cherapple Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 The goal is to understand the reality that we can't change people. That's the very reality that what was so painful about our childhoods -- the fact that we couldn't escape people who didn't want to change, and we couldn't find people who did. FDR is not supposed to be a safe place for people who resist change. It's for those who are already want it and are already doing it. The only way to find those people is to be beacons of change ourselves -- so that other self-lit beacons will recognize us and find us.
Kevin Beal Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 The goal is to understand the reality that we can't change people. That's the very reality that what was so painful about our childhoods -- the fact that we couldn't escape people who didn't want to change, and we couldn't find people who did. FDR is not supposed to be a safe place for people who resist change. It's for those who are already want it and are already doing it. The only way to find those people is to be beacons of change ourselves -- so that other self-lit beacons will recognize us and find us. I think this is a half truth, if you don't mind me saying. Trying to change other people who don't want it is definitely a huge source of craziness and grief and I don't think that's what Wesley is actually suggesting. Rather you could phrase it "helping those who wish to change". And that's like the whole premise to FDR as a show. And there are things that are better and worse toward achieving that. FDR as a show adapts toward that end by doing more call-in-shows, more pop culture and truth abouts and all the other things that meet these people where they are at. This is something that I have been wanting to do myself (help others) and something I've been thinking about since Stef's 2011 xmas message to the listeners where he suggested that a good next move and way to push the conversation further is for people who've been in the community awhile to take on more leadership roles. I don't know exactly how that'll look for me yet, but one thing I've been doing is trying to connect with more and more people over skype. I want to connect with people who are actually committed to virtue and connect them with each other. I'm convinced that is a huge asset, not just for me. Wes has been working on other projects like the FDR Art project, the FDR glossary and other things, and I'm really curious about where this current line of thinking could lead. Your concern is clearly a healthy one, and certainly people should focus on themselves first and foremost before trying to help others, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. I want to be the beacon you mention, but a beacon shines it's light in all directions. And I want to see if, maybe, some beams converge.
cherapple Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Hey, Kevin. I'm sorry, I don't see where we differ?
Kevin Beal Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Hey, Kevin. I'm sorry, I don't see where we differ? I thought you were suggesting that Wes was trying to change people who don't want to change the same way I (and you?) have done in the past: the unhealthy way. Did I misunderstand? *blush*
Wesley Posted June 16, 2014 Author Posted June 16, 2014 I have to admit that I am a bit confused now as well.
Rejon Munchausen Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 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. Stumbling across FDR has been a literal life-saver... I came for the atheism, but the self-knowledge, empathy and sharing has kept me here cherapple's points make a pretty good summery of my childhood experiences too. Complete isolation from your peers and parents certainly gives you plenty of time to think about the crazy world around you...unfortunately it took until the age of 30 to even start undoing the damage
cherapple Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 ...unfortunately it took until the age of 30 to even start undoing the damage Age 40 for me, and I was looking -- through copious reading, writing, journaling, and many attempts at therapy. It wasn't until FDR that I was able to gain any real traction in healing myself and find people who could, or would, help (rather than do the complete opposite, and hinder). You are not alone in the late-in-life start. Another thing: I work to remain aware of applying the "unfortunately" to myself (if you're doing that here), but instead look to the constant onslaught of people around me who fought (ignored, attacked, resisted) my attempts to speak honestly, grow, heal, and support myself emotionally. Wesley and Kevin, I was feeling defensiveness in my response to Wesley, so my feelings may have triggered similar in you. I still feel anger, going back and reading what I wrote. I'm not sure why, but I wanted to acknowledge that the "blush" wasn't all yours. Anger is the most difficult and foggy emotion to understand, sometimes taking days, weeks, months for the ah-ha moment to hit. Helping and helplessness are also huge themes for me. Thanks for sharing your responses. I'm still sitting on this one, and not wanting to respond again out of emotional reaction.
Stoic_Dreamer Posted June 20, 2014 Posted June 20, 2014 My guess would be slightly worse. However, I doubt you would be able to get an honest answer out of the general public concerning their childhoods. I'm a 7 on the ACE if you count having sex with my babysitter for #3, otherwise a 6.
