum. 

 

In my case I have trouble determining the answer to question #1. My father did all those things at one point or another. What I am not sure of is the quantifier. What is often or very often? Did it happen often or very often? I don't remember. 

 

Other questions I answered yes to include:

 

2. I got whipped with a belt on multiple occasions. At least once left marks that others asked me about. 

 

6. My parents got divorced in my early teens. 

 

8. My father was an alcoholic for most of my first decade of life. 

 

9. My mother has had problems with depression. I think she is permanently on meds for it now. 

 

 

So, depending on how I answer the first question I score between a 4 and 5. One thing I have wondered about is the fact that I find the traumas that I didn't experience to be far worse than the ones that I did experience, though I could pretty easily rank the ones I did experience from "best" to worst. I wonder how others see things relative to their experiences.

[Wesley]

People don't necessarily need to share their histories, and they can still add to the forum and theories without talking about their history.

 

However, to the extent that some people are willing to share it might add some data by which we can see where the common threads are.

 

We also have some data from the ACE study as to what the general population is, so we might be able to compare data sets to some extent (even though the sample size here is likely small).

[Kevin Beal]

Daniel Mackler has pointed this out before that the people who are most likely to break from their parents are people who have the strength to do that because they had relatively better childhoods. Still traumatic and terrible childhoods relative to an actually healthy one like the peaceful parenting more and more people are getting into, but typically not as horrifying as Stef's. It's kind of amazing that he made it out, and I'm very grateful that he did. (Thanks Stef for the work you've done on yourself and to help others).

 

Compared to a lot of the accounts I've heard from people in the community, my own childhood was (maybe) one of the better ones. And mine was terrible in a lot of ways, so I guess it depends on who you are comparing it to.

 

And neglect is harder (at least for me) to see as compared to physical abuse, so I think something like the ACE study (as you suggested Wes) is a good idea. Mine is around 5 (I wasn't sure whether or not to count something).

[TheMatrixHasMe]

There may be some evidence here or it could be just random postulation, but I would like to pose a question and I would be curious to hear feedback.

 

If you were to compare the childhoods of FDR members to the average public would the be worse or better? Would there be certain threads that might make one more likely to not trust authority or question things? Is there a particular type of abuse or neglect that would be less present as that type would tend to be too much for the mind to then be able to transfer to these kinds of ideas?

 

Maybe there is no discernable differences, but it would be interesting to think about the histories of FDR members and what (if any) common threads there are. It could create bias in the ideas of members, make certain people more likely to be able to be reached or not, and many other possible implications. 

 

I don't have any particular theories currently, so I am interested as to what others think.

 

Addition:

 

As a resource that might be helpful, people can self-asses the Adverse Childhood Experiences Test here:

 

http://acestudy.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ACE_Calculator-English.127143712.pdf

 

I score a 3

 

Let's say I score a 10 on the ACE.

 

How would that account for my presence here on the boards?

[Wesley]

Let's say I score a 10 on the ACE.

 

How would that account for my presence here on the boards?

Well, there are two possibilities. First, is that a lot of people have very high numbers and the theory would need to reflect that. The other option is that it would only be 1 or a few people and then they can be considered some sort of outlier.

 

In general, the theory needs to conform to the evidence, not the other way around. However, we are not going to get a 100% accurate theory and there will be outliers or exceptions. However, finding general trends or where majorities are could be useful.

[TheMatrixHasMe]

Well, there are two possibilities. First, is that a lot of people have very high numbers and the theory would need to reflect that. The other option is that it would only be 1 or a few people and then they can be considered some sort of outlier.

 

In general, the theory needs to conform to the evidence, not the other way around. However, we are not going to get a 100% accurate theory and there will be outliers or exceptions. However, finding general trends or where majorities are could be useful.

 

I'm not sure how this information could be useful.

 

Would you explain?

[Wesley]

Well, we understand how formative childhood is in the beliefs and ideas and behaviors of the adult. If there is a certain type of childhood history that leads to someone being an FDR member, then maybe we could target certain people, maybe others are less likely to be open to the ideas because of certain childhood circumstances, maybe the way the ideas are presented is more attractive to a certain group of people, maybe there is a kind of collective blind spot in a certain area or to a certain type of abuse or neglect, maybe we are more senstive in a certain way because we are attuned to a certain type of abuse or neglect.

