Does everyone have sociopathic tendencies?

[neeeel]

Not sure if this is the correct forum section,

 

How would you know if you are a sociopath, or at least had sociopathic tendencies? Doesnt everyone have them to a greater or lesser extent? Does just asking the question mean that you probably arent ( because sociopaths arent that self aware?)

 

 

I found my childhood really difficult. I have ended up in a place where I keep myself to myself, dont trust people, spend most of my time on my own. My story is that my parents were mean to me. I know that I felt I had to keep myself safe by shutting everyone out. But other peoples versions of the story will be different. Is it possible that I was just an argumentative , disruptive, selfish arrogant shit, that didnt listen to his parents?

 

Its confusing, I feel like I always knew that they were full of shit, but its possible they werent? I know that ALL stories ( including my own ) are pretty much bullshit, but I cant deny how I felt about things.

[MMX2010]

First of all, hi. 

 

Secondly, I don't think you really want to discuss whether everyone has sociopathic tendencies.  I think you really want to discuss your childhood.  So why not give us more details about your childhood, especially the event you recently remembered that caused you to post?

[neeeel]

hi to you  Sorry this is such a long post. I guess I just needed to get this off my chest.

 

In a way , you are right, I want to discuss my childhood, but in the context of, determining whether I am a sociopath or not. Or perhaps, in the context of determining whether I am just an asshole when it comes down to it, or an asshole who has been "made" an asshole by his treatment by his parents

 

Most people seem to think I am just oversensitve, and I guess I am, which makes it all the more confusing.

 

Ok, so I had a really difficult childhood, especially teenage years. When I was younger , up to 5 or 6 I guess, I was spanked, probably not often, but I remember particularly one occasion where I was told in advance, possibly 12 hours or more, that I was going to be spanked, dont remember what I did to merit the punishment, cant have been that terrible, and I was hiding under the bed when my dad came home, so that I wouldnt get spanked. My dad obviously knew that I was scared and didnt want to be spanked, because he offered to run me a bath so that when I was spanked, I could get in the bath and it wouldnt hurt as much ( ye, I dont know how I fell for that, looking back it sounds stupid) . There were huge fights over meal times when I was young, although I dont really remember them in detail, my grandmother said( years later) that she felt really bad and sorry for me when witnessing these fights. I didnt want to eat certain things, or didnt want to finish my meal, and would be forced to sit at the table till my plate was clean. 

 

One thing that sticks out for me, and still hurts to this day, is when the whole family was playing monopoly, and I lost, or had to pay lots of money or something, and went into a total rage( iwas pretty young, 5 or 6 maybe). My parents just sat there and laughed at me, like really laughed, hooting loudly. Which just made me more angry, which made them laugh harder. 

 

Something happened between my dad and his dad when I was about 7 or 8, I remember we were playing chess or something, and he just started crying, some days later it was just announced to us that he would not be talking to or seeing his dad ever again. It was never explained why, even though I asked both parents and grandparents why when I was older. My dad basically said it was something he would take to his grave.

 

I can definitely see a change in my dad after this. I dont know, he became darker, more withdrawn. 

 

Throughout my life, I have been constantly labelled, thoughtless, lazy, stupid, silly, uncaring, rude, selfish. Like I would go through a door, not seeing that someone was coming the other way, because I was off in a daydream or something, and I was berated for being thoughtless and careless. Or I would be objecting to something I had to do , or try and express how I was feeling about something, and be told that I was "just being silly"

 

I was very withdrawn as a teenager, no friends at school, no friends at home. A couple of things that happened. I was talking to my little brother, 6 years younger than me, cant remember what about, but I was telling him it was important to be different " you need to be different", I said, ( I guess that my meaning was "different from them", and my dad overheard me and said, from downstairs, "well you certainly are" in a pretty nasty tone of voice.

 

The school I went to had maroon blazers. I needed a new blazer, and my parents got me a bright pink one ( it was bright pink to me, maybe it wasnt that bad to other people, I dont know, my insecurities probably magnified things), I absolutely hated it, knew exactly what was going to happen when I wore it, and was so wound up and insecure and worried about it. But I was forced to wear it. There is no way they couldnt know that I was unhappy at school, that I found it difficult to fit in, and they made me wear it, because they couldnt afford the correct blazer( which is probably bullshit too) 

 

One time I was watching my favorite TV show, I was told to come down for dinner, I didnt come, my dad shouted up the stairs at me to come down, as I came down, I tutted, and he pushed me against the wall and hit me ( I remember it as being hit in the stomach, but I dont think it was quite like that). The wierd thing is, it was all made out to be my fault, I can remember the atmosphere of the meal and how I felt that I must have done something to deserve that attack.

 

In general, I was very sensitive to comments and criticism. My parents couldnt say anything to me without me objecting or arguing. There were constant fights about everything. I basically thought they were full of shit.

 

The event that made me post here that I remembered recently, was actually something that happened when I was an adult. A couple of years ago, I was visiting my parents. I was on my ,laptop, and my mum commented that I was typing really fast, and that I didnt seem to be looking at the keys . I said "yeah, I dont need to look at the keys", I guess I was proud of my typing ability. My dad immediately chimes in with "pretentious, moi? " in what seemed to me to be a quite nasty and snide tone, directed at me. I found this really hurtful, all the more because I cant see it any other way than being said with an intent to hurt. I was pretty depressed for hours after this, and when my mum asked me what was wrong, I spoke to her about the comment, and she said I was just being silly, it was just dad being dad, that he was just joking around, that I take things on board to much, etc. He had actually said a similar comment to her earlier, when she was admiring some dishes in a window, he made some disparaging comment, and when I asked her if she felt hurt about that, she just said the same, that he was just joking, he didnt mean it, etc.

 

 

I can see that as far as my hurt, that IS down to me being very sensitive, that other people could laugh it off. I just dont see how that comment can be designed any other way than to hurt. He knows I value genuineness and integrity, and so attacked me by implying that I wasnt genuine. It makes me even more certain, in that, in the context, his comment doesnt even make sense. Its not pretentious to be able to not look at the keys when you are typing. 

 

Although I cant remember lots of specific examples throughout my childhood, my feeling is that these types of attacking comments happened all the time when I was growing up.

 

 

I guess I have this doubt, fear, that I am just a bad person. Perhaps I am looking for someone else to blame, or looking for an explanation of why I am the way I am, other than "I am just basically a bad person".

[MMX2010]

One thing that sticks out for me, and still hurts to this day, is when the whole family was playing monopoly, and I lost, or had to pay lots of money or something, and went into a total rage( iwas pretty young, 5 or 6 maybe). My parents just sat there and laughed at me, like really laughed, hooting loudly. Which just made me more angry, which made them laugh harder. 

 

The most important thing I'll say is that Stefan is awesome at these conversations, so you should probably arrange a call-in show. 

 

 

-------------------------

 

In my opinion, all of your examples lead me to the same conclusion.  So rather than illustrate all of them, I'm going to comment on just the one I quoted. 

 

I'll begin by saying something extremely shocking and seemingly non-empathetic.  It isn't, though, because it leads to a larger point. 

 

I want you to read what I say, then remember what happened when you were playing Monopoly, and then read the rest of my post with emotional detachment.  (Reading with emotional detachment may be difficult.  So if you need to read my post tomorrow, or the next day, that's fine.) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you ready? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you sure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here it comes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would've laughed at you, too. 

 

If you're really angry at what I said, (even though I told you not to be), then you probably heard, "I would've laughed at you in the same way, and for the same reasons, as your family did."    But I didn't say that.  I only said that I would've laughed at you, too. 

 

There's a way to laugh at a child, or a woman, in a way that signals empathy and compassion while also signaling that the child's or woman's anger isn't appropriate.  Something like, "Hey, neeeeeel.  Maybe if you throw the game board against the wall, you'll win the game."   (And if you don't get it, then I will throw the game board against the wall in the most ridiculously silly way, then I'll make myself clean it up in a silly way.  And, by then, you'll be laughing along with me.)   

 

----------------------

 

Or if you still don't get it, a blog post I read from a man talking about his girlfriend. 

 

"My girlfriend called me to complain about something, and so I hung up on her twenty seconds into what I felt would be a two-minute long rant.  Thirty seconds later, she calls me back to resume her rant as if we had never been disconnected, so I hung up on her immediately.  Thirty seconds later, she calls me back - but this time she isn't saying anything.  And I calmly tell her, 'If you start talking about what you were talking about earlier, I think I'm going to pass through another dead zone.'  She laughs, and starts talking about something much more pleasant." 

 

---------------------

 

So there are multiple ways to laugh at women and children such that they know you're feeling empathy/sympathy while also knowing that their emotional reaction isn't appropriate.  And a man who wields such laughter raises emotionally balanced children, and adds to the emotional well-being of his wife. 

 

You were never mad at your family because they laughed at you.  You were mad at them because their own inability to calm themselves down whenever they were sad / enraged meant that they didn't know how to calm you down when you were sad/enraged. 

 

No one in your family is skilled at emotional management, so, of course, they had no ability to manage your emotions.  But they also lack the moral authority to make any judgments on your emotions. 

 

So why do you believe that you're "basically a bad person", when your only evidence is the opinions of those unskilled at understanding your emotions? 

[AynRand]

Thank you for sharing. I know that this can be very difficult to open your heart to the world by telling your personal experiences growing up, but luckily everyone here is really nice, and this is the safest spot to share that I have found.

I am terribly sorry to read of the horrendous experiences that you had growing up, and I sympathize greatly. I experienced similar circumstances, and know of the pain i'm sure you felt.

I would like to know more of your current situation for example how well do you know about the FDR community? If you are well aware of it then have you deFOOed? I think it would give me a better insight into your problem.

 

I can't really answer your question without instances of where you lacked all emotions for truly serious events in your life, but just from reading your post I would say that if you are you have certainly made a good step in self knowledge by recognizing that you had a bad childhood. I'll also add that I believe we are products of our upbringing, but that doesn't mean that we can't change who our future selves will be.

[darknova]

Hey, neeeel. That's a pretty awful and painful history you describe. Your parents sound pretty nasty and abusive. Being spanked until ages 5 or 6 is going to have a pretty big impact on you and it's a truly awful thing to experience. I'm extremely sorry and heartbroken to hear you had to go through that.

 

The second half of your post includes a lot of things I went through as a kid. My family made similar kinds of verbal attacks to each other all the time. Calling someone pretentious for good typing skills? That's an attack. He's not joking when he says that, he's attacking you. It's got nothing to do with you anything you did. I see nothing in what you've written here that indicates you're at fault for any of this.