Coinflip Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 If father abusing mother can be flipped to mother abusing father then I'm at 8. I also always wondered why 10 is simply 'Prison' and not 'Jail/Prison' I think if either happened you can add a point for question 10.
cherapple Posted July 6, 2014 Posted July 6, 2014 I didn't see before how feminist question #7 of the ACE test is. At least the rest of the questions leave room for either a male or the female to be the perpetrator. I just took the test again, and due to a memory that my father recently sent me of repeatedly treating me sadistically when I was about one year old—deliberately setting me up for situations in which he could slap me until I cried—because I "had to fear him in case I ever ran into the road"—I can raise my score form a seven to a nine. The only question I cannot answer yes to is the last one: Did an adult in my life go to jail or prison? I did fear it, however, which counts almost as much as it actually happening. "I don't know" how I maintained any amount of empathy toward myself, or my own children, except that my stepmother was an attachment parent of my three half siblings, so while I didn't experience attachment parenting myself—quite the opposite—I did as a teenager witness it being given to my half siblings, and I watched and internalized the behavior as something that I wanted to both experience and to give. She didn't come into my life until I was 12, however, and she didn't offer empathy to me, so I have to think there must have been an empathetic person in my life at some point before then. There has been some value in engaging with my father, even if the "best" that he does is display his dissociated personality again and send me sadistic memories. I understand better what I experienced in the early years that I cannot mentally remember, but which my body has "remembered" in the form of intense anxiety ever since.
cynicist Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 I don't know the answer to the original question, but Stefan made a recent video where he compared people who were interested in philosophy and abused as children to rubber bands/diamonds, making the point that people in high pressure environments either break or achieve more than the average. I think people who truly live by principles are either the products of good parenting (very rare in today's society) or those who have overcome significant obstacles in their life. I'm not sure that someone who had a mildly abusive upbringing would feel the same desire to pursue truth that many here do. I know for myself it felt like finding an oasis after being lost in the desert for years. I scored a 5 on the ACE.
RuralRon Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 Hello everyone, coming into this marvelous discussion rather late, but man am I certainly in awe of the participants here, everyone of you! I ranked a pretty solid 5 in the ACE, and recently took an online IQ test (for whatever that's worth) that gave me a score of 132. I thought cherapple really injected a great summary when she joined the discussion. Wes, kudos to you for your thoughtful topic and the underlying motivation it stems from (to further philosophy and the mission of FDR). I was a product of neglect, and have lived my life to a large degree in isolation, despite my constant attempts to establish solid, deep relationships. I just haven't developed the skills for that it seems. I've always been very passionate in my pursuit of truth, which I've blamed for much of my isolation. I still haven't gotten to the root of that issue, the layers to that onion coming off very slowly. My truth seeking is certainly a factor, but it is clear to me it's not the root cause. 20 years ago or so I got involved in a lay counseling program, and received a few hundred hours of training. That was my first serious exposure to psychology. I'm a very curious person, and in high school in the 70s took a psychology class so I guess that was my first introduction to some of the concepts. As for the big picture that motivated Wes to start this discussion I feel very drawn to a leadership role in my local community, but am well aware of my need for personal growth. There are several "commune" communities nearby and I've met one young couple who embrace peaceful parenting and seem to be living out those values. I recently asked the father, who I mistakenly assumed had a Jewish heritage if his son was circumcised (he wasn't and related a rather principled story about their hospital delivery). So being a part of the FDR community is an important resource for me. I hope I will be accepted here as well as contribute here. So far I have helped one donator to return to regular involvement where their trust was shaken in FDR. It's kind of a tough group to establish bonds with, in my experience. But it also seems like the most promising in terms of my personal goals and as a means to make a difference. I just wished I could contribute more. I have established a few goals to work towards that, and learning to be less down on myself while still maintaining the effort to do better, not for FDR's sake but for my own first, and FDR will benefit as a result.