 

I am just making up random possibilities, but considering how formative childhood is in later ideas and that there have been several podcasts and theories that go into what kind of psychology makes a Democrat or a Republican, it could be useful to us to analyze what type of childhood produces an FDR board member, and what impact that may have on the community's ideas outside of pure reason.

[RyanT]

My score was 5,

 

Can really relate to what Kevin was saying, in that up until getting into philosophy I'd have probably argued I had a pretty decent childhood, by comparing it to extreme examples such as people who were sexually abused or had the crap beaten out of them on a regular basis. 

 

Neglect and a constant threat of abandonment however was ever present.

Which as Stef has said is often the most insidious forms of abuse

 

So as Rainbow Jamz said, reckon it would be very hard to compare FDR members to the average person through all the fog,

 

What was it Pamela Anderson said 'I did not have an easy childhood, despite loving parents'.. 

 

 

Although of course things like the A.C.E test are valuable tools in that regard. 

[TheMatrixHasMe]

Thank you for taking time to clarify your ideas further, Wesley.

 

If the ACE can assist in determining an individual's predilection for personal and political freedom, then it should be able assist in determining an individuals' predilection for personal and political imprisonment.

 

IMHO the ACE leaves out a lot of contextual and environmental details that may, or may not have relevance on how an individual is able to recover their true selves and unite their mecosystem.

 

For example, if people who score 8 or more are more likely to embrace voluntaryism in a free society, but someone slips them some heroin before they are able to process their trauma, then, in my unprofessional opinion,there is a likelihood that they will not make it to this community.

 

If someone scores a 2, but they are surrounded by individuals who are obsessed with statist principles, they may internalize any deviance from the tribal indoctrination with intense fear and anxiety. Again, never making it to this community.

 

Not sure if any if this makes sense?

[Yeravos]

I think it's an interesting thought Wesley. I can imagine that a lot of work and date would be required, seeing as there are so many factors that play out in childhood, so many different kinds of abuse, positive rolemodels, outside of the home abuse.

 

Something that I thought I'd mention is that in the case of this A.C.E test, it only deals with home environment. My home environment was pretty horrible. But, it was a sanctuary compared to school, for almost all my school-years. So in my case, a lot of background is not taken into account with the A.C.E test.

[Wesley]

Thank you for taking time to clarify your ideas further, Wesley.If the ACE can assist in determining an individual's predilection for personal and political freedom, then it should be able assist in determining an individuals' predilection for personal and political imprisonment.IMHO the ACE leaves out a lot of contextual and environmental details that may, or may not have relevance on how an individual is able to recover their true selves and unite their mecosystem.For example, if people who score 8 or more are more likely to embrace voluntaryism in a free society, but someone slips them some heroin before they are able to process their trauma, then, in my unprofessional opinion,there is a likelihood that they will not make it to this community.If someone scores a 2, but they are surrounded by individuals who are obsessed with statist principles, they may internalize any deviance from the tribal indoctrination with intense fear and anxiety. Again, never making it to this community.Not sure if any if this makes sense?

That is easily possible, but then the question would be to ask what is the difference between someone who gets help and processes their trauma and someone who doesn't. I assume that that might have roots in childhood. 

[RyanT]

Thank you for taking time to clarify your ideas further, Wesley.If the ACE can assist in determining an individual's predilection for personal and political freedom, then it should be able assist in determining an individuals' predilection for personal and political imprisonment.IMHO the ACE leaves out a lot of contextual and environmental details that may, or may not have relevance on how an individual is able to recover their true selves and unite their mecosystem.For example, if people who score 8 or more are more likely to embrace voluntaryism in a free society, but someone slips them some heroin before they are able to process their trauma, then, in my unprofessional opinion,there is a likelihood that they will not make it to this community.If someone scores a 2, but they are surrounded by individuals who are obsessed with statist principles, they may internalize any deviance from the tribal indoctrination with intense fear and anxiety. Again, never making it to this community.Not sure if any if this makes sense?

