Is FDR Wrong About Empathy and Therapy?

MMX2010 · February 27, 2015

I had an overall negative experience with the FDR NYC Meet-Up group, and I think it's because FDR is wrong about empathy.

Here's a simple task. You don't need to type out your answer, but please mentally answer before you read on. Define empathy.

If you gave a simple, concise definition, you're 95% likely to be wrong, because the task is tricky. Except it's not tricky to people familiar with the scientific research on empathy, which I estimate to be 5% of the population.

The correct answer is that there are two (or three, depending on which scientist you ask) types of empathy.

----------

This article discusses Two Types: Cognitive Empathy and Emotional Empathy.

http://blog.teleosleaders.com/2013/07/19/emotional-empathy-and-cognitive-empathy/

----------

This article discusses Three Types: Cognitive Empathy, Emotional Empathy, and Compassionate Empathy.

http://www.danielgoleman.info/three-kinds-of-empathy-cognitive-emotional-compassionate/

----------

When you defined empathy, you probably defined Emotional Empathy, which is both "the empathy you learned about when you were a kid" and "the empathy that Stefan talks about the most in his podcasts". But people who assume that only Emotional Empathy and Cognitive Empathy exist cannot listen to, nor accept, people who display great Cognitive Empathy with little Emotional or Compassionate Empathy.

The two main reasons most people neglect and dismiss Cognitive Empathy are: (in my opinion)(1) Most fathers are absent, so most children weren't raised by strong, successful fathers. (In general, men, especially successful men, are renowned for intellectually understanding the problem and the solution, a.k.a. Cognitive Empathy, while also caring very little for the emotional displays of softness, politeness, consideration, and compassion, a.k.a. Emotional Empathy and Compassionate Empathy.) And (2) America has long been a Therapy Culture, and that Therapy Culture shuns Cognitive Empathy. (How often did Alice Miller say, "It doesn't matter whether you intellectually understand the problem; you have to emotionally connect with your childhood trauma?")

Ironically, therapy can in itself diminish one's Cognitive Empathy, by making you focus on your emotional reaction to an intense situation, rather than the overall philosophical meaning of that intense situation, particularly the overall philosophical meaning felt by others. (And you cannot, simultaneously, focus on your own emotional reactions AND ON other people's philosophical and emotional experiences.) In short, therapy teaches you to focus on your own emotional reactions, (and RTR states that you should, ideally, communicate your emotional reactions), but to constantly focus on your emotional reactions automatically makes you Cognitively disconnected from others.

This Cognitive disconnection makes you completely miss the point, but you cleverly convince yourself that Emotional Empathy, (and what you felt about any situation), is the only point in every situation. You don't get it; but you cleverly convince yourself that they don't get it.

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

If I'm right, I think FDR would benefit from two solutions: (1) Re-define empathy properly. By defining empathy in terms of Cognitive, Emotional, and Compassionate, you can move your focus away from your own emotional reactions to things, and towards other people's emotional reactions. (2) Re-define the purpose of therapy as "connecting to your childhood wounds in order to produce effective, actionable change." Ideally, this effective, actionable change should be something that you find ridiculous and/or uncomfortable OR something that all of your friends find so surprising that they say, "That's activity is the absolute last thing I'd ever expect you to do."

Or, a simple short-cut question would be, "How do my friends see me in three years?" If their answer is, "Basically the exact same person you are now." - then you're using therapy incorrectly. But if their answer is either, "I don't know, but I'm excited for you." or "I don't know, because I don't understand all of these changes you've been making" - then you're probably using therapy correctly.

Thoughts?

Anuojat · February 27, 2015

I personally never slice emphaty to bits. To me emphaty is the ability to emphatice to take a part in other persons feelings and emotions as if you were there inside them yourself.

SYMPHATY is to understand and wanting to offer help and condolances to other other person. Which i think casuses lot fo confusion.

To me cognitive and emotional and compassion are the same. In me the 3 whcih youre talking about split. Maybe i dont understand how they could be seperate in other people, i guess the word Symphaty is needed here... because it sound like what youre talking about.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Empathy_vs_Sympathy

And as for effects of therapy: It isint meant to evoke sumphaty to other or emphaty. ITs sopposed to be about YOU. Albeit you might go to theraphy for reasons other than "just" for yourself but it mainly concerns your experiences and your feelings and behavior.