J-William Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I got about three on the aces. My parents were mostly neglectful and violent, they didn't drink or do drugs or go to jail… And down on their resilience scale I got a depressingly low score. So in terms of life and recovery being very hard I think that even if you got zero aces that if you also had a low resilience score then you would not be very healthy. The listed resilience factors should be a base line that a child should start with... I mean goodness, you should absolutely feel that your parents love you and you have people around that can help and talk to you when you're upset. I damn well think you have a right to expect that as a child...
JonnyD Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I scored 8. I don't know how exactly I ended up here, it was more of going with my gut and having a strong bullshit detector while also having the ability to self reflect. That's the short answer. I can tell more in person.
jacbot Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 I scored 7, but 1 question was incredibly gender biased. and a lot of more questions should have been on the list. mm,ok. I defood when I was 18 (mother) and 22(father), I was always a minarchist as the social system is totally fucked up, at 34 I became full ancap, after one remark an ancap politician made at me (the famous tax=armed theft argument). I knew about Stef some time ago as his articles are posted on some libertarian websites and news outlets. I like his peacefull parenting for obvious reasons. although it doesnt explain why Sweden (criminalized spanking in 1979) is rampant socialist, maybe more is needed. I dont believe at all that the average IQ above of this community is 120+, (in remark to a previous post) , a lot of conformation biased and planly ignoring fly in the face facts. Endulging themselves in weird conspiracy theories,.., alterntive cancer cures, ...not healthy and not rational attitudes. but thats ok,.. society at large is not much different. I hope to find a lot of selfactualized people,.., those are always fun to hang around with.
Kevin Beal Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 I dont believe at all that the average IQ above of this community is 120+, (in remark to a previous post) , a lot of conformation biased and planly ignoring fly in the face facts. Endulging themselves in weird conspiracy theories,.., alterntive cancer cures, ...not healthy and not rational attitudes. It's ironic that this statement includes spelling and grammatical errors
jacbot Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 It's ironic that this statement includes spelling and grammatical errors Sure, English is a foreign langauge to me and I tend to type fast.., Its funny how you turn this into something personal, I guess you ran out of arguments.?
Kevin Beal Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Sure, English is a foreign langauge to me and I tend to type fast.., Its funny how you turn this into something personal, I guess you ran out of arguments. This is projection. I didn't take anything personal.
jacbot Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 This is projection. I didn't take anything personal. Ok,, lets go through the paces again., part 1: ", I talk about IQ (reply to a remark not made by you) is just "normal" under FDR followers, not 120 average. .., you connect this statement (=we are all just normal) somehow with MY spelling errors (as I am not native English speaker) . You are making it personal as it is about me and my English language skills. That it may not be personal to you (as you claim), is not relevant. I notice you do change your emotianal center alot even within a reply. This is strange.
RuralRon Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 The tenor of your responses jacbot, feels a bit hostile towards Kevin to me. Perhaps it's due to English not being your primary language? Just offering another perspective, use it or loose it, it's your choice.
jacbot Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 The tenor of your responses jacbot, feels a bit hostile towards Kevin to me. Perhaps it's due to English not being your primary language? Just offering another perspective, use it or loose it, it's your choice. "Perhaps" not,., as there is no misunderstanding here. My typos in Engish language seemed to be a joking matter as it was connected to my the reply i gave on the IQ about the general FDR community (aka my claim: normal 100 not 120 on average). Thats silly a attempt at trolling, of course he tried to deny it.
Kevin Beal Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 "Perhaps" not,., as there is no misunderstanding here. My typos in Engish language seemed to be a joking matter as it was connected to my the reply i gave on the IQ about the general FDR community (aka my claim: normal 100 not 120 on average). Thats silly a attempt at trolling, of course he tried to deny it. Honestly, I had no idea you were not a fluent english speaker. I'm surprised there are as few typos as there are. You keep projecting malicious intent on me, in this and other threads, but instead of simply and repeatedly suggesting it, you can make the case and let other people decide for themselves. That would be the honest thing to do. It would also take a higher IQ to do. Anybody can suggest things, but it takes some smarts to actually make the case for things.