 

I think I get what you're saying mate,

 

certainly been thinking about this a lot recently and what's really struck me is this intricate sequence of 'luck, coincidence and accident' that lead me to FDR.

 

At 19-20, I was a young 'white nationalist', not just one of those angry little keyboard warriors either,

I'd been involved in 'organizations' since I was 15, go to every march and demo, meeting and piss up,  

so by then I was a bit of a face on the scene, had a little gang of 'good mates' and also a fiancée,

I'd met though that stuff, so basically it was my whole life, my identity.

 

Pretty sure I'd actually come across some of Stefan's anarchy videos on youtube and 'thought they were interesting', but to be honest I saw the whole thing quite cynically kinda 'Taking over the world's off the cards, but I could just about settle for an all white DRO', certainly avoided all the family and personal relationship videos (ya know the important stuff)

 

Anyway to cut a long story short(er) there was some serious trouble with the law and that curtailed my activities for a while, me and my fiancee were also over that dysfunctional honeymoon period and the shit was really starting to show, in the end she met another guy, went off with him. what if she hadn't? What if we'd had a kid together?

 

At the same time I'd been having serious doubts about that ideology, I'd had them before when I was about 17,

but back then I'd just blocked them out, didn't have any other friends, couldn't fit into 'normal' society ect. 

This time however I had my then best mate, who I really looked up to, who was having similar feelings.

 

If he hadn't? Chances are I'd have 'rinsed and repeat', 'it's a shitty little world but it's my shitty little world'

 

We ended up smoking a lot of weed, getting heavily into conspiracy theories, David Icke and assorted new age mumbo jumbo. He moved down south to live on some sort of commune but I met a few other people at university also into that kind of stuff. Pretty soon though I started to see the bullshit (maybe if I'd not been though the whole neo-nazi phase it'd have taken longer?)

 

To cap it all my new 'best mate I really looked up to' cooked up this plan to start buying a few ounces of weed from his dealer and selling it himself, of course he couldn't just go up to the guy and say, 'gimme a bulk discount so I can sell it on your patch' so he had the bright idea that maybe he could introduce me as his mate from Barnsley who wanted to start dealing at this end.

 

Maybe at one time I'd have been well up for it, but my grandmother who'd raised me was dying and the last thing I wanted was to get locked up or get the shit kicked out of me to finish her off. So I said I was out....haven't heard from him since. I tried emailing, calling him, no reply. 

 

Less than 24 hours later my gran was dead, so if he'd called me the next day......

 

In the few months before that I'd started listening to FDR podcasts but as I got to the stuff on family relationships I was really really torn, I thought I was really close to my gran and loved her more than anyone in this world, now this bald guy from Canada was provoking me to ask all these uncomfortable questions. So I'd stopped listening. 

 

What if she'd got over that chest infection and lived to like 100? 

or I hadn't examined the new age mystic stuff before she died?

 

The mind boggles.

[Wesley]

So, my current theory is that what we may have in common is that we didn't fit in. At least long enough (with or without a couple others who were also questioning things) that we were able to question what was going on with society and our histories.

 

As far as my history, I had a period of depression and isolation in my room after a breakup when I was finally realizing how alone I was. At some point I decided that I didn't want to feel that way anymore or ever again, so I started getting into the psychology stuff and found a therapist in my area. However, the fact that I spent nearly 6 months locked in my room and on my computer except for going to work and eating dinner and that my family never tried to figure out what was going on or help me through things tells you how no-existent a bond I had with them and thus how little a bond I had with what they taught me about religion and the state. If that makes sense.

 

Of course, I was questioning things for a while before that (mainly anarchy), but the fact that I was so alone was obscured to me until my ex and I started falling apart and breaking up.

 

When we were alone we looked for answers or someone pushed us into getting answers.

 

So, does this theory make sense to people?

 

Is there a way to break people out who are more securely attached in the current state of things, or are they not worth the effort as they never change?

[PatrickC]

I scored a 3 btw

 

My whole life was spent questioning things. All of course in the wrong quarters and with the wrong people. Thankfully i was intelligent enough to smell BS when I heard it. I just struggled with connecting the dots.