You cannot love others before you love yourself also, so doing theraphy will be helpful to emphatice with others aswell. This is my experience on the matter.

Also i never "convinced" myself of anything other than waht i really felt and also WHY i felt it. And also why other did what they did and continue to not feel anything about it.

PatrickC · February 27, 2015

I see empathy as both emotional and cognitive. You cannot ignore the emotional any more than the cognitive.

Regarding therapy over compensating the emotional parts of ourselves. I can agree with this in part. Therapy isn't the only methodology one should apply towards gaining better empathy overall. However, we already have philosophy to help compensate us in that area. That said, there is often a period of time in which it takes a person to connect with their emotions fully and cognitively even.

It can often transpire with someone in the throes of connecting with themselves emotionally (particularly during therapy), that they can re-enter a child like state in situations with other people. This means they can start overtly defending their inner child as an adult. This can be a correct reaction (albeit unhelpful to them perhaps) or a projection at times, depending on the circumstance. It takes a fully empathic person to recognise this when it happens and to point it out in a compassionate way. To those that are not fully aware of it, it can seem very child like and emotionally fragile. They are usually just growing pains, so to speak.

I'm going to guess here (so correct me if necessary), that your negative experience of the NYC meet up was that you probably didn't connect very well with people emotionally. In which case it would seem that you are potentially guilty of what you are charging the FDR community with. Except you are over compensating in what you describe as cognitive empathy and potentially ignoring your own emotions.

All said and done I do think it's a useful thing for people to better understand what empathy is and just how important it is to juxtapose ones emotions with philosophy. The last thing we need is another kumbaya community.

JanneW · February 27, 2015

MMX2010, I'm sorry you had an unpleasant experience at the meetup. I know you only through your posts on this board, which have often been of value to me. And even in this post, writing about your negative experience, you provided two links to concise, informative articles, I thank you for that. Since it is relevant to the discussion, I provide my recollection of my inner processes on reading the first lines of your post:

I felt a sadness in my gut and a picture came up inside me, a hypothetical but still in that moment very real image of myself being in a room with other people that I want to connect to, but can't. A feeling of loneliness and despair came over my body. (Not all-consuming, but clearly felt.) Up to this moment, my "head", my rationality hadn't had time to react, but now my rational system came on-line. (Rationality is much slower than gut feelings.) I reminded myself, that I don't know what you felt, that it is possible that you felt something else entirely. That I do not know the people you met there, that I know you only a smidgen through your posts. It was then that I realized that you didn't tell what had happened to you there, you only gave your conclusions - that you have the theory that your unpleasant experience may be related to the definition of empathy used within the FDR community.

Ok, I'm stopping my recollections here. This illustrates that, at least for me, the emotional response usually comes first, that it is very visceral and can be very intense. Emotional empathy, if you wish to call it that. With a small delay, rational considerations followed and called up experiences that I've had where my emotional empathy has led me astray, where I had jumped to conclusions in the past. I was still concerned with your experience, but more detached, thus, if I was in a position to give practical counsel to you, possibly more helpful as I was less drenched in my own emotional experiences and more open to wider possibilities. We may call that rational empathy, BUT: At least for me, the psychological "fuel" to concern my rational thoughts with your unpleasant experience comes from my emotional reaction to what you wrote. Without "emotional empathy" there would be no "rational empathy". My rational mind would just as happily dive into the abstract definitions you provided and have a blast looking for inconsistencies or interesting insights. It was my emotional reaction to your post that focused my rational thinking on what might be of help to you. (Realizing then that I possess far too little data about you right now to be of much use.)

For me, my emotional and rational systems are not competitors but instead work in tandem within me. Each is there to help the other out and to catch errors that my current amount of experience allows me to see.

At the moment I'm not finding within me a third system to ascribe compassionate empathy to and I didn't much care for the very short definition given for that term in the article. I'm generally suspicious of "helping". The best help in most situation to me seems to be honesty, yet this is almost never what people refer to when they talk about "helping".

I still want to know what really happened at the meetup, if you'd like to share more.