You say:

"Throughout my life, I have been constantly labelled, thoughtless, lazy, stupid, silly, uncaring, rude, selfish."

Those are all awful and unwarranted attacks designed to isolate you and force you to self attack. No wonder you mention feeling isolated and without friends. It's hard to put yourself out there and interact meaningfully with people when all you know from your history with people is attack.

[neeeel]

thanks darknova.

 

The thing is, I am stuck with the fear that its my fault, that I am a bad person. Even though I "know" what I experienced, and "know" that it really is a verbal attack, there is still something that says "well, maybe you are just too sensitive",, and when other people say they dont see anything in it, and dont think its attacking, then its very confusing. 

 

Because, I AM lazy, I AM selfish. When someone talks about something, I very often respond with how it relates to me, similar experiences Ive had, and so I worry that I am a sociopath that only thinks and talks about himself. Although I did have the thought that maybe I am just trying to relate how I had a similar experience, which may be more empathic, so I really dont know.

 

Perhaps sensitivity is just the ability to see and understand motives and intent and social cues clearer than other people, so that they actually dont see any of what I see, and so think I am "reading too much into it"

 

As you can see, Im confused .... swinging back and forth, But he did this, But maybe he didnt, maybe its just me, but I know its attacking, but I cant be sure. And so on. 

 

I was going to say that it doesnt really matter, what matters is what happens now, and what I do now. But thats not really true, it obviously matters to me, otherwise I wouldnt be posting it.

 

[MMX2010]

thanks darknova.

 

The thing is, I am stuck with the fear that its my fault, that I am a bad person. Even though I "know" what I experienced, and "know" that it really is a verbal attack, there is still something that says "well, maybe you are just too sensitive",, and when other people say they dont see anything in it, and dont think its attacking, then its very confusing. 

 

That's not what's happening, in my opinion.  What's happening is that your parents' behaviors have left you rather unskilled at very important things. 

 

Imagine a survey that asks "On a one-to-ten scale, how satisfied are you right now with these five aspects of your life?  (A) Sexual relationships.  (B) Financial.  ©  Diet.   (D)  Body Weight / Sense of Health.  (E)  Hopefulness for the future."  I predict your answers are rather low, with no area being higher than a 4. 

 

So you sense that your life is not successful, which drives you to ask, "Am I a sociopath, or not?"  But I think the correct question is, "If I was raised with love and empathy, or if I were wildly successful despite my childhood, would I still be wondering whether I'm a sociopath?" 

[neeeel]

That's not what's happening, in my opinion.  What's happening is that your parents' behaviors have left you rather unskilled at very important things. 

 

Imagine a survey that asks "On a one-to-ten scale, how satisfied are you right now with these five aspects of your life?  (A) Sexual relationships.  (B) Financial.  ©  Diet.   (D)  Body Weight / Sense of Health.  (E)  Hopefulness for the future."  I predict your answers are rather low, with no area being higher than a 4. 

 

So you sense that your life is not successful, which drives you to ask, "Am I a sociopath, or not?"  But I think the correct question is, "If I was raised with love and empathy, or if I were wildly successful despite my childhood, would I still be wondering whether I'm a sociopath?" 

Im not sure I agree, although you may be right about the five aspects( C and D would be about 7, the others, I dont really have an answer for )

 

I cant determine whether I am a sociopath or not, or cant get rid of the feeling that I could be a bad person , and that it could be all my own fault. What should I do about it, if anything? 

I guess I came here for confirmation that my childhood wasnt great, and now that Ive got it, I still dont believe it....

[MMX2010]

 

I cant determine whether I am a sociopath or not, or cant get rid of the feeling that I could be a bad person , and that it could be all my own fault.

 

What should I do about it, if anything? 

 

 

I've three suggestions.

 

(1) Set up a call-in with Stef, since he's much better at this than I am. 

 

(2) Ask yourself, "If I know my parents are immoral idiots, then why am I respecting their assessments of me?" 

 

(3) Stop wondering whether you're a sociopath, (because even if you are, is it really that big of a deal?), and become ultra-successful.  If you no longer wonder whether you're a sociopath after you've become successful, then the problem is solved.  And if you're still wondering, then you have more money and success with which to solve the problem. 

[Kaki]

Neeeel, I am so sorry to hear about your horrible experiences growing up. I can very much relate to many of the things you describe and I am very sorry you had to go through this. You certainly did not deserve any of this.

No child deserves to be spanked, shamed, ridiculed and put down like you were. There is nothing you could have done as a child to deserve being treated that way.

No child is born evil or bad.

 

 

I guess I came here for confirmation that my childhood wasnt great, and now that Ive got it, I still dont believe it....

 

You have probably been told that you are overly sensitive, selfish, wrong etc. thousands and thousands of times through your childhood and you are still being told those things by your parents today. So it makes complete sense to me that you will need to hear a lot more often (than once in a forum) that it wasn't your fault and that you have been abused by your parents.

 

 

May I ask if you are in therapy or if you have considered talking to a therapist?

 

 

[Blackfish64]

Hi neeeel, your honesty is very much appreciated.  You are willing to admit and perhaps even to take responsibility for your own shortcomings.  That will always help you out in the long run.  Too many are in denial, and then wonder why they can't move on.  They don't want to take any responsibility for their own nonsense. 

 

We come from the same sort of backgrounds, so I hear you loud and clear.  Though my abuse was incredibly violent and horrific, mind and body shattering. 

 

We pick up traits from our parents, good ones and bad ones.  My Dad, for example, was incredibly lazy, a loser and a failure, which is where I got my laziness and my own capacity for losing and failing.  Reading books and doing constructive things were not encouraged, but that's what I really wanted to do.  So there was always conflict.  Lying around on the living room floor watching boob tube was encouraged.  If I was caught hiding in a corner with a book, asking too many questions, trying to make sense of the world around me, I was asked, "What'd'you think you're smart?  You think you're smarter than me, you little son-of-a-bitch?"  And the book would be taken away and I would be beaten.  That's all Dad ever did when he was at home.  Bitch, get drunk, sit there and watch television, and you'd better not make any noise while he was doing it or you'd get a vicious whipping with a belt for having disturbed the big pile of elephant shit sitting in the middle of the living room.  So, naturally, lying around being quiet, not moving, doing nothing became the norm.  There was safety and security in doing nothing.  In doing nothing, you were less likely to get punched in the face or kicked in the head or kicked in the ass, or backhanded out of your chair at the dinner table.   

 

I turned all that around one day in the mid-1980s while working outside as a very young adult, years after I had moved out of Dad's pig sty.  It was a hot day and I was moving slow and lazy while trying to complete a furniture project I had been working on.  It seemed to take forever, and, out my laziness, I was about to give up once more.  But wait!  Screw this bullshit!  I am not going to walk away and be lazy and half-assed today!  I am going to kick laziness in the ass and get this project done - TODAY!  And that's all there is to it!

 

And that's all there was to it.  I took hold of that project and worked all day and all that night and finished it.  And I never looked back.  I was never lazy again.  I have my moments from time to time, sure.  We all do.  But am I basically lazy anymore?  Nah.  I will always get the job done, no matter what.  I feel, think, and act better when I am not lazy.  So, it is always in my best interest to kick laziness on down the line and be done with it.  For me, it's just an act of willpower.  That little voice wakes me up and reminds me, "Ruh, roh, you're being lazy!"  And I think to myself, 'OK, this has to stop, like, right now.'  And that's the end of it.  There was never any fundamental change to me.  I simply chose to modify my behavior that very moment.  I just made being busy a habit instead of keeping being lazy as a habit.  There really isn't anything you can do about yourself.  You are what you are.  At best, you can modify your behavior and get a different result.     

 

You were abused, so you will naturally tend to be abusive, to yourself and to others around you.  It's been wired into your hardware and software.  Your awareness is key here.   You realize you are lazy and abusive, and that will help you understand it better and be able to control your own appetites for destruction.  Some people, knowing their tendencies and traits, go as far as to refrain from ever having children, for fear of treating them badly, being irresponsible and/or abusive.  All this is worthy of consideration.  

 

One of the things most of us fail to understand, fail to remember about sociopaths, narcissists, etc., is that their disorder is made a purpose.  They come from abuse themselves.  During their horrific childhoods, for example, it was a protection mechanism, it was a means of survival, a learned thing that developed into what they are and who they are today.  It's like being in a penitentiary.  One does what one must do to survive the place, as the circumstances therein are beyond one's control, e.g., brutal warders and fellow inmates, etc.  But the idea is that once you leave the prison, you don't need to utilize those particular ways any longer, and should leave them at the prison gates upon departure.  But it does not always work that way.  Example, child accidentally breaks a light bulb in the garage.  Dad is abusive, mean, violent, and a beating is sure to come of this.  The child knows this, and he also knows that all he has to do is tell a lie and he will escape the beating.  So he lies and escapes the beating and another sibling takes his beating instead, or Dad is sent off in another thought or direction and the whole thing is forgotten.  The child learns to manipulate through these events.  He finds himself  "smarter" than everyone else.  And, in a sense, he actually is.  He learns to use his wits quickly and creatively, long before others his age even begin, he is already taking the role of a shrewd, cunning adult, like a politician, a cop, or a gangster.  He gets smart.  He "educates" himself.  He is autodidact.  He learns to use his brains, in his own, twisted sort of way.  When he finally grows up, he thinks that now he can drop all this nonsense he has to do to survive the prison, the home he grew up in, but when he does depart, he realizes that his thinking is but a load of crap.  It doesn't work that way.  You carry those beatings and bruises and broken bones along with you to remind you of where you came from, and sometimes, more often than not, the outside world triggers the old responses and the prison life carries on beyond the prison walls.    

 

And there is nothing these people can do about themselves.  It is who they are.  Berating them, guilting them, shaming them to stop is laughable at best.  It will only spur them on, challenge them to do more and to do better.   Telling them to stop is like telling a snake to stop being a snake.  He simply will not do it.  

 

Though I did violence, stole, lied, cheated, sought thrills, screwed a few hundred women, I was never a full blown sociopath or narcissist.  I actually have a conscience.  Obviously, you do as well, or you wouldn't be here.  For example, as a violent, ruthless teenager, I stole from stores and other places of business, but breaking into and or stealing from someone's home was out of the question for me.  I even berated my criminal friends for doing it and refused to join them and warned them to keep clear of my house or they'd be shot.  But a store?  No problem.  Take whatever you can get away with, thought I.  Some rich guy owns this and he won't miss a thing.  That was my stupid line of thought many years ago. 

 

There are plenty of people who don't have empathy or conscience.  They just don't care who they hurt.  In fact the more that get hurt the better, the more they like it. 