[Lians]

My ACE score is 7. There are a lot of factors that contributed to my involvement with FDR. A lot of it was luck, and some of it was an innate strength of character. I didn't fit in and I spent a lot of time in solitude. Fortunately, I had a sense of pride that kept me from assuming that the isolation was all my fault. The solitude protected me from the tentacles of culture that tried to weave themselves into my identity, and philosophy, in this regard, didn't threaten to destroy my whole inner world--it was the Japanese chef that turned those tentacles into sushi.

[st434u]

I "scored" myself a 3.

 

I didn't like the test much. A lot of things were looked over, and other things were more concentrated than they should've been. Also it left a lot of room for interpretation.

 

For instance, both of my parents were hardcore marxists. How does one account for that in this test?

[cherapple]

I have a couple theories:

 

1. Isolation: People who are isolated in childhood spend a lot of time in their heads -- watching people, reading books, and trying to make sense of the crazy people around them. Philosophy continues that pattern naturally. 

 

2. Secondary benefits: People who received fewer secondary benefits (money, cars, college paid for, surface or pretend emotional connection, status as "the good child," etc.) from their families have more to gain with self-knowledge than they have to lose by maintaining the status quo with their families. 

 

I don't think Daniel Mackler is necessarily right. My ACE score is a 7 and I took to FDR like a drowning woman from the moment I found it, I think at least partly due to the reasons I list above. 

[RyanT]

2. Secondary benefits: People who received fewer secondary benefits (money, cars, college paid for, surface or pretend emotional connection, status as "the good child," etc.) from their families have more to gain with self-knowledge than they have to lose by maintaining the status quo with their families.

 

Definitely something in that one, we can all 'talk a good game' when it comes to material things but I think when you've been fundamentally been broken inside, they take on an even more significant value.

 

I remember one of the last thoughts that passed though my head before I defooed from my mum was 'shit, when she finally kicks the bucket and we sell her house (well her older husbands house who's bound to go before her) me and my sister would be sharing the best part of £250,000...tempting.

 

and I've found this often comes with the delusion 'they can't effect me anymore'.

but they would if they could, and you gloat over your 'victories' when they try to

...but then you still feel like you 'love' them.

 

It's all crazy?

[shirgall]

Whee, 6.

How come there are so few questions about how you were treated by people outside the family?

[William Wyatt]

My score is about 4-5 but I have difficulty answering the questions in a black and white way. My upbringing was more lazy and underclass than it was purely violently abusive. I was a one night stand teen pregnancy, my mother was 15, my father 17. They were never dating and both seem to have severe trauma themselves.My mother had been diagnosed ADHD and has a heavy history of emotional problems, extreme anger, alcohol abuse. She primarily raised me in front of a T.V screen. She would scream at me for not doing the dishes on a fairly regular basis, she hit me with a hairbrush on various occasions, but never before the age of 3 in my memory.My father was a snarky bogan no bullshit kind of guy. I mainly saw him during the weekends up until I was 13 when I moved in with him for 3 years during this time when I was 13-16 he cornered me and punched me on numerous occasions. During my childhood he would growl at me for making mistakes. When teaching me how to ride a bike or catch a ball, I would be met with intense growling, which would induce an extreme fear of failure.I was always a slow child, I had/have a mild lazy eye, was bad a sports. struggled to fit in socially, was always a few steps away from being regarded in a similar veign to the aspergic kids at my school. Got more popular when I was 16 due to getting in with the smoker and stoner crowd. But then was regarded by everyone as being a complete stoner, I wouldn't get stoned every day. But people thought that due to my slow nature.After I left high school Friends in this crowd later would manipulate me into doing crazy embarrassing things, and as I got involved with their family painting business. They would play pranks on me constantly and continue to manipulate me into doing embarrassing things on the work site. It was during this time that I developed a heavy urination shyness due to their invasion of privacy.I since dissociated from these people for the most part, work on my music, singing ability, and most recently poetry. I make a living off busking (not on any welfare) and I live in a creative warehouse near the Brisbane CBD. I am heading in the right direction but I still have difficulty with decision making,steeping into procrastination and self doubt. I am more of an INFP/ENFP personality type and I truly value the expression of my emotions. I have recently truly realized that I am going to die, so I really need to get moving fast if I want my art to have any sort of impact in the world. and any sort of promotion of the ideas of voluntarism and philosophy.I am considering calling in to Stefan's show to seek advice about an appropriate therapist in my area and how to get on board to change the world. But I still have a certain level of doubt, but I know that if I were to call in I would be able to express my emotions, which I know is something that people have difficulty doing when calling into the show.