Thank you for the stimulating topic! And Anuojat has written very well on the proper focus of therapy, not a lot I'd add to that. I also like MMX2010's short-cut questions, it seems to me that both could be compatible.

Kevin Beal · February 27, 2015

When emotional empathy is at the expense of cognitive empathy, that would imply that you are losing sight of the problem itself. If the emotional empathy acknowledges the current problem, but perhaps, is looking for origins earlier in life, then that is not just emotional empathy, but cognitive empathy as well, since it is addressing a current problem by looking at it's origins, not simply addressing symptoms.

If there is cause to believe childhood origins, or something to that effect, then it's actually lacking in cognitive empathy to only address the present, local manifestation of that psychological constellation. And there is a cognitive empathetic reason for this.

Alice Miller did say something like: "It doesn't matter whether you intellectually understand the problem; you have to emotionally connect with your childhood trauma?" But this is for the reason I mentioned above.

How many times have you been trying to gain moral clarity about past abuse / neglect and get it on an intellectual level, but have this sense that your analysis is lacking? The intellectual component is easy, at least for me. It's really occupying those circumstances emotionally that is difficult, and when I finally do, the intellectual part goes from being abstract and distant to being visceral and real.

I'm sure there are therapists who are not good and are enablers, or are really shallow, or do the "everyone's a winner" kind of thing but that's not what it means to be a therapist in the responsible sense. It's not what the psychology of talk therapy is about. And if you see it that way, you are doing the equivalent of saying that all economics is bullshit because Keynesians are so full of shit. (To the degree that is happening).

MMX2010 · February 27, 2015

I'm going to guess here (so correct me if necessary), that your negative experience of the NYC meet up was that you probably didn't connect very well with people emotionally. In which case it would seem that you are potentially guilty of what you are charging the FDR community with. Except you are over compensating in what you describe as cognitive empathy and potentially ignoring your own emotions.

Not at all.

My negative experience of the NYC Meet-Up was that after only three meetings, I was accused of "not living FDR philosophy", and was voted out of attending meetings for mysterious reasons that weren't communicated to me. I didn't expect to get along with everyone there, nor did I expect to like everyone there, but I thought the number one purpose of philosophy was to determine Truth/Falsehood. And I never got the sense that the Truth/Falsehood of anything I said mattered; instead, I got the sense that the Emotional Impact of what I said mattered so much, while the truth mattered not-at-all.

PatrickC · February 28, 2015

Not at all.

My negative experience of the NYC Meet-Up was that after only three meetings, I was accused of "not living FDR philosophy", and was voted out of attending meetings for mysterious reasons that weren't communicated to me. I didn't expect to get along with everyone there, nor did I expect to like everyone there, but I thought the number one purpose of philosophy was to determine Truth/Falsehood. And I never got the sense that the Truth/Falsehood of anything I said mattered; instead, I got the sense that the Emotional Impact of what I said mattered so much, while the truth mattered not-at-all.

Well it's difficult to ascertain in a board post what entirely happened in NYC. But emotionally connecting with people is an important part of making friends and building trust amongst a bunch of otherwise complete strangers. The meet up groups are designed for people to connect with each other with this in mind. If people are saying they can't connect with you, then why not ask them 'why'.

That said, I think it's entirely plausible that people can sometimes have a negative experience of a person and rather than be curious about it, they can start projecting on them. I also think there should be a degree of sensitivity around personal topics too. People shouldn't feel "contractually obligated" (as you suggested) to share anything. So if that were true it would be something I would object too. I believe an issue came up in a meet up group elsewhere about a chap who was insisting another member must defoo his family. This is wholly inappropriate in a first meeting with someone and should mostly be led by the person experiencing the challenge in this regard. So I grant you that issues can and do arise within meet ups that are undesirable. To the degree that they are problematic as a whole (as your opener suggests) is where I would disagree with you.

When people have had a negative experience of me, I normally engage them further with my own curiosity about their reaction to me. This either connects us better with a richer understanding of each other or they can escalate or obfuscate. In my limited experience obfuscation is normally the preferred port of call, if they don't want to connect, as most people don't like to escalate in public.