 

We all have sociopathic and narcissistic traits.  But there is a healthy narcissism, and, in self defense, for one example, tapping into our sociopathic traits, temporarily disregarding the feelings and well-being of the criminal we are trying to save ourselves from being murdered by just might be a good thing to have in the moment.  It could save our very life.  

 

 

[neeeel]

@MMX2010

 

I did have an emotional response to your post, and when you said you would have laughed at me too, I suppose I was angry, I felt a rush of blood to the head. I also felt a sinking feeling in my stomach "I am right, I am useless, he would have laughed too, there must be something wrong with me"

 

Reading the rest of your post, I like your examples, and that would be two nicer ways of dealing with things ( although I wouldnt call them also "laughing")

 

So why do you believe that you're "basically a bad person", when your only evidence is the opinions of those unskilled at understanding your emotions? 

 

 

I suppose because when the people that you love and want to please are telling you that you are bad when you are growing up, you end up believing them. And I havent been able to see through this belief yet.

 

@Ayn Rand

 

Thank you for your reply and sympathy. 

 

I would like to know more of your current situation for example how well do you know about the FDR community? If you are well aware of it then have you deFOOed? I think it would give me a better insight into your problem.

 

 

I only came across the FDR stuff a few days ago, but have spent a lot of time watching the youtube stuff, so I have heard of the deFOO concept. I think that is basically what I did, I barely spent any time with them, and I gave them nothing of myself when I was with them.

@Kaki

 

Many thanks for your post.

 

You have probably been told that you are overly sensitive, selfish, wrong etc. thousands and thousands of times through your childhood and you are still being told those things by your parents today. So it makes complete sense to me that you will need to hear a lot more often (than once in a forum) that it wasn't your fault and that you have been abused by your parents.

 

 

Yes, that makes sense, it will take a lot of looking into.

 

 

May I ask if you are in therapy or if you have considered talking to a therapist?

 

 

I was in therapy a long time ago, I dont think I was able to make use of it though, I dont think I understood enough of what was going on. I may consider therapy again 

@Blackfish.

 

Thanks for your post, Your childhood sounds many times worse than mine, 

 

Its interesting how you turned things around with laziness, just like that. What was it that changed? I mean, why that time and not before? What was different? 

[MMX2010]

Hi neeeel, your honesty is very much appreciated.  You are willing to admit and perhaps even to take responsibility for your own shortcomings.  That will always help you out in the long run.  Too many are in denial, and then wonder why they can't move on.  They don't want to take any responsibility for their own nonsense. 

 

We come from the same sort of backgrounds, so I hear you loud and clear.  Though my abuse was incredibly violent and horrific, mind and body shattering. 

 

We pick up traits from our parents, good ones and bad ones.  My Dad, for example, was incredibly lazy, a loser and a failure, which is where I got my laziness and my own capacity for losing and failing.  Reading books and doing constructive things were not encouraged, but that's what I really wanted to do.  So there was always conflict.  Lying around on the living room floor watching boob tube was encouraged.  If I was caught hiding in a corner with a book, asking too many questions, trying to make sense of the world around me, I was asked, "What'd'you think you're smart?  You think you're smarter than me, you little son-of-a-bitch?"  And the book would be taken away and I would be beaten.  That's all Dad ever did when he was at home.  Bitch, get drunk, sit there and watch television, and you'd better not make any noise while he was doing it or you'd get a vicious whipping with a belt for having disturbed the big pile of elephant shit sitting in the middle of the living room.  So, naturally, lying around being quiet, not moving, doing nothing became the norm.  There was safety and security in doing nothing.  In doing nothing, you were less likely to get punched in the face or kicked in the head or kicked in the ass, or backhanded out of your chair at the dinner table.   

 

I turned all that around one day in the mid-1980s while working outside as a very young adult, years after I had moved out of Dad's pig sty.  It was a hot day and I was moving slow and lazy while trying to complete a furniture project I had been working on.  It seemed to take forever, and, out my laziness, I was about to give up once more.  But wait!  Screw this bullshit!  I am not going to walk away and be lazy and half-assed today!  I am going to kick laziness in the ass and get this project done - TODAY!  And that's all there is to it!

 

And that's all there was to it.  I took hold of that project and worked all day and all that night and finished it.  And I never looked back.  I was never lazy again.  I have my moments from time to time, sure.  We all do.  But am I basically lazy anymore?  Nah.  I will always get the job done, no matter what.  I feel, think, and act better when I am not lazy.  So, it is always in my best interest to kick laziness on down the line and be done with it.  For me, it's just an act of willpower.  That little voice wakes me up and reminds me, "Ruh, roh, you're being lazy!"  And I think to myself, 'OK, this has to stop, like, right now.'  And that's the end of it.  There was never any fundamental change to me.  I simply chose to modify my behavior that very moment.  I just made being busy a habit instead of keeping being lazy as a habit.  There really isn't anything you can do about yourself.  You are what you are.  At best, you can modify your behavior and get a different result.     

 

You were abused, so you will naturally tend to be abusive, to yourself and to others around you.  It's been wired into your hardware and software.  Your awareness is key here.   You realize you are lazy and abusive, and that will help you understand it better and be able to control your own appetites for destruction. 

 

In your story, when you describe yourself as being "lazy", were you really being lazy or were you choosing not to work? 

 

In your story, when you describe yourself as being "busy", were you really being busy or were you choosing to work? 

 

neeeeeeeel uses the word "sociopath" to describe himself, but that word is equally inaccurate your self-descriptions of either "lazy" and "busy".  This is because words like "sociopath", "lazy", and "busy" attempt to describe your Inner Essences, Personalities, or Immortal Souls, and none of these objects actually exist.  The resolution, in your case, is to say, "I chose not to work." instead of saying, "I was lazy."  And to say, "And then I chose to work hard." 

 

But the resolution in neeeeeel's case is to either call Stef, (who will probably call him out on his self-description), or to stop searching for, and reflecting upon, the words he uses to describe his essence.  By stopping this "word-searching" project, he could then define himself by his actions.  And by taking the right actions, he'll eliminate his self-labeling problem. 

[Starsky]

I'm very sorry for what you had to go through as a child and thus as an adult. Nobody deserves to be treated like that, especially not a child. I can strongly relate to your post. Sounds like your parents used you as their contrast agent. You're the one who's selfish, lazy, thoughtless, rude, uncaring, etc., of course always with a bad intent. They applied those attributes to you in order to feel better about themselves. From what I read in your post, those exact attributes apply to them.

It took me decades to fully comprehend and see through this kind of strategy often used by my mother. She projected all her malicious bullshit onto me and then attacked me for it. To her it was all about power and if she had to use her kids for that, so be it. We were an easy target for her and then labelled cowards. How mindfucked is that? Nonetheless I believed her crap for years. How could I not? Luckily she died when I was 12 but until recently, deep down, I still believed that her perception of me (very similar to yours) was accurate. The breakthrough moment for me was when I called her all the names and insults she gave me as a child. That rung true. It was like all the puzzle pieces fell into place. Or as Stef once put it, I handed the bags of shit with her name on them back to where they belong - to her. 

 

I found your father's comment about your fast typing really enraging. You left your assigned role of the hopeless loser and that obviously threatened your father's poor self esteem, so he decided to ruin the compliment your mother gave you. What an arsehole. How can you not believe you're a bad person when you've been told so repeatedly for years and years? 

 

How your (legitimate) anger was treated in your family is outright disgusting. Oh, what a delight it must have been for your sick parents when they saw you raging over a game of Monopoly! Instead of empathically guiding you in how to handle frustration, they decided to ridicule you. That reminds me of an incident in my childhood. My dog was given away since my mother had to stay in hospital permanently, leaving no one to look after the dog during daytime. I was told that at the dinner table and immediately broke into tears and screamed with sadness and anger. My cancer-ridden mother was so delighted to see her children cry and rage, she burst into such a heartily laugh that made all the fillings in her upper jaw visible. Go figure that out. There she stood, one foot in the grave, and she made her children feel worse than herself. 

 

I came to the conclusion that everything my mother said about me was an outright lie. I self-attacked for so many years to the point where I wanted to die. I was forced to adopt my mother's self-hatred and was made to believe it were my own. I don't think you're an arsehole or a bad person. You might want to return those labels back to where they came from.

 

As somebody else already suggested, calling in to the show can be a good idea as well as considering therapy. 

 

All the best for your journey to self knowledge.

[Kaki]

(...)

I would've laughed at you, too. 

 

If you're really angry at what I said, (even though I told you not to be), then you probably heard, "I would've laughed at you in the same way, and for the same reasons, as your family did."    But I didn't say that.  I only said that I would've laughed at you, too. 

 

There's a way to laugh at a child, or a woman, in a way that signals empathy and compassion while also signaling that the child's or woman's anger isn't appropriate.  Something like, "Hey, neeeeeel.  Maybe if you throw the game board against the wall, you'll win the game."   (And if you don't get it, then I will throw the game board against the wall in the most ridiculously silly way, then I'll make myself clean it up in a silly way.  And, by then, you'll be laughing along with me.)   

 

 

This might very well be a subject that triggers me, so I am not claiming certainty.

 

The thought of laughing about a 5 or 6 year old child which is angry is disturbing to me.

You are saying that you'd laugh because the anger of the child "isn't appropriate". How do you know?

 

With your approach the child will neither feel understood nor heard and will definitely not feel save to express his emotions in front of the people he is closest to and who should be on his side. The child will not learn to take himself and his emotions serious. A 5 year old kid still needs to learn how to interpret his emotions. Why am I feeling this? Why is the emotion so strong? Why am I reacting so strongly? What can I do to regulate my impulse?

Instead the child gets the message "don't take your anger serious." "don't be silly"; "don't be ridiculous",

Children don't just randomly get overly angry or aggressive when losing a game. There is a string of things that happened to create a child with difficulties in emotional restraint and problems with impulse control.

Tantrums aren't random.

 

If you are not allowed to show your anger and have someone to listen to you, mirror you and help you understand what is happening and why, but instead you are being shamed for it you will not develop appropriate ways to understand and deal with your emotions. You will likely see your emotions as enemies or as something that is out of your hands to control.

 

 

(...)

If you're really angry at what I said, (even though I told you not to be)

(...)

 

Do you really find it helpful to tell someone not to be angry? Has that ever worked for anyone?

Isn't it much more productive to be curious and encourage others to be curious about their reactions as well? Aren't you writing to someone who explained in a post that the only reaction he got growing up was having been told not to be angry instead of being taught how to calm himself and explore those feelings?

 

 

(...)

"Hey, neeeeeel.  Maybe if you throw the game board against the wall, you'll win the game."  