[RyanT]

Whee, 6.

How come there are so few questions about how you were treated by people outside the family?

 

I think first of all it's widely understood that family based trauma is much much more destructive that inflicted on us by outsiders, but also until you're 16-18 (obviously it's hard to draw a solid line), your welfare is your families responsibility. So they have more power over your life than anyone else....including you.

 

It's like you forever see people saying things like 'I was bullied mercilessly at school, but my mum and dad were great'

 

Really, how?

[shirgall]

I have three bullying incidents in my past that stand out pretty strongly in my mind, which was why I asked. They all had significant effects on me. But since I've already said too much today (different thread) let's leave it there.

[corpus mentium]

I have a couple theories:

 

1. Isolation: People who are isolated in childhood spend a lot of time in their heads -- watching people, reading books, and trying to make sense of the crazy people around them. Philosophy continues that pattern naturally. 

 

2. Secondary benefits: People who received fewer secondary benefits (money, cars, college paid for, surface or pretend emotional connection, status as "the good child," etc.) from their families have more to gain with self-knowledge than they have to lose by maintaining the status quo with their families. 

 

I don't think Daniel Mackler is necessarily right. My ACE score is a 7 and I took to FDR like a drowning woman from the moment I found it, I think at least partly due to the reasons I list above. 

 

I can confirm most of both points in my case.

 

No. 1 - I grew up in a semi-rural area where there weren't many other kids. I spent a lot of time by myself roaming the forest, reading, watching TV or playing video games. I was also typically the back up friend to a couple of classmates in school.

 

No. 2 - not much in the way of secondary benefits... I was amazed at how much money other kids got from their parents and a new or lightly used car at 16 where I had to save for mine. I was on my own for college for the most part and an emotional connection from my dad was pretty much forbidden for most of my latency period and teen years. 

[Wesley]

I have a couple theories:

 

1. Isolation: People who are isolated in childhood spend a lot of time in their heads -- watching people, reading books, and trying to make sense of the crazy people around them. Philosophy continues that pattern naturally. 

 

2. Secondary benefits: People who received fewer secondary benefits (money, cars, college paid for, surface or pretend emotional connection, status as "the good child," etc.) from their families have more to gain with self-knowledge than they have to lose by maintaining the status quo with their families. 

 

I don't think Daniel Mackler is necessarily right. My ACE score is a 7 and I took to FDR like a drowning woman from the moment I found it, I think at least partly due to the reasons I list above. 

Thank you for your input.

 

As a secondary thought I have, theoretically children of FDR members will be raised peacefully and not experience isolation and gain some very real benefits from being the children of philosophically or psychologically aware parents. Thus, will those children be less likely to participate in FDR as a community?

 

It has also been remarked that there is a pretty high intelligence needed in order to participate in these discussions, is that a function of isolation, or a few other factors?

 

Is there a level of damage to a child that would be impossible to repair as an adult?

[Kevin Beal]

It has also been remarked that there is a pretty high intelligence needed in order to participate in these discussions, is that a function of isolation, or a few other factors?

 

Is there a level of damage to a child that would be impossible to repair as an adult?

I wonder if high intelligence is really necessary. Stef and Cheryl seem to agree on the issue of people having the least to lose by being honest about the cult of the family and all the other anti-normal stuff talked about within the community and on the show. (see FDR1551 Why We Are Different).

 

Daniel Mackler says repeatedly that there is no level of trauma that he believes is irreparable, but I'm inclined to agree with Stef when he says that at some point the false self becomes the personality. I would imagine that people who have become abusers and have done serious damage to children themselves might be tempted to kill themselves if they were ever to have their evil become conscious to them. And repression is designed to keep exactly that sort of thing out of consciousness for that reason: survival.