________________________________________________________________________

My experience of you, which I agree is limited to just board posts and one group hangout. Is that you like to write (say) a lot and I mean A LOT. A lot more than the average person I have met at FDR. Well actually that not strictly true, there have been others (guilty as charged). I do think you have some very interesting ideas sometimes, ideas that have influenced my thinking at times. However, I can struggle trying to read some of the reams of text you write. I had to purposefully read your text in your other responses three times. With the caveat that it wasn't because I was dismissing your points, but because I wasn't connecting with what you were writing about and was becoming bored. It seemed on the surface that you had a lot to complain about in others and that your participation had little or nothing to do with it.

Now maybe my boredom is born out of my laziness to read large reams of text. Except I do read books regularly and can listen to 2 hour long discussions on a variety of topics. So I'm sceptical that it's laziness on my part. You mentioned in your earlier post that people didn't question their "listening style" with you, which raises an interesting question. Were you talking a lot within this group? Throwing out a lot of information as you regularly do in your posts. I mean it's just a thought, something to consider perhaps. As you seem content to claim that your were the right one, whilst everyone else was wrong. Perhaps you were right, but when faced with that kind of opposition it would give me pause. Pause enough for me to reconsider my own hand in their reaction.

Kevin Beal · February 28, 2015

I tell my story with the voice tone of a detached observer because I emotionally connected to it, in private, months ago. And I will not emotionally connect with it now, especially not for a group of actors who value the "emotional displays" so much that they can't recognize a Cured Individual. And if I do emotionally connect with it, it will be with joy and in service to others - to show them that one can "turn shit into gold", can turn the worst aspects of childhood into uniquely funny stories that inspire you to one day view it all as I do. (Be careful of faking the healing, but recognize the healing for what it is.)

Cured of what?

I think there is a danger in the sort of attitude which says that we are never healed and must always see ourselves as grown wounded children, a danger and a falsity (because there's no "compared to what", no standard). But in terms of my own healing, I've had too many experiences of seeing where I have been blind, have acted out because of patterns I've picked up during dysfunctional periods in my life to ever be so confident as to simply tell people that I'm cured. (Of course, assuming that by "cured" you mean, resolved all your past traumas). And it could be because you have done a lot more work than me, or had less to heal or whatever. But I've heard so many people claim to have been healed only to demonstrate later that they are totally dysfunctional, mystical and in denial, that I never take it at face value anymore.

I don't know the NYC group you're met up with, and maybe they were being false, or pretentious or whatever. Maybe all of that is true with regard to your experience there, but you've made comments about talk therapy, the principles that inform the RTR that happens on the show and lumped it in with the type of unbearable pretentiousness of the self esteem movement, who care only about feelings. And you are saying now that it's very easy to heal and the reason people find it difficult is because they are doing it wrong.

These are very big claims that you need to make the case for if you are going to ask me to believe it.

I'm assuming you've never done therapy, but as someone who has done almost 4 years of twice weekly talk therapy, talked to a ton of people who've also done therapy and being someone who studies psychology as an amatuer, I know immediately that your portrayal of talk therapy as being all about feelings and never resolving anything, and being at the expense of cognitive empathy is just plain false. You are telling me that you know better than me with my direct and considerable experience with talk therapy, and you without any experience with it.

If you can present a logical case, then awesome! I can do something with that, but if you simply assert that all of my direct knowledge is wrong without offering up a series of logical steps which I can use to determine that for myself, then I'm just simply not going to take it seriously.

You said that all of this is at the expense of cognitive empathy, and I said how it's not the case at all that it's at the expense of cognitive empathy. You say therapy is X, and I say that it's not X. You say that the RTR approach is antithetical to resolution of problems, and I say that is exactly formulated the way it is to resolve problems.

Just putting out conclusions and not logical arguments makes it so you don't have to stand behind anything. Arguments you have to stand behind. Conclusions you can maintain by simply changing your own reasoning in your head about, I guess, until your opponent has exhausted every single counterposition you could think up and guessing what the logic is because you won't say what it is.