(...)

 

I understand that you say "that there's a way to laugh at a child", but this sentence sounds to me simply sarcastic.

I don't understand how this is not shaming and ridiculing a 5 year old who is in pain and obviously can't express his frustration and sadness properly. An anger outburst as the OP describes is not just the reaction to a lost monopoly game and indeed, the OP is telling about a childhood full of shaming, name-calling, ridiculing, violence and put-downs.

If I had to react to this situation, I would stay as far away from shaming as I possibly can because shamed children are extra sensitive to this.

Making fun of a child or laughing at his anger - not matter how well intended- is not teaching the child that his emotions are there to help him and need to be explored and dealt with in an appropriate manner.

If I was in this situation I would try to stay present with the child, deescalate so it won't hurt itself or others. I would let it know that I see his anger and ask questions about why it is so angry. By exploring the reasons the child and I can together look for possible solutions. Through this the child can be given control over his own emotions. It can learn that it doesn't need to react so strongly because it will be listened to even if his upset is just minimal.

My guess in this situation would be that behind this anger is a lot of sadness which the child doesn't feel safe to share- out of fear of being ridiculed and shamed. I would try to carefully ask the child about feelings "behind" the anger and see if it is receptive to that.

 

 

I also disagree with your suggested use of behaviorism to "train" a girlfriend not to complain about something.

What is wrong with honesty, curiosity and RTR instead of manipulation, power struggles and -well- a behaviouristic "receive-electroshock-for-the-wrong-button-method"?

 

 

(...)

There's a way to laugh at a child, or a woman, in a way that signals empathy and compassion while also signaling that the child's or woman's anger isn't appropriate. 

(...)

 

I am also curious about your use of "children or women" here. Is "inappropriate anger" as you call it, in your opinion most often found in women and children? Or is it that your method seems to works best on children and women?

[MMX2010]

This might very well be a subject that triggers me, so I am not claiming certainty.

 

The thought of laughing about a 5 or 6 year old child which is angry is disturbing to me.

You are saying that you'd laugh because the anger of the child "isn't appropriate". How do you know?

 

 

There are two different ways of laughing at a child, though.  And, like most people who listen to FDR, you're probably only familiar with the first way, which neeeeeel so eloquently described. 

 

First Way -   A large family, headed by two emotionally retarded and abusive adults, routinely and unjustly mocks their youngest child.  The youngest child never expresses his anger / frustration to his parents because they're abusive assholes, which means the child bottles all of his emotions inside.  One day, the child explodes in anger at something NOT his abusive parents, like a board game.  And the parents laugh and laugh and laugh, because they're convincing themselves that they've no idea where the child learned to get so angry over a board game. 

 

Second Way - A large family, headed by two emotionally mature adults refuses to abuse any of their children.  Their emotional integrity works beautifully, but, because no children are emotionally perfect, one of them gets angry at a board game.  The father, who routinely models Amused Mastery (Footnote 1) with his wife, laughs at his child.  The child laughs in response, and his anger at the board game is instantly dissipated. 

 

 

 

 

 

With your approach the child will neither feel understood nor heard and will definitely not feel save to express his emotions in front of the people he is closest to and who should be on his side. The child will not learn to take himself and his emotions serious.

 

You asked me before, "How do I know that the child's anger is inappropriate?"  The answer is, "Because the amount of emotional intensity he's expressing doesn't match the activity he's participating in, which is losing a game.  If that game were the Super Bowl, then his emotions would be appropriate." 

 

I don't know if you realize it, but you're beginning with one factual observation, (which is, "MMX2010 chooses to laugh at his child's emotional outburst, in this particular case."), and then inferring, "Because MMX2010 would laugh at his child's emotional outburst in this particular case, the child will have a generalized feeling of never being able to express his emotions."  That makes no sense, because you can't magically inflate one example into a series of repeated examples. 

 

 

 

 

Do you really find it helpful to tell someone not to be angry? Has that ever worked for anyone?

 

These two questions do the same thing of "beginning with one example, and then generalizing it to an oppressively large number of negative examples. 

 

 

Factually, (and this is very important), I didn't tell "someone" not to be angry.  I told neeeeeeeel not to be angry. 

 

Secondly, this means that your question, "Has the ever worked for anyone?", should be changed to "Did that actually work for neeeeeel?"  I didn't ask him directly, but I did PM him to see if he downvoted my post.  He said, "No.  And that he had no problem with it."  So, "Yes, the action of telling neeeeeeel not to get angry helped him not to get angry."  

 

 

 

 

I also disagree with your suggested use of behaviorism to "train" a girlfriend not to complain about something.

What is wrong with honesty, curiosity and RTR instead of manipulation, power struggles and -well- a behaviouristic "receive-electroshock-for-the-wrong-button-method"?

 

I was raised Christian, but have been an atheist for twenty years.  And the only Bible verse I still find both useful and hilarious says something like, "If your right eye offends you and causes you to sin, cut it out of your skull and smash it on the ground.  For it is better for a one-eyed man to enter Heaven than for a two-eyed man to enter Hell.  And if your left hand offends you and causes you to sin, saw it off and throw it in a wood-chipper.  For it is better for a one-handed man to enter Heaven than for a two-handed man to enter Hell."

 

My answer to your question is, "If honesty, curiosity, and RTR in this particular instance offends the relationship and causes everyone to be miserable, cut it out.  For it's better for a behavioristically-induced-minishock to produce a happy relationship than for unfettered emotional expression to sour it ."  (For a third time, you're beginning with a single observation and inferring a mountainously-large number of repeated incidents.) 

 

 

 

 

I am also curious about your use of "children or women" here. Is "inappropriate anger" as you call it, in your opinion most often found in women and children? Or is it that your method seems to works best on children and women?

 

Both.  Women are much more prone to inappropriate anger than their children.  And Amused Mastery works best on women and children.  Masculine men like it a lot, but non-masculine men hate it. 

 

---------------------------

 

Footnote 1: Amused Mastery is Rollo Tomassi's term for the culmination of masculine self-improvement.  You can read more about it here. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/14/amused-mastery/

[Blackfish64]

This might very well be a subject that triggers me, so I am not claiming certainty.

 

The thought of laughing about a 5 or 6 year old child which is angry is disturbing to me.

You are saying that you'd laugh because the anger of the child "isn't appropriate". How do you know?

 

With your approach the child will neither feel understood nor heard and will definitely not feel save to express his emotions in front of the people he is closest to and who should be on his side. The child will not learn to take himself and his emotions serious. A 5 year old kid still needs to learn how to interpret his emotions. Why am I feeling this? Why is the emotion so strong? Why am I reacting so strongly? What can I do to regulate my impulse?

Instead the child gets the message "don't take your anger serious." "don't be silly"; "don't be ridiculous",

Children don't just randomly get overly angry or aggressive when losing a game. There is a string of things that happened to create a child with difficulties in emotional restraint and problems with impulse control.

Tantrums aren't random.

 

If you are not allowed to show your anger and have someone to listen to you, mirror you and help you understand what is happening and why, but instead you are being shamed for it you will not develop appropriate ways to understand and deal with your emotions. You will likely see your emotions as enemies or as something that is out of your hands to control.

 

 

 

Do you really find it helpful to tell someone not to be angry? Has that ever worked for anyone?

Isn't it much more productive to be curious and encourage others to be curious about their reactions as well? Aren't you writing to someone who explained in a post that the only reaction he got growing up was having been told not to be angry instead of being taught how to calm himself and explore those feelings?

 

 

 

I understand that you say "that there's a way to laugh at a child", but this sentence sounds to me simply sarcastic.

I don't understand how this is not shaming and ridiculing a 5 year old who is in pain and obviously can't express his frustration and sadness properly. An anger outburst as the OP describes is not just the reaction to a lost monopoly game and indeed, the OP is telling about a childhood full of shaming, name-calling, ridiculing, violence and put-downs.

If I had to react to this situation, I would stay as far away from shaming as I possibly can because shamed children are extra sensitive to this.

Making fun of a child or laughing at his anger - not matter how well intended- is not teaching the child that his emotions are there to help him and need to be explored and dealt with in an appropriate manner.

If I was in this situation I would try to stay present with the child, deescalate so it won't hurt itself or others. I would let it know that I see his anger and ask questions about why it is so angry. By exploring the reasons the child and I can together look for possible solutions. Through this the child can be given control over his own emotions. It can learn that it doesn't need to react so strongly because it will be listened to even if his upset is just minimal.

My guess in this situation would be that behind this anger is a lot of sadness which the child doesn't feel safe to share- out of fear of being ridiculed and shamed. I would try to carefully ask the child about feelings "behind" the anger and see if it is receptive to that.

 

 

I also disagree with your suggested use of behaviorism to "train" a girlfriend not to complain about something.

What is wrong with honesty, curiosity and RTR instead of manipulation, power struggles and -well- a behaviouristic "receive-electroshock-for-the-wrong-button-method"?

 

 

 

I am also curious about your use of "children or women" here. Is "inappropriate anger" as you call it, in your opinion most often found in women and children? Or is it that your method seems to works best on children and women?

 

 

Most excellent. 

 

Most people think they can "reason" and "logic" their way into, out of, around, and explain everything in life away.  That's not how emotions work.  Not even close.  There's no such thing as an "appropriate" emotion.  Emotions just are.  People have emotions all the time for reasons they cannot even explain.  It won't do any good to try and rationalize it, explain it, or reason or logic with it.  It just is.  Observe it, don't absorb it.  Learn from it.  Or maybe leave it open for interpretation later.  Sometimes the answer doesn't come in a snap. 

 

That's the problem with "philosophy" and so-called "philosophers."  They think they know everything.  There is nothing they can't explain.  There isn't anything they can't talk about and make it all better, make it all go away.  They're always passing judgment on the lives and emotional lives of others.  I wonder what their own lives really look like.  It's easy to come online and pretend you got it all together, completely devoid of any responsibility for your actions and the shit you say.  I'll bet most of the people on this board are a living mess who couldn't fight or find their way out of a wet paper bag.  But here they are passing judgment on the emotions of a five year old, when they're only two year olds themselves. 

 

Donate enough and you can get a title and one of those little red "we don't like you" buttons you can push, like a little monkey every time you see something you don't much approve of, the "receive-electroshock-for-the-wrong-button-method".  But if you kiss our ass and be a good little monkey with us, we'll give you a green one, which proves you're just as dumb as we are.  

 

When they shame and guilt, well, they're "philosophers", and that's OK.  It's just that they don't like it when they're shamed and guilted, too.  They're "philosophers" and they've got their shit together, but you?  Well, you've got a long way to go, and we have a little red check mark to prove it.  