 

I don't know if that's exactly what you were asking, but that's what comes to mind.

[meta]

So, my current theory is that what we may have in common is that we didn't fit in. At least long enough (with or without a couple others who were also questioning things) that we were able to question what was going on with society and our histories.

 I agree.Stef often says that the average IQ of his listeners is around 120.I think that is a low estimate.I believe our intelligence is what brings us together, circumstances of childhood as well but i think it is secondary.What amazes me , in Stef's history or others people s' on the forum, is the intellectual abilities to analyse rationally.

 

IQ being influenced  by a good and stable education. Low ACE scores show be  in most numbers (they don't appear to be).But there is a weird genetic factor that makes it impossible to consider the environment as the only factor (also stress could be seen a an "improvement necessity" that stimulates in a good way in some occasions).Truly, I am still blown away by Stef history (that reflects stories from a lot of people on the forum).The ability to be so cold, tempered in logic and reason with this much stress is so different from what I have known in my life.I didn't think it was possible.The only explanation I find to explain the gathering of remarkable intelligences besides f*** up childhoods is the emerge of intelligence despite huge stress, it is a miracle almost.

 

I scored 0 on ACE 

[Lians]

I have a couple theories:

 

1. Isolation: People who are isolated in childhood spend a lot of time in their heads -- watching people, reading books, and trying to make sense of the crazy people around them. Philosophy continues that pattern naturally. 

 

2. Secondary benefits: People who received fewer secondary benefits (money, cars, college paid for, surface or pretend emotional connection, status as "the good child," etc.) from their families have more to gain with self-knowledge than they have to lose by maintaining the status quo with their families. 

 

I don't think Daniel Mackler is necessarily right. My ACE score is a 7 and I took to FDR like a drowning woman from the moment I found it, I think at least partly due to the reasons I list above. 

 

Excellent! I think we can consolidate these theories into safety through knowledge. Abused children carry into adulthood a profound sense of insecurity. We all tried to master our dangerous familial environments but we could only respond to immediate threats because the parent's actions are beyond the child's control. Sadly, the chaotic nature of such upbringing becomes the lens through which we see the world--it may even become our physics. Up is down, black is white, truth is an illusion and morality is exploitation. Eventually, the constant vigilance that is required to survive in such a world wears you down and poisons your capacity for happiness. Moral philosophy blows away the fog of dysfunction much like science displaced the whims of deities.

 

In a sick society, the secondary benefits that you listed can be very dangerous because they provide an illusion of safety. People who lack foresight or indulge in immoral and corrupt behaviour are easily tempted into embracing this false sense of security. They abandon their quest for knowledge in favour of short term comfort, gradually eroding their true self until there's nothing left to repair. Absent philosophy, physical beauty, money and social status will let you pass on your genes at the cost of virtue. The average person considers this a bargain...

[cherapple]

Daniel Mackler has pointed this out before that the people who are most likely to break from their parents are people who have the strength to do that because they had relatively better childhoods. 

 

Stef has said the opposite: People who have had better childhoods often take their accidental birth circumstances as a sign of personal virtue. They will be less likely to threaten their view of themselves as "better" when they were merely born to better circumstances. Since they haven't experienced abuse, they can't handle seeing the symptoms of trauma in others. 

 

I would argue that the classification of their childhoods as "better" is an illusion. Part of "better" would include being taught to sympathize with the less fortunate. Their lack of sympathy betrays the lack of depth in the way they were parented. Their blindness to the truth of abuse betrays their blindness to their own experiences. 

[Kevin Beal]

Stef has said the opposite: People who have had better childhoods often take their accidental birth circumstances as a sign of personal virtue. They will be less likely to threaten their view of themselves as "better" when they were merely born to better circumstances. Since they haven't experienced abuse, they can't handle seeing the symptoms of trauma in others. 

 

I would argue that the classification of their childhoods as "better" is an illusion. Part of "better" would include being taught to sympathize with the less fortunate. Their lack of sympathy betrays the lack of depth in the way they were parented. Their blindness to the truth of abuse betrays their blindness to their own experiences. 