It's so so so easy to simply assert things.

heymanslow · March 2, 2015

To the original poster: empathy was a big part of my graduate thesis, and I did a video about the four factors of empathy, which are currently distinguished by neuroscientists: apart from the cognitive and emotional components, there are also the factors of self-awareness and emotion regulation.
Here is also a link to my graduate thesis. A review (from my perspective, the best there is) regarding the theoretical underpinnings and research on empathy starts on page 3.

I hope you find this info useful, and perhaps it's going to give you new info to consider.

Jer · March 4, 2015

MMX, in this thread linked you nonchalantly admit to what sounds like rape and didn't respond to my question. From that experience, I wouldn't want to go to a meetup with you.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43354-help-i-like-this-girl/?p=397159

MMX2010 · March 5, 2015

I hope you find this info useful, and perhaps it's going to give you new info to consider.

That's exactly what I was looking for.

You added two important factors of empathy: Self-Awareness (knowing that another person's annoyance is not necessarily your annoyance, and (in reverse) knowing that your own annoyance ought not be someone else's annoyance) and Emotional Regulation (not being overwhelmed by your own emotional reactions so that you can both: (A) connect with the real person in front of you, rather your own projections of that person, and (B) more quickly focus on / move towards effective action.

My experience is that Real-Time Relationship language, (particularly when you use that language in therapy), can easily be used to reframe a lack of Self-Awareness and, especially, a lack of Emotional Regulation.

Personally, this happens very shortly after I present an excellent philosophical argument against something people wish was true, and they respond with, "I'm feeling emotionally disconnected and frustrated right now!" Such language appears to be an honest sharing of heart-felt emotions, but those emotional words hide a tacit expectation that I'll drop my argument in response. And when I don't drop my argument, the other person escalates.

neeeel · March 6, 2015

Personally, this happens very shortly after I present an excellent philosophical argument against something people wish was true, and they respond with, "I'm feeling emotionally disconnected and frustrated right now!" Such language appears to be an honest sharing of heart-felt emotions, but those emotional words hide a tacit expectation that I'll drop my argument in response. And when I don't drop my argument, the other person escalates.

I have noticed this too.

the thing is, just because this is a philosophy board, there is no reason to believe that the humans that visit this board will be fundamentally different from humans who congregate in any other groups. yes, on average we may be slightly more self aware, but in general we are still emotional, belief driven, needy, egoic, delusional people. I would guess that most people ( and I include myself in this) have an inflated view of where they are actually at with regards to self development and self awareness. The ones who actually have gotten far, and are very self aware and together, probably dont feel the need to go to FDR meetups.

So, perhaps its your expectations of what the FDR meetup would be like that let you down, rather than the people?

Kevin Beal · March 6, 2015

Personally, this happens very shortly after I present an excellent philosophical argument against something people wish was true, and they respond with, "I'm feeling emotionally disconnected and frustrated right now!" Such language appears to be an honest sharing of heart-felt emotions, but those emotional words hide a tacit expectation that I'll drop my argument in response. And when I don't drop my argument, the other person escalates.

Interesting question: Why should anyone care how something that was said made you feel? If you don't already have a relationship with someone, then I don't think you can appeal to a shared value called "we should RTR". If someone I just met put the expectation on me that I should be RTRing with them, then that would make me far less willing to do it.

But at the same time, RTRing with someone you're meeting is a good idea to see how interested people are in your live experience of the interaction. If someone is not interested in that, then that's probably not someone you're going to want to be friends and develop an intimate relationship with.

I wasn't there, so if I only take the facts as presented and ignore the conjecture/assertions (e.x. "tacit expectation", "excellent argument"), then all I know is that you presented an argument, someone was bothered by something you said and told you so, you continued to make that argument and then they got increasingly frustrated.

I'm sure that if I got their side of it, it would tell a story different than the one you presented.

The people at the meetup are probably more interested in making lasting connections than in debating philosophical issues. <- cognitive empathy right there.

Maybe you explained this further in the posts you said didn't make it through the grinding machine, in which case, I hope they weren't taken out by the guys upstairs (I apologize for the vague language, I'm trying to avoid the suffocating keyword filter).

darsin814 · March 7, 2015

It seems misleading to begin the topic by asking for a quick definition of empathy because it is a "simple task" only to follow, after the long pause of white space, with the "gotcha" that there is no simple definition. Would I toss my daughter the car keys, even though she is too young to drive, and tell her, "It's easy to drive. Come on! Hurry up!" and then after she gets in a car accident tell her "It ain't so easy is it? Psychological theories aren't exactly the same as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I think it is necessary for Stef to use a broader term for empathy rather than always having to clarify what number of the possible definitions he is using. The post was done well and I did learn something new about the different terms for empathy, but, I think most people know the subjective nature of emotions.