 

You're just misfits.  That's all you are.  Deluded little misfits.  And people like Stefan Molyneux know this, and know how to exploit you and lie to you, just like the rest of society.  And the lie is that change and healing are possible.  They are not.  You are what you are.  Go live with it.  Therapy can only take you so far, help you solve conflicts and turmoil, help you understand things better.  Thank goodness for people, like Kaki, who have a brain, who use it, and who understand all of these things and strive to understand more yet.  It's people like her who truly help to make the world a better place.  But you can't be a Kaki.  You can only be a you, unfortunately.  You know who you are.  You can tell who you are by the fact that my words are stabbing you in the guts and giving you pain right now.  All you are is another member of another collective and head of State.  You're a goon with a gun, a thug, an enforcer.  That's all you are.

 

Therapy can help you, yes.  But therapy isn't everything.  Philosophy can help, yes, but philosophy isn't everything.  Psychotherapy and medications are concerned only with behavior modifications, not with healing.  The State is concerned with your maladaptation and your inability to fit in because your maladaptation is socially costly.  This board is a place where freaks, like yourself, come and get supply for your false, narcissistic little selves.    

[MMX2010]

Most excellent. 

 

Most people think they can "reason" and "logic" their way into, out of, around, and explain everything in life away.  That's not how emotions work.  Not even close.  There's no such thing as an "appropriate" emotion.  Emotions just are.  People have emotions all the time for reasons they cannot even explain.  It won't do any good to try and rationalize it, explain it, or reason or logic with it.  It just is.  Observe it, don't absorb it.  Learn from it.  Or maybe leave it open for interpretation later.  Sometimes the answer doesn't come in a snap. 

 

That's the problem with "philosophy" and so-called "philosophers."  They think they know everything.  There is nothing they can't explain.  There isn't anything they can't talk about and make it all better, make it all go away.  They're always passing judgment on the lives and emotional lives of others.  I wonder what their own lives really look like.  It's easy to come online and pretend you got it all together, completely devoid of any responsibility for your actions and the shit you say.  I'll bet most of the people on this board are a living mess who couldn't fight or find their way out of a wet paper bag.  But here they are passing judgment on the emotions of a five year old, when they're only two year olds themselves.

 

Donate enough and you can get a title and one of those little red "we don't like you" buttons you can push, like a little monkey every time you see something you don't much approve of, the "receive-electroshock-for-the-wrong-button-method".  But if you kiss our ass and be a good little monkey with us, we'll give you a green one, which proves you're just as dumb as we are.  

 

When they shame and guilt, well, they're "philosophers", and that's OK.  It's just that they don't like it when they're shamed and guilted, too.  They're "philosophers" and they've got their shit together, but you?  Well, you've got a long way to go, and we have a little red check mark to prove it.  

 

You're just misfits.  That's all you are.  Deluded little misfits.  And people like Stefan Molyneux know this, and know how to exploit you and lie to you, just like the rest of society.  And the lie is that change and healing are possible.  They are not.  You are what you are.  Go live with it.  Therapy can only take you so far, help you solve conflicts and turmoil, help you understand things better.  Thank goodness for people, like Kaki, who have a brain, who use it, and who understand all of these things and strive to understand more yet.  It's people like her who truly help to make the world a better place.  But you can't be a Kaki.  You can only be a you, unfortunately.  You know who you are.  You can tell who you are by the fact that my words are stabbing you in the guts and giving you pain right now.  All you are is another member of another collective and head of State.  You're a goon with a gun, a thug, an enforcer.  That's all you are.

 

Therapy can help you, yes.  But therapy isn't everything.  Philosophy can help, yes, but philosophy isn't everything.  Psychotherapy and medications are concerned only with behavior modifications, not with healing.  The State is concerned with your maladaptation and your inability to fit in because your maladaptation is socially costly.  This board is a place where freaks, like yourself, come and get supply for your false, narcissistic little selves.

 

Kaki, I wondered whether my reply to you was unclear, but then this post came along. 

 

There are only two types of people who express their every emotion.  The first type is comprised of people like Stef, while the second type is Blackfish's post above. 

 

The difference is that Stefan's emotional expressions are perfectly scaled, meaning that if something is 40-points-happy-out-of-100, he neither expresses 20 points worth of happy, nor 100 points worth of happy.  He always matches a 40 with a 40.  It's why he can vociferously yell "FUCK EVIL!", while merely sternly-but-forcefully remind people that it's bad to laugh at abuse. 

 

Meanwhile, the emotional intensity behind Blackfish's post is obvious.  But what is he responding to?  Is he being tortured?  Did someone kidnap his wife?  Is an FDR board member holding his money at ransom, demanding that he praise the entire FDR community? 

 

If neither of these, then the mismatch between "the negativity he's reacting to" and "the emotional intensity with which he's expressing his negativity" is what makes his emotions inappropriate.  The ability to match emotional intensity with emotional expression is both what makes Stefan so awesome and makes civility possible. 

 

So when a five year old gets extremely angry at losing a board game, the child mismatches emotional expression and emotional intensity.  And it's a parent's job to either model that matching skill, or to reveal the extraordinary mismatch that the child is expressing, preferably through parody.  (And our mutual contempt for neeeeeel's parents is because that they're both guilty of the emotional mismanagement that they mocked neeeeeeeel for possessing.) 

 

I didn't advocate laughing at neeeeeel so that he'd turn his anger into either happiness or no emotion whatsoever.  I advocated laughing at neeeeeel so that he'd turn his extraordinarily high levels of anger into an appropriately small level of anger.  So he still gets to be angry, just not THAT ANGRY. 

 

Emotional regulation is NEVER censorship nor oppression.  In fact, the inability to emotionally regulate is censorship or oppression.  Witness how, if no one knows how to handle Blackfish's emotional outburst appropriately, Blackfish has turned the entire focus of this thread from neeeeeeeel's current situation to Blackfish.  That's oppressive and neeeeeeel doesn't deserve that. 

[Kaki]

There are two different ways of laughing at a child, though.  And, like most people who listen to FDR, you're probably only familiar with the first way, which neeeeeel so eloquently described. 

(...)

 

I understand what you are saying and I don't think it matters in this context what I think about the concept of "Amused Mastery" you are referring to, so let me leave this aside.  

In your response to the OP you are explaining that you would react by laughing at him in the situation as well. The OP has a history of abuse and being shamed and has - as you point it out yourself - very likely not encountered the 2nd version of being laughed at you describe. This is what I am criticizing. It might very well be the case that in a non-abusive family - just like banter might be used- laughing about a child's anger can be appropriate. I strongly disagree though using this method on children who have been abused. I understood your post describing the latter.

I am commenting on this because it can easily be taken as advice for situations in general with children- not only in the case of the OP. I don't think it is helpful for children who did not grow up in "A large family, headed by two emotionally mature adults who refuse to abuse any of their children" and whose "emotional integrity works beautifully".

 

 

 

(...)

I don't know if you realize it, but you're beginning with one factual observation, (which is, "MMX2010 chooses to laugh at his child's emotional outburst, in this particular case."), and then inferring, "Because MMX2010 would laugh at his child's emotional outburst in this particular case, the child will have a generalized feeling of never being able to express his emotions."  That makes no sense, because you can't magically inflate one example into a series of repeated examples. 

(...)

 

When writing my post I actually didn't think of you laughing at your child but about laughing at the OP as a child in the situation he described. ("I would've laughed at you, too.") 

In this case we are talking about a 5 or 6 year old severely emotionally abused child. When I say that your approach would make the child not feel heard or understood I am referring to a child with previous abuse not one which is - as you say was raised by "A large family, headed by two emotionally mature adults who refuse to abuse any of their children" and whose "emotional integrity works beautifully".

I should have made that clearer in my post, I see where that might have been confusing. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

 

 

(...)

You asked me before, "How do I know that the child's anger is inappropriate?"  The answer is, "Because the amount of emotional intensity he's expressing doesn't match the activity he's participating in, which is losing a game.  If that game were the Super Bowl, then his emotions would be appropriate." 

(...)

 

What we can objectively see is that the child's reaction is disproportional to what seems to be happening. The reaction of the child can be seen as inappropriate. I still would make the point that the anger might very well be appropriate to the child's experience.  I do believe that we have emotions for a reason, reactions might be inappropriate but the emotions are perfectly valid.

Let me try to explain what I mean: A child doesn't have "temper tantrums" and outburst out of nowhere. Of course I do not know the experiences of the OP so all of the following is just a possibility or a guess.

If a child has a huge anger outburst because of losing a game I would assume that the child feels a lot of pain for losing. I would suspect previous existing feelings of worthlessness, shame and failure are being triggered. "I can not even win such a stupid game! I must be worthless!"; "I really am a failure, just like dad says!"

I do believe this to be likely for children who are constantly facing a stream of put-downs from their parents. Those emotions of worthlessness, shame, failure, fear and sadness are making the child that much more vulnerable to further abuse and pain. It is not safe for a child to feel those things: "If I am worthless my parents will not take care of me and protect me." - biologically this means death for a child that young, so this enormous fear must be pushed down by the child. Anger is helpful here it can act as a protector in this situation. It shields the child from the much scarier feelings of fear, loneliness, abandonment etc.. It might not be "appropriate" from the outside but it might very well be the absolute best option the abused child has in this situation to protect itself from incredible, overwhelming fear and sadness.

This is what I mean with the anger being appropriate.

 

 

I do not understand why you would consider the angry outburst by the 5 or 6 year old child to be more appropriate if the game were the Super Bowl instead of Monopoly.

 

 

 

 

(...)

Secondly, this means that your question, "Has the ever worked for anyone?", should be changed to "Did that actually work for neeeeeel?"  I didn't ask him directly, but I did PM him to see if he downvoted my post.  He said, "No.  And that he had no problem with it."  So, "Yes, the action of telling neeeeeeel not to get angry helped him not to get angry."

(...)

 

 

@MMX2010

 

I did have an emotional response to your post, and when you said you would have laughed at me too, I suppose I was angry, I felt a rush of blood to the head. I also felt a sinking feeling in my stomach "I am right, I am useless, he would have laughed too, there must be something wrong with me"

(...)

 

I have made the experience telling people: "I will tell you something now, but don't be angry!" doesn't work in making them less angry. It - in my experience with me and others- makes people more likely to hide their anger from you to not seem unreasonable. ( "You are being overly-sensitive!") This is particularly the case for people who have not had the fortune of having parents helping them with their anger responses.

This strategy doesn't help abused people deal appropriately with their anger but encourages them to push those feelings away, disassociate and hide the feelings from you.