I think you're right. It can go either way, I suppose.

 

Thinking about it some more, I think the point you made about having the least to lose is probably a more important factor than severity of abuse.

[Horseradish]

 

 

As a secondary thought I have, theoretically children of FDR members will be raised peacefully and not experience isolation and gain some very real benefits from being the children of philosophically or psychologically aware parents. Thus, will those children be less likely to participate in FDR as a community?

I think they might be less likely to participate, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. They would have happy lives and display it to people around them, and some of those people might become curious and try to find out more.

So, my current theory is that what we may have in common is that we didn't fit in. At least long enough (with or without a couple others who were also questioning things) that we were able to question what was going on with society and our histories.As far as my history, I had a period of depression and isolation in my room after a breakup when I was finally realizing how alone I was. At some point I decided that I didn't want to feel that way anymore or ever again, so I started getting into the psychology stuff and found a therapist in my area. However, the fact that I spent nearly 6 months locked in my room and on my computer except for going to work and eating dinner and that my family never tried to figure out what was going on or help me through things tells you how no-existent a bond I had with them and thus how little a bond I had with what they taught me about religion and the state. If that makes sense.Of course, I was questioning things for a while before that (mainly anarchy), but the fact that I was so alone was obscured to me until my ex and I started falling apart and breaking up.When we were alone we looked for answers or someone pushed us into getting answers.So, does this theory make sense to people?Is there a way to break people out who are more securely attached in the current state of things, or are they not worth the effort as they never change?

I think not fitting in is a good theory. I have a low ACE score of 2, and I might have said 1 before FDR, minimizing my memory of past negative feelings. The Daniel Mackler theory kind of made sense to me, until I saw the high scores other people posted. But the not fitting in thing makes sense. That is definitely something I felt. I never fit in with any peer groups or cliques, any group I spent time with I never felt that I was actually "in" the group. I only ever had one friend growing up who I thought wouldn't abandon me for another friend if they had the chance. I didn't feel understood by my parents. I spent a lot of time alone in my room listening to music and writing in my journal or reading.

 

And then in college while I was busy partying and hanging out with lots of people I stopped writing in my journal or thinking about my inner world. And then when I failed out, I stopped hanging out with all those people, and I was alone again when I went to a group therapy thing which led me to podcasts and I discovered FDR.

[Wesley]

So, taking it a few steps further.

 

We have a group of people in the category of "history of isolation and minimal secondary benefits". What kinds of worldviews would the average person in this group have? Where might there be biases that come out in the ideas of FDR as a result of this worldview? Is the worldview accurate and "provable"?

 

I can imagine that people who are used to isolation and lack of secondary benefits are more independent and not as good at forming groups, which can make community and things like attempts at meetups more difficult to start up and people will tend to drop out of these groups in the long run, just as a possible example of what I am talking about.

 

Second, taking the people who are not in this profile, is there a way to target or reach them, or are they too connected to the existing state of things to consider radical changes? Maybe they are less likely to desire changes, but can be changed if the path is made easier (aka the other side has community and visible benefits even greater than their current state). How achievable is this? Is it worth pursuing or is the cost/benefit too high at this point?

[cherapple]

Second, taking the people who are not in this profile, is there a way to target or reach them, or are they too connected to the existing state of things to consider radical changes? Maybe they are less likely to desire changes, but can be changed if the path is made easier (aka the other side has community and visible benefits even greater than their current state). How achievable is this? Is it worth pursuing or is the cost/benefit too high at this point?

 

I'm wondering why you're focusing on changing other people. Is there a fear, if other people choose not to change? 

[Wesley]

I'm wondering why you're focusing on changing other people. Is there a fear, if other people choose not to change? 

I don't think I am particularly fearful of other people not changing. However, I think that is somewhat the expressed goal of FDR to create a world that is more free and peaceful, etc.

 

By definition, improvement in this sense requires some others to change.

 

Even, so, this is not my focus as I think that every post in which I ask about others, I also ask about FDR, or a group that is theorized to contain them and what implications it has for us, which was the part you didn't quote.