cherapple Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 You keep projecting malicious intent on me, in this and other threads, but instead of simply and repeatedly suggesting it, you can make the case and let other people decide for themselves. That would be the honest thing to do. It would also take a higher IQ to do. Anybody can suggest things, but it takes some smarts to actually make the case for things. The other intelligent option is to ask questions in order to find out whether your assertions about someone are correct: "What is your intent here? I'm understanding it in a malicious way, but you may not mean it that way. You have a high positive reputation, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than make assumptions or accusations. You might have some value to offer me, and I'd like to find out. Let's talk about it. I'd like to hear more about your experiences of our interaction." Etc.
jacbot Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Honestly, I had no idea you were not a fluent english speaker. I'm surprised there are as few typos as there are. You keep projecting malicious intent on me, in this and other threads, but instead of simply and repeatedly suggesting it, you can make the case and let other people decide for themselves. That would be the honest thing to do. It would also take a higher IQ to do. Anybody can suggest things, but it takes some smarts to actually make the case for things. Sophistry,., you initiated a sneer remark , anyone can see it was a sneer , and instead of apologizing you doubled down. In my opinion a typo here and there is actually not the issue here.Why would me making the remark that (paraphrasing) "the FDR community as a group are average/normal IQ" be an inconvenient opinion for you? Why would this invite this sillyness?I detect more sophistry in the usage of words like "honest", "higher IQ" ,"smarts". Me being factual quoting your own words back is dishonest? How am I forcing people not to decide for themselves over an internet conection?)))) I am putting a virtual gun to their heads?)) I have lower IQ for being factual (=quoting). Love the sophistry.))
RuralRon Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I refrained from making a comment earlier, but I feel compelled to now. Jacbot I see the validity of your posts, but my original perspective remains unchanged. Moreover the sentiment and gentle remarks made by cherapple carry the most weight with me in this tangent, a derailing of an otherwise well motivated and interesting conversation. Although you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you didn't provide any compelling, quantifiable evidence to support your assertion regarding IQ. It's nothing more than a subjective opinion and discussing it without supporting evidence belabors the point and lends little to nothing to the otherwise excellent discussion. This is my opinion and perspective and I'll say no more about it, as doing so perpetuates the very tangent I am speaking against.
Kevin Beal Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I detect more sophistry in the usage of words like "honest", "higher IQ" ,"smarts". Me being factual quoting your own words back is dishonest? How am I forcing people not to decide for themselves over an internet conection?)))) I am putting a virtual gun to their heads?)) I have lower IQ for being factual (=quoting). Love the sophistry.)) It's sophistry to portray my comments as accusing you of "forcing" anyone to do anything. (Which is another case of projection.)
OzTrAlien Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 I came across a study many years ago which showed how people of higher than average IQ had a higher susceptibility and degree of difficulty in dealing with or overcoming issues suffered in childhood, the study showed those with a 130+ and particularly those with 140+ IQ's required far more effort on behalf of the person and the specialists during treatment and assistance in helping to resolve or overcome many of the adverse conditions which arose from childhood experiences. It did not show these people were afflicted to any greater degree than those of normal IQ levels in terms of severity of conditions, however it did show how those of higher IQ had views which were highly defined and included broader scopes of involvement used in assessment and application as to how they related to situations and outcomes, also presenting how within this higher level of intellectualization were created the degree in difficulty and extra effort required by the person and need for extended treatment/s used to alleviate the conditions. The result did show those of IQ's in the 130+ and particularly those in 140+ region were more likely to be adversely affected through issues in childhood, the effects of which would persist longer and required more effort to overcome, there seems little reconciliation from the study which concluded, they required environments which are more caring nurturing and stable in early developmental years as a preventative measure for the situation. .... which i'm sure everyone on FDR just gave a big *rolls eyes*, as to the obviousness of the recommendation. Just reading the posts in this section its clear how well the 2nd paragraph i put aligns with how intellectual people will see so many things they consider to be part of, or help to define a situation, with the number of people saying.. I think question X is to... or.. there should be questions related to X included... to quantify or give more value to the questionnaire. And while none of my post might help or be relative in trying to bring more to FDR or defining a target audience, i can say for myself it was about hoping to meet people who were thinking about and willing to discuss issues which i have found not too many people in the general public cared for or were able to hold communications at a level of inquiry or understanding which was beyond what most get off TV or without digressing into meaningless argument. There are not many places like FDR where someone can come and communicate with others in an environment of respect towards others, at a level way beyond what most even bother to give consideration on a range of diverse subject, i know FDR certainly helps me feel "i'm not alone" in the issues raised and the views presented here in a thoughtful and logical way, by those of FDR.