 

 

 

 

 

(...)

If honesty, curiosity, and RTR in this particular instance offends the relationship and causes everyone to be miserable, cut it out.

(...)

 

I am not sure what this means. Do you have an example where honesty, curiosity and RTR are offensive to a relationship and cause everyone to be miserable?

 

 

 

 

 

(...)

(For a third time, you're beginning with a single observation and inferring a mountainously-large number of repeated incidents.)

(...)

 

I assumed you are giving us the example of the couple as a principle, so my response refers to a principle as well- solving situations in a relationship with honesty, curiosity and RTR.

[J. D. Stembal]

I am also an argumentative, disruptive, selfish and arrogant person. I'm not sure how these are considered qualities of a sociopath as there is no moral context expressed or implied.

[MMX2010]

 

 

In your response to the OP you are explaining that you would react by laughing at him in the situation as well. The OP has a history of abuse and being shamed and has - as you point it out yourself - very likely not encountered the 2nd version of being laughed at you describe. This is what I am criticizing. It might very well be the case that in a non-abusive family - just like banter might be used- laughing about a child's anger can be appropriate. I strongly disagree though using this method on children who have been abused. I understood your post describing the latter.

 

What happens if we apply your belief on a national scale? 

 

The overwhelming majority of children are spanked and/or verbally abused, and therefore have no concept of playful banter between emotionally healthy adults.  Thus, if you encounter four different children from four different families, it's extraordinarily likely that at least one of them can't respond happily to playful banter.  But we can't determine which one is the abused one, so no playful banter....ever. 

 

 

Thus, rather than modeling perfect emotional scaling, we encourage children to mull over every emotion, to ultra-precision.  Accomplishing...what?  (Besides the elimination of playful banter and positive masculine energy from the nation.) 

 

--------------------------

 

Meanwhile, in this thread, when I posted my laughter to neeeeeeeel, he said, "I did have an emotional response to your post, and when you said you would have laughed at me too, I suppose I was angry, I felt a rush of blood to the head. I also felt a sinking feeling in my stomach "I am right, I am useless, he would have laughed too, there must be something wrong with me"

 

Reading the rest of your post, I like your examples, and that would be two nicer ways of dealing with things ( although I wouldnt call them also "laughing")"

 

So, good result, right?  You disagree with what I did, but neeeeeel liked it. 

 

-------------------------------

 

 

 

 

I am commenting on this because it can easily be taken as advice for situations in general with children- not only in the case of the OP.

 

Yes, I know.  Because it's obvious.  In your first post to me, you took my one example (three times), and inferred that I would behave similarly in all, (or most), situations.   

 

 

----------------------------------

 

 

 

What we can objectively see is that the child's reaction is disproportional to what seems to be happening. The reaction of the child can be seen as inappropriate. I still would make the point that the anger might very well be appropriate to the child's experience.  I do believe that we have emotions for a reason, reactions might be inappropriate but the emotions are perfectly valid.

 

Let me try to explain what I mean: A child doesn't have "temper tantrums" and outburst out of nowhere. Of course I do not know the experiences of the OP so all of the following is just a possibility or a guess.

 

*snip*

 

This is what I mean with the anger being appropriate.

 

 

He wasn't angry at the board game.  He was angry at his parents, because they were abusive assholes.  They raged over the pointless, yelled about the unimportant, and beat him for mild mistakes.  Their reactions were disproportionate to every situation, and they suppressed neeeeeel's natural emotional responses - especially ones regarding anger at injustice.  So neeeeeel could only get angry at That Which Is Not His Parents.  

 

A board game. 

 

The parents, recognizing that it's stupid to get angry at a board game, laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed, because the logical parts of their brains recognized that their own emotional mismanagement caused neeeeel's rage issues.  But the emotional parts of their brains, particularly the ones centered around self-esteem, couldn't handle the truth.  And intense laughter transformed their pain and humiliation into elation. 

 

Right now, you're missing two things: (1) neeeeel wasn't angry at the board game, he was angry at his parents.  (2) neeeeel isn't angry now!  He's supposed to be angry, but he isn't. 

 

Some quotes from neeeel.

 

(1) "I cant determine whether I am a sociopath or not, or cant get rid of the feeling that I could be a bad person , and that it could be all my own fault. What should I do about it, if anything? I guess I came here for confirmation that my childhood wasnt great, and now that Ive got it, I still dont believe it....

 

(2) "The event that made me post here that I remembered recently, was actually something that happened when I was an adult. A couple of years ago, I was visiting my parents. I was on my ,laptop, and my mum commented that I was typing really fast, and that I didnt seem to be looking at the keys . I said "yeah, I dont need to look at the keys", I guess I was proud of my typing ability. My dad immediately chimes in with "pretentious, moi? " in what seemed to me to be a quite nasty and snide tone, directed at me. I found this really hurtful, all the more because I cant see it any other way than being said with an intent to hurt. I was pretty depressed for hours after this, and when my mum asked me what was wrong, I spoke to her about the comment, and she said I was just being silly, it was just dad being dad, that he was just joking around, that I take things on board to much, etc. He had actually said a similar comment to her earlier, when she was admiring some dishes in a window, he made some disparaging comment, and when I asked her if she felt hurt about that, she just said the same, that he was just joking, he didnt mean it, etc.  I can see that as far as my hurt, that IS down to me being very sensitive[/b], that other people could laugh it off."

 

(3) In his first response I quoted, he guesses that he felt anger.

 

 

So, while you're defending the importance and validity of Anger In The Abstract, you're missing that neeeeel isn't Angry Right Now.  He's supposed to be angry right now, but he's instead dissociated, confused, and muted-in-emotion.  If you support the validity and importance of anger, what have you done to make neeeel angry?  What anger have you expressed? 

 

 

 

 

I am not sure what this means. Do you have an example where honesty, curiosity and RTR are offensive to a relationship and cause everyone to be miserable?  I assumed you are giving us the example of the couple as a principle, so my response refers to a principle as well- solving situations in a relationship with honesty, curiosity and RTR.

 

This thread, kind of.  I feel bad that neeeel is witnessing our discussion, because I'm not sure that it helps him.

 

Also, if the woman in the phone-call example resists his message to "Cheer up.  It's not that big of a deal.", then she'll flood the relationship with, "I wanna talk about this....." RTR-discussions, where "this" is just another "not that big of a deal" thing she's upset about.  Then it'll turn into the classic, "He never listens to me when I talk about my feelings." discussion, which blames him for her lack of emotional control. 

 

It's great when a highly emotional chick does so many important things that she can't help but be emotionally intense.  But it's annoying when a highly emotional chick does little, if any, important things - but still remains emotionally intense.  Both chicks can read about RTR, and both can defend their emotionality with RTR - but only one of them is a wonderful girlfriend. 

[hannahbanana]

thanks darknova.

 

The thing is, I am stuck with the fear that its my fault, that I am a bad person. Even though I "know" what I experienced, and "know" that it really is a verbal attack, there is still something that says "well, maybe you are just too sensitive",, and when other people say they dont see anything in it, and dont think its attacking, then its very confusing. 

 

Because, I AM lazy, I AM selfish. When someone talks about something, I very often respond with how it relates to me, similar experiences Ive had, and so I worry that I am a sociopath that only thinks and talks about himself. Although I did have the thought that maybe I am just trying to relate how I had a similar experience, which may be more empathic, so I really dont know.

 

Perhaps sensitivity is just the ability to see and understand motives and intent and social cues clearer than other people, so that they actually dont see any of what I see, and so think I am "reading too much into it"

 

As you can see, Im confused .... swinging back and forth, But he did this, But maybe he didnt, maybe its just me, but I know its attacking, but I cant be sure. And so on. 

 

I was going to say that it doesnt really matter, what matters is what happens now, and what I do now. But thats not really true, it obviously matters to me, otherwise I wouldnt be posting it.

Hi, neeeel. First, thanks for posting. I really feel for you, and I can relate to some of your experiences, especially your concerns about being oversensitive. I am also currently focusing on this aspect of myself, and I understand that it can cause a lot of anxiety, second-guessing yourself as you've described in the post I quoted above.

There are a couple pieces of advice that I've gotten that I have found pretty helpful for me to understand why I feel this way, and maybe you feel this way too. Maybe it can help you too

Someone described to me that being "oversensitive" about certain situations is like if someone poked me lightly in the arm, and I yelled out in pain. That response sounds like an overreaction, but if you look closer and discover a horrible bruise or cut on that arm, then it makes perfect sense that I'd feel extreme pain at a light poke. Try looking at your own experiences: are there deeper hurts that you've felt from people around you (like your parents, since they were the main ones you talked about) that would make smaller things feel worse than you think they should?

This leads me to my second point, which I've also found helpful: try to feel more empathy for yourself.

This can be pretty difficult, I know...I also still have trouble with it. But I guess it means that maybe you're being too hard on yourself. Especially if there is a deeper hurt as I've mentioned above that puts your sensitivity into more perspective. Of course, you don't HAVE to do any of this, and maybe it doesn't apply to you... But if you're anything like me, you are probably sensitive for a reason, and by showing empathy for yourself and understanding yourself more, you can better understand why it happens and whether there is anything you can/should do to help yourself out.

 

Anyway, I hope this makes sense, and that it might help as much as it helped me. It can be so frustrating, confusing, and frightening to feel that way about yourself... I wish you the best of luck in figuring some of it out

[MMX2010]

I am not sure what this means. Do you have an example where honesty, curiosity and RTR are offensive to a relationship and cause everyone to be miserable?  I assumed you are giving us the example of the couple as a principle, so my response refers to a principle as well- solving situations in a relationship with honesty, curiosity and RTR.

 

This thread. 

 

Before I clicked on it, I noticed the title "Does Everyone Have Sociopathic Tendencies?"  The title alone suggests someone read an article or book stating that literally everyone has sociopathic tendencies, and wants to discuss it. 

 

But reading the post revealed two important things: (1) It came from a Post Count = 1 individual who wants to determine whether he, himself, is a sociopath.  (2) It gave a hyper-small glimpse into his childhood. 

 

My response was the complete opposite of RTR.  I didn't take his post at face value.  I didn't ask him what he felt.  I didn't say, "When I read your post, I felt 9x squared minus 12x plus c, where c is a constant." 

 

Instead, I both directed him to tell us about his childhood, and also assumed that there was a specific incident that drove him to post. 

 

The result of my non-RTR approach is that neeeeeel both expanded upon his childhood and detailed the specific incident. 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

My second example is rather complicated. 