MMX2010 · March 19, 2015

I'm sure that if I got their side of it, it would tell a story different than the one you presented.

The people at the meetup are probably more interested in making lasting connections than in debating philosophical issues. <- cognitive empathy right there.

I agree with you, but you just unwittingly supported my argument.

Someone made a similar argument to me, and my reply was, "They are free to seek whatever emotional connections they want, but they can't legitimately call themselves Philosophers or People-Interested-In-Philosophy while doing so. They can call themselves Emotional-Connection-Seekers or Empathy-Above-All-Else-Seekers, but not philosophers."

It's unfair of me to illustrate what happens when they eschewed philosophy in favor of emotional connection, because they're not here to defend themselves. But I can pick apart what Jer said, and assert that my experiences with the FDR NYC Meet-Up group were worse.

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

Jer says, "MMX, in this thread linked you nonchalantly admit to what sounds like rape and didn't respond to my question. From that experience, I wouldn't want to go to a meetup with you."

If I were feeling generous with Jer, I'd make the following arguments: (1) There's no such thing as "sounds like rape". Instead, there is only "You committed rape." or "You didn't commit rape." So Jer's comment is passive-aggressive in the worst way. (2) He immediately jumps to "I wouldn't want to attend a meet-up with you." which is both an aggressive way to exclude me from the meet-up and (more importantly) a way of shutting his brain off against all of my future arguments, true-arguments and false-arguments alike.

For example, I could ask him, "Which definition of rape are you using?", "Are you familiar with the changing definitions of rape from 1900 to the present?", and "Do you know which political groups most benefit from the changes in rape definitions over the past 115 years?" But I suspect he's not interested in exploring the topic, because, "I don't want to engage with you."

If I were feeling not-at-all generous with Jer, I'd smirk and ask, "Jer, are you a feminist?" and wait for him to tell me how horrible feminism is and how stupid I am for assuming that he is one. To which I'd reply, "Well, if you're not a feminist, then why do you think like one?" - and leave it at that.

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

I would like to clarify my language for my original question, without necessarily softening my stance. (If anything, the responses in this thread have strengthened my stance, even as I admit that the language in my original argument was imprecise.)

Instead of, "Is FDR Wrong About Therapy And Empathy?", the question should read, "Is FDR Oblivious to the Downsides of Both Therapy and RTR?"

And my argument is

(1) Yes, about therapy because no one acknowledges that it's quite easy for any client to manipulate his/her therapist by simply not talking about specific problems in his/her life. (I've an example from the FDR NYC Group but, like I said, it's not fair of me to illustrate it.) A client can talk about every single problem he has except the most important one he faces, and he will make progress - (just not enough, and not where it's important). And he will then point to that progress-in-therapy as an illegitimate reason to exclude you, much as Jer did earlier.

(2) Yes, about RTR because no one acknowledges that RTR-language can be used to avoid acknowledging sound philosophical arguments that annoy you, or that you wish weren't sound.

Jer · March 20, 2015

Call me a puritan for thinking it's a bad idea to have sex with someone who is engaged and repeatedly asking you to stop. It's just my preference, but if you have to get technical about the definition of rape I don't want to be pals. Call me a bigot or feminist or whatever.

Suppose she admits the relationship to him and says "But I asked him to stop 100 times" might be a moral grey area but you're going to have a bad time...

Edit: on topic of the thread. Can you empathize with the partner of the person with whom you are cheating?

MMX2010 · March 20, 2015

Call me a puritan for thinking it's a bad idea to have sex with someone who is engaged and repeatedly asking you to stop. It's just my preference, but if you have to get technical about the definition of rape I don't want to be pals. Call me a bigot or feminist or whatever.

Your attitude isn't becoming a philosopher. First, I pointed out that you haven't studied the changing definitions of rape from 1900 to 2015. Second, rather than addressing my point, (because, by addressing it, you might have to admit that my argument is correct), you passive-aggressively stated that "MMX2010 has to get technical about the definition of rape."

Jer, the truth is that the entire American legal system, as well as every other modern legal system, is already "TECHNICAL about the definition of rape." Different jurisdictions within the same country have different definitions of rape, and identical jurisdictions within different time periods also have different definitions of rape. And every definition is so technical that you're advised to get a lawyer - also known as, "someone who specializes in these technical definitions of rape" whenever you're particpating in a rape trial as either plaintiff or defendant.

Can you empathize with the partner of the person with whom you are cheating?

It's not-at-all important whether I empathize with him.

It's much more important that you sloppily used the word rape without studying it's important definitions. Doing so shows no empathy towards me, which means I owe you no empathy by either answering your questions, listening to your non-arguments, or questioning my actions according to your logic. If anything, the extremely crude heuristic, "If Jer disapproves of it, I should probably do it." is an excellent opening rule.

PatrickC · March 21, 2015

I agree with you, but you just unwittingly supported my argument.

Someone made a similar argument to me, and my reply was, "They are free to seek whatever emotional connections they want, but they can't legitimately call themselves Philosophers or People-Interested-In-Philosophy while doing so. They can call themselves Emotional-Connection-Seekers or Empathy-Above-All-Else-Seekers, but not philosophers."

For fear of going round in circles here. The whole point of philosophy is about putting the theory into practice. Emotionally connecting with people and expressing vulnerability is how you make strong friendships with people built on mutual trust and empathy. You consider 'game' as your way to do this philosophically. Except game is very much about artfully dodging emotional connection with people. Which I proffer is the whole reason for this thread. You disagree with their application of philosophy.

(1) Yes, about therapy because no one acknowledges that it's quite easy for any client to manipulate his/her therapist by simply not talking about specific problems in his/her life. (I've an example from the FDR NYC Group but, like I said, it's not fair of me to illustrate it.) A client can talk about every single problem he has except the most important one he faces, and he will make progress - (just not enough, and not where it's important). And he will then point to that progress-in-therapy as an illegitimate reason to exclude you, much as Jer did earlier.

Yes, the negative issue around therapy is that it's about self reporting and it's true that clients can and do attempt to manipulate their therapists. However, there are therapists that have experience of this and will prompt their clients into areas they might be managing or avoiding. Of course it's by no means an exact process and it's entirely plausible that areas may get overlooked, important ones even. Therapy is just one part of a continual process of development. You get from it what you're honestly willing to put into it.

My own personal development and even Stefan's has far exceeded the therapy we've been through. There are continual challenges we face in our lives that only philosophy can deal with, aided by a deeper understanding of the self. That means that we can change our minds about something we previously held as true or unimportant.

I also want to point out that people (including yourself) are free to exclude whomever they wish. If people excluding you upsets you then I would suggest a private conversation with that person or persons. Rather than a long board post, which they are likely (with some merit) to construe as passive aggression. Albeit perhaps unconsciously on your part.

I would like to clarify my language for my original question, without necessarily softening my stance. (If anything, the responses in this thread have strengthened my stance, even as I admit that the language in my original argument was imprecise.)

Instead of, "Is FDR Wrong About Therapy And Empathy?", the question should read, "Is FDR Oblivious to the Downsides of Both Therapy and RTR?"

The trouble is you're equating other peoples application of principles to that of the actual principles. I don't see anything wrong with the principles themselves. But sure I've seen people apply them poorly, sometimes manipulatively even. But so far the conversation has been about I like chocolate, they like vanilla. The fact that you have reached an impasse speaks more of the relationships you're having (or not having), rather than something inherently wrong with the principles of RTR.

__________________________________________________________________

On an aside I'm completely with you on the definition of rape. Insofar as the definition has been extended further and further into the grey areas, where rape can be said to not exist. That said, I'd probably advise anyone to try their best to avoid those grey areas, not just for legal reasons, but for reasons of integrity, personal happiness and safety as well.

Jer · March 21, 2015

It's much more important that you sloppily used the word rape without studying it's important definitions. Doing