cherapple Posted July 19, 2014 Posted July 19, 2014 And while none of my post might help or be relative in trying to bring more to FDR or defining a target audience, i can say for myself it was about hoping to meet people who were thinking about and willing to discuss issues which i have found not too many people in the general public cared for or were able to hold communications at a level of inquiry or understanding which was beyond what most get off TV or without digressing into meaningless argument. There are not many places like FDR where someone can come and communicate with others in an environment of respect towards others, at a level way beyond what most even bother to give consideration on a range of diverse subject, i know FDR certainly helps me feel "i'm not alone" in the issues raised and the views presented here in a thoughtful and logical way, by those of FDR. In my unscientific opinion, willingness and openness to discussion are signs of intelligence. Attacking, shaming, blaming, ridiculing, shutting down, withdrawing, etc., are not. It doesn't matter what a person's IQ is, nor the fact that their approach is caused by trauma. If they are too afraid of intelligence to use it kindly, then their intelligence is effectively worse than useless. That's not to say we shouldn't have empathy or sympathy for such people—they attack because they were attacked—but I want to see people expressing their intelligence through a conscious choice to learn kindness. This may be one of the main differences between an "FDR member" with a bad childhood and a "non-FDR member": the decision and choice to learn behaviors that oppose the abuse that we were taught.
jacbot Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Although you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you didn't provide any compelling, quantifiable evidence to support your assertion regarding IQ. Evidence.. thats a good question,..,Who makes a claim must supply the proof, in this case where is the proof of the claim (not made by me) "the average IQ of FDR members in 120" (paraphrasing)? Without "evidence" i find such a remark questionable,....wich invited some snear remarks and backpaddling about my typos from Kevin Beal. Very Silly. Maybe its hard to accept for some that FDR members are just "regular folk".
RuralRon Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I want to see people expressing their intelligence through a conscious choice to learn kindness. I like that, well said cherapple. And I couldn't agree more with OzTrAlien when he said: There are not many places like FDR where someone can come and communicate with others in an environment of respect towards others, at a level way beyond what most even bother to give consideration on a range of diverse subject, i know FDR certainly helps me feel "i'm not alone" in the issues raised and the views presented here in a thoughtful and logical way, by those of FDR. That doesn't contribute much of anything towards the topic, but I figure affirmation is in short supply, and it shouldn't be withheld when it is well deserved.
MMX2010 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 In my unscientific opinion, willingness and openness to discussion are signs of intelligence. I can add some scientific support to your conclusion. There are six personality traits that are highly-heritable: General Intelligence, Openness to new experiences, Conscientiousness - (otherwise known as "discipline", or "the ability to work long and hard on a specific task"), Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism - (otherwise known as "proneness to worry"). Those six personality traits are distributed independently of each other, except for two: General Intelligence and Openness to new experience (which are either slightly or strongly correlated). (Can't remember which.)
RuralRon Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I can add some scientific support to your conclusion. I for one would like to see it. I am highly skeptical of those statements, and without your supportive evidence I am biased to believe most of those characteristics are strongly molded by environmental influences.
MMX2010 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I for one would like to see it. I am highly skeptical of those statements, and without your supportive evidence I am biased to believe most of those characteristics are strongly molded by environmental influences. I'm pretty sure that the book The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, is where I got that information. By individually googling "Big Five psychology", "Big Five personality", and "OCEAN mnemonic", you'll see a crap-ton of articles related to those five personality traits. But I'm strongly sure that Haidt's book said, "These five traits are highly heritable, and sort independently from each other - except for General Intelligence and Openness to new experience, which are slightly correlated."
Recommended Posts