 

There's a blogger by the name of The Last Psychiatrist who specializes in two areas: (1) Dissecting the nature and purpose of advertisements and movies, while lamenting their negative effects on viewers.  (2) Dissecting the nature and purpose of therapy, while exposing its misuse and ineffectiveness. 

 

His best anti-therapy article is also an anti-RTR article.  It is extremely long, so you'll need thirty minutes to read it if you already agree with his arguments.  You'll need longer, (an hour or more), if you don't. 

 

The central example from the article reads: 

 

 

Slightly off topic but here's an important example: say you yell every day at an/your eight year old girl for sloppy homework, admittedly a terrible thing to do but not uncommon, and eventually she thinks, "I'm terrible at everything" and gives up, so the standard interpretation of this is that she has lost self-confidence, she's been demoralized, and case by case you may be right, but there's another possibility which you should consider: she chooses to focus on "I'm terrible at everything" so that she can give up. "If I agree to hate myself I only need a 60? I'll be done in 10 minutes. "

 

It is precisely at this instant that a parent fails or succeeds, i.e. fails: do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) the drudgery of boring, difficult work with little daily evidence of improvement, or do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) about 20 minutes of sobbing hysterically and then off to Facebook and a sandwich? Each human being is only able to learn to prefer one of those at a time. Which one does the parent incentivize?

 

If you read this as laziness you have utterly missed the point. It's not laziness, because you're still working hard, but you are working purposelessly on purpose. The goal of your work is to be done the work, not to be better at work.

 

For a great many people this leads to an unconscious, default hierarchy in the mind, I'm not an epidemiologist but you got it in you sometime between the ages of 5 and 10:

 

 

                                                       <doing awesome>

 

                                                           is better than

 

                                            <feeling terrible about yourself>

 

                                                           is better than

 

                                               <the mental work of change>

 

 

You should memorize this, it is running your life. "I'm constantly thinking about ways to improve myself." No, you're gunning the engine while you're up on blocks. Obsessing and ruminating is a skill at which we are all tremendously accomplished, and admittedly that feels like mental work because it's exhausting and unrewarding, but you can no more ruminate your way through a life crisis than a differential equation. So the parents unknowingly teach you to opt for <b>, and after a few years of childhood insecurity, you'll choose the Blue Pill and begin the dreaming: someday and someplace you'll show someone how great you somehow are. And after a few months with that someone they will eventually turn to you, look deep into your eyes, and say, "look, I don't have a swimming pool, but if I did I'd drown myself in it. Holy Christ are you toxic."

 

"Well, my parents were really strict, they made me--" Keep telling yourself that. Chances are if your parents are between 50 and 90 they were simply terrible. Great expectations; epic fail. Your parents were dutifully strict about their arbitrary and expedient rules, not about making you a better person. "Clean your plate! Go to college!" Words fail me. They weren't tough, they were rigidly self-aggrandizing. "They made me practice piano an hour every day!" as if the fact of practice was the whole point; what they did not teach you is to try and sound better every practice. They meant well, they loved you, but the generation that invented grade inflation is not also going to know about self-monitoring and paedeia, which is roughly translated, "making yourself better at piano."

 

"You don't know how hard it is to raise kids," says someone whose main cultural influence in life was the Beatles. The fact that you will inevitably fail in creating Superman is not a reason not to try. Oh: I bet I know what you chose when you were 8.

 

The mistake is in thinking that misery and self-loathing are the "bad" things you are trying to get away from with Ambien and Abilify or drinking or therapy or whatever, but you have this completely backwards. Self-loathing is the defense against change, self-loathing is preferable to <mental work.> You choose misery so that nothing changes, and the Ambien and the drinking and the therapy placate the misery so that you can go on not changing. That's why when you look in the mirror and don't like what you see, you don't immediately crank out 30 pushups, you open a bag of chips. You don't even try, you only plan to try. The appearance of mental work, aka masturbation. The goal of your ego is not to change, but what you don't realize is that time is moving on regardless. Ian Anderson wrote a poem about this, you should study it carefully.

 

 

 

Because I believe in that article and example, I have a Hierarchy Of Suspicion, types-of-questions/arguments that I either will or won't RTR. 

 

(1) Extremely Suspicious - Abstract, detached questions over the nature / personality of the questioner.  (Example: Am I A Sociopath?) 

 

(2) Very Suspicious - Abstract, detached questions over the motivations behind abusive parents.  (Example: Why Did My Father Always Verbally Abuse My Mother?). 

 

(3) Sometimes Suspicious, Sometimes Not - Abstract, detached questions of whether a person should do a specific thing.  (Example: Should I Kick My Father In The Balls?)  This question is highly suspicious if either the questioner already has a long history of kicking his father in the balls, or if he's not seriously considering it.  But if it's extremely out-of-character for him to do so, and if he's very serious about it, then he's contemplating major changes to his character. 

 

(4) Never Suspicious - Emotional questions coming after the questioner has done something completely out-of-character and needs help dealing with the fallout.  (Example: I Never Yell At My Wife, But Today I Yelled At Her And Called Her An Idiot!  HELP!)  Doing something out-of-character means that you've broken out of the "Feeling Bad About Yourself is better than Doing The Mental Work Of Change" hierarchy.  And I will RTR those conversations repeatedly. 

 

Granted, the argument that therapy is sometimes a way NOT to heal and grow is controversial to the FDR community.  But the argument isn't absolutely against therapy; it just warns that some people, sometimes, aren't going into therapy for honest reasons.  And when you use RTR to give honesty / validity to a dishonest, invalid approach, you don't help.  You make yourself and everyone involved miserable. 

 

Massive disclaimer: Just because I'm suspicious doesn't mean I'm right.  And I'm not-at-all advocating that neeeeel should kick his father in the balls. 

[Kaki]

What happens if we apply your belief on a national scale?

(...)

 

I was talking about a concrete example, you are extrapolating and turning it into a false dilemma.

 

 

 

(...)

Right now, you're missing two things: (1) neeeeel wasn't angry at the board game, he was angry at his parents.  (2) neeeeel isn't angry now!  He's supposed to be angry, but he isn't.

(...)

 

You removed *snip* my whole explanation in your quote and now just built a strawman.

 

 

 

(...)

you're defending the importance and validity of Anger In The Abstract

(...)

 

I was commenting on a hypothetical situation in which you said you would laugh at a severely abused child, which I understood as you giving as advice to be generally used in dealing with angry children, regardless of their background.

 

 

 

(...)

This thread, kind of.

(...)

 

This thread is not a relationship. I never proposed using RTR outside of a relationship or with anyone who has not earned it. You are again building a strawman.

Concerning your post #24 it is called Real-Time-Relationship for a reason.

 

 

 

(...)

Also, if the woman in the phone-call example resists his message to "Cheer up.  It's not that big of a deal.", then she'll flood the relationship with, "I wanna talk about this....." RTR-discussions, where "this" is just another "not that big of a deal" thing she's upset about.  Then it'll turn into the classic, "He never listens to me when I talk about my feelings." discussion, which blames him for her lack of emotional control.

(...)

 

By all means, this is anything but a description of honesty, curiosity or RTR

 

 

 

(...)

It's great when a highly emotional chick does so many important things that she can't help but be emotionally intense.  But it's annoying when a highly emotional chick does little, if any, important things - but still remains emotionally intense.  Both chicks can read about RTR, and both can defend their emotionality with RTR - but only one of them is a wonderful girlfriend.

(...)

 

RTR is not about "defending ones emotionality".

[neeeel]

I just want to say I am following the thread with interest, dont have much input at the moment though. 

 

With regard to 

 

Meanwhile, in this thread, when I posted my laughter to neeeeeeeel, he said, "I did have an emotional response to your post, and when you said you would have laughed at me too, I suppose I was angry, I felt a rush of blood to the head. I also felt a sinking feeling in my stomach "I am right, I am useless, he would have laughed too, there must be something wrong with me"

 

Reading the rest of your post, I like your examples, and that would be two nicer ways of dealing with things ( although I wouldnt call them also "laughing")"

 

So, good result, right?  You disagree with what I did, but neeeeeel liked it. 

 

 

I think that, in an effort to be non confrontational, and because I wasnt sure how the forum worked, I wasnt as honest as I could have been about my emotional reaction. I feel that if my dad had done as you suggest, throw the board against the wall , I would have taken that as mockery, and that would have been the same as laughter. If someone else had done it, I may have taken it in the spirit intended, but that would depend on the person doing it.

[MMX2010]

I think that, in an effort to be non confrontational, and because I wasnt sure how the forum worked, I wasnt as honest as I could have been about my emotional reaction. I feel that if my dad had done as you suggest, throw the board against the wall , I would have taken that as mockery, and that would have been the same as laughter. If someone else had done it, I may have taken it in the spirit intended, but that would depend on the person doing it.

 

I don't know how you can be so non-confrontational, and so NOT ANGRY at anything your father did, and yet believe yourself to be a sociopath. 

 

I get that you're hurt and confused, but you're not-at-all angry. 

 

************************

 

 

I was commenting on a hypothetical situation in which you said you would laugh at a severely abused child, which I understood as you giving as advice to be generally used in dealing with angry children, regardless of their background.

 

I never said that I would laugh at "a severely abused child".  I said I would laugh at neeeeeel in the particular situation he described. 

 

You inflated that one example into a pretend situation where MMX2010 laughs at abused children, every day, all the time.  And you downvoted me, multiple times, based on the pretend situation you created. 

 

Do I have to spell out how annoying it is to have one example inflated into hundreds (if not thousands) of examples?  Do you think it's honest, curious, empathetic, and RTR-orgasmic for you to do that?  Do you intend to apologize? 

 

------------------------

 

This thread is about neeeeeeel.  Neeeeeeel posted this thread because he honestly wonders whether he's a sociopath.  My comments encouraged him to expand on his childhood.  And when he expanded on his childhood, a host of FDR posters rushed in to help him. 

 

So why can't you say, "MMX2010, I would never do what you did, but I'm glad that neeeeel found it interesting and helpful?"  

 

 

This might very well be a subject that triggers me, so I am not claiming certainty.

 

Oh.  

[MMX2010]

I don't know how you can be so non-confrontational, and so NOT ANGRY at anything your father did, and yet believe yourself to be a sociopath. 

 

I get that you're hurt and confused, but you're not-at-all angry. 

 

************************

 

 

 

I never said that I would laugh at "a severely abused child".  I said I would laugh at neeeeeel in the particular situation he described. 

 

You inflated that one example into a pretend situation where MMX2010 laughs at abused children, every day, all the time.  And you downvoted me, multiple times, based on the pretend situation you created. 

 

Do I have to spell out how annoying it is to have one example inflated into hundreds (if not thousands) of examples?  Do you think it's honest, curious, empathetic, and RTR-orgasmic for you to do that?  Do you intend to apologize? 

 

------------------------

 

This thread is about neeeeeeel.  Neeeeeeel posted this thread because he honestly wonders whether he's a sociopath.  My comments encouraged him to expand on his childhood.  And when he expanded on his childhood, a host of FDR posters rushed in to help him. 

 

So why can't you say, "MMX2010, I would never do what you did, but I'm glad that neeeeel found it interesting and helpful?"  

 

 

 

Oh.  

 

 

To the (currently) two people who downvoted the post above, please explain yourself. 

 

Everything I asserted is factually correct, and everything kaki asserted is factually wrong.

 

(1) Kaki asserted that I said, "I would laugh at a severely abused child."  But I said, "I would laugh at you, too." - in a post directed at neeeeel, about neeeeeeel. 

 

(2) I asserted that my comment to neeeeel encouraged him to expand on his childhood.  My comment was, "I don't think you really want to discuss whether everyone has sociopathic tendencies.  I think you really want to discuss your childhood.  So why not give us more details about your childhood, especially the event you recently remembered that caused you to post?"  And he responded by doing exactly what I asked. 

 

(3) Lastly, neeeel has not (to my knowledge) complained to the mods about anything I posted.  Nor has he posted that he finds anything I said offensive, wrong, nor demeaning. 

 

So, please, identify yourselves.  And explain why, when the facts are entirely on my side, you're not agreeing with me. 

[Kaki]

(...)

Everything I asserted is factually correct, and everything kaki asserted is factually wrong.

 

(1) Kaki asserted that I said, "I would laugh at a severely abused child."  But I said, "I would laugh at you, too." - in a post directed at neeeeel, about neeeeeeel. 

 

(...)

 

What you actually said in the post I keep referring to is "I would've laughed at you, too." You were using not present but the past participle, indicating that you are referring not to today, but to the situation in which his parents laughed at Neeeel as well.

So we are talking about Neeeel as a child. You said you would have laughed at him when he was a child.

 

Neeeel had the courage to share with us how his father mentally and physically tortured him, he described how his parents constantly labelled him "thoughtless, lazy, stupid, silly, uncaring, rude, selfish". From what Neeeel is telling he has been shamed, demeaned and blamed. He has been abused both physically and emotionally and was treated incredibly cruel as a child.

 

Your claim was that you would have laughed at this severely abused child, about Neeeel when he was a child.

This is what I have been commenting on to begin with.

 

 

MMX2010, I am not going to engage with you any longer in this conversation.

[MMX2010]

What you actually said in the post I keep referring to is "I would've laughed at you, too." You were using not present but the past participle, indicating that you are referring not to today, but to the situation in which his parents laughed at Neeeel as well.

 

So we are talking about Neeeel as a child. You said you would have laughed at him when he was a child.

 

Yes, and how did Neeeel respond? 

 

When I noticed that someone had downvoted my post, I PM'ed him to see if it was him. 

 

He replied, "hi, nope, I had no problem with your posts at all."

 

--------------------

 

Later on, when it became obvious that you downvoted my post, he stated, "I feel that if my dad had done as you suggest, throw the board against the wall , I would have taken that as mockery, and that would have been the same as laughter. If someone else had done it, I may have taken it in the spirit intended, but that would depend on the person doing it."

 

So he may have taken my laughter in the spirit it was intended. 

 

So neeeeel, the abused child you're supposedly championing, has no problem whatsoever with my laughter. 

 

 

 

 

MMX2010, I am not going to engage with you any longer in this conversation.

 

Why, Kaki? 

 

I asked you a very simple question, "So why can't you say, "MMX2010, I would never do what you did, but I'm glad that neeeeel found it interesting and helpful?" 

[MMX2010]

To neeeeel, you're being given two sets of mutually contradictory advice. 

 

On one hand is the "pro-therapy" crowd, who states that you need to get in touch with your childhood wounds in order to recognize why you deem yourself a "sociopath".  Once you unlock the reasons, you'll undo the series-of-thoughts that produced your conclusion. 

 

On the other hand is me, "the anti-therapy" crowd, who states that words like "sociopath" are answers to the question, "What kind of person am I?"  But the question, "What kind of person am I?" can't be answered with existential thought, existential philosophy, nor therapy.  Worse, whenever you ask that question out loud, you invite everyone to help you answer it.  And not nearly everyone who answers will have your own best interests in mind. 

 

The anti-therapy crowd states that the only way a man should define himself is by his actions.  And it asserts that asking questions like, "What kind of person am I?", always first produces inactions.  Therapy, in these cases, prevents you from living life more aggressively, more firmly, and more separate from other people's opinions of what kind of person you are. 

 

And the first question the anti-therapy crowd asks is, "What really important, potentially highly successful, potentially life-giving and life-destroying thing have you avoided embracing with full gusto?"  For most men, this is either sleeping with lots of women, finding a wife, starting his own business, devoting himself more fully to a potentially money-making hobby, physical fitness, and/or cutting himself off from friends and family members who hold him back. 

 

Once you know which of these apply to you, the solution is to fully act upon those answers - even though you've no idea whether your decision is for good or for ill.  Then, after you've devoted yourself, for some time, to these life-giving / life-destroying actions, you'll find that the answers to the question, "What kind of person am I?" have "magically emerged" WITHOUT you devoting so much thought-time and talking-time to answering them. 

 

In short, you are not your words, not your thoughts, nor other peoples' reactions to your words and thoughts.  You are your actions, for good or for ill, for now and forever. 

[neeeel]

Well, I would disagree, I am not my actions either, but thats a different topic entirely. 

 

And if I do define myself by my actions, then yes, I have sociopathic tendencies, since I am often selfish, lazy , rude, egotistical, arrogant, etc.

 

Not sure how this helps really? I should change my actions? 

 

I am also confused, you advised me to call in and speak to stef, I would say that that is at least a form of therapy?

 

Once you know which of these apply to you, the solution is to fully act upon those answers - even though you've no idea whether your decision is for good or for ill.  Then, after you've devoted yourself, for some time, to these life-giving / life-destroying actions, you'll find that the answers to the question, "What kind of person am I?" have "magically emerged" WITHOUT you devoting so much thought-time and talking-time to answering them. 

 

 

So you are saying that if I am a successful person, then I am not sociopathic?

 

 

So neeeeel, the abused child you're supposedly championing, has no problem whatsoever with my laughter.

 

 I did state that it would be possible for me to view your laughter as being the same as my parents, ie mockery and shaming, it would really depend on how you did it, and what our relationship was.like.

[Three]

Not sure if this is the correct forum section,

 

How would you know if you are a sociopath, or at least had sociopathic tendencies? Doesnt everyone have them to a greater or lesser extent? Does just asking the question mean that you probably arent ( because sociopaths arent that self aware?)

 

 

I found my childhood really difficult. I have ended up in a place where I keep myself to myself, dont trust people, spend most of my time on my own. My story is that my parents were mean to me. I know that I felt I had to keep myself safe by shutting everyone out. But other peoples versions of the story will be different. Is it possible that I was just an argumentative , disruptive, selfish arrogant shit, that didnt listen to his parents?

 

Its confusing, I feel like I always knew that they were full of shit, but its possible they werent? I know that ALL stories ( including my own ) are pretty much bullshit, but I cant deny how I felt about things.

 

Hi, neeel. First off, I want to express my sympathy for what was done onto you as a child. You certainly deserved better. Second, great question. I think the topic of sociopathy is very interesting and would like to hopefully add some value to the discussion by sharing a few facts that I've discovered. 

 

First, I think it's important to start with definitions. 

 

When trying answer the question "What is sociopathy", I think the first thing to understand is that sociopathy is a condition specifically based on the way a person's brain is wired, not based on character traits. 

 

To borrow from the expert Martha Stout, author of "The Sociopath Next Door", which I would highly recommend 

 

 based on a collection of studies sociopathy "involves an altered processing of emotional stimuli at the level of the cerebral cortex. This neurobiological distinction is at least partially responsible for the still-unfathomed psychological difference between sociopath and all other people, and it implications are startling. Sociopathy is more than just the absence of conscience, which alone would be tragic enough. Sociopathy is the inability to process emotional experience, including love. It is an aberration in the ability to have and appreciate real (noncalculated) emotional experience."

 

 

 

Because of this inability to process emotional experience people who are sociopaths report that they are always bored or understimulated. The kind of painful boredom that a child might experience. They constantly crave extra stimulation to compensate. We don't experience this form of agonizing boredom because we have our emotional life. We are stimulated by our meaningful relationships with other people, sociopaths do not have this emotional life to live. In fact, a major study published in 1990 in the journal of the Medial Association estimate that a many a 75 percent of sociopaths are dependent on alcohol and 50 percent abuse other drugs.

 

 

Besides, being bored and loveless, they also are not very comfortable in their own skin. , "The absolute elf-involvement of sociopathy create an individual consciousness that is aware of every little ache and twitch in the body, every passing sensation in the head and chest, and ears that orient with acute personalized concern to every radio and television report about everything from bedbugs to ricin. Because his concerns and awareness are geared exclusively toward himself, the person without conscience sometime live in a torment of  

 

 

 

 

It is true that there are character traits which might be indicative of sociopathy. 

 

For example, if someone is a chronic liar or is verbally abusive, these traits might be indicative that the person might have this condition, since a person who has a conscience and who is empathetic is far less capable of being abusive, but it's not conclusive proof since you don't necessarily require the brain of a sociopath to be verbally abusive or lie. 

 

Thus, sociopathy is less about character traits, such as being a jerk and more about an inability to process emotion. 

 

In the interview posted on this thread between a psychologist and Richard Kuklinski a mafia hitman, who's murdered many people, when asked what it felt like torturing someone Richard Kuklinski said, "nothing. I don't feel anything", which is consistent with Martha Stout's research. 

 

 

Sorry, I don't remember where in the interview it was exactly

 

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42785-hitman-richard-kuklinski-my-father-nasty-son-of-a-gun-and-always-will-be-my-mother-just-a-victim-of-her-own-life/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[neeeel]

thanks joel, so just because I have character traits that a sociopath might have, doesnt make me a sociopath ( it just makes me an asshole )

[Sashajade]

  I have noticed that I have what feels like selective sociopathy, although I don't think it's always a concious thing or ill intentioned. It's more like a survival coping skill to get your needs met because 

you don't feel safe any other way. You have this worry in your mind that you won't get what you need from others unless you act a certain way to persuade them. So it feels like sometimes I

withhold being totally honest and authentic in my dealings in relationships because of the conflict that honesty brings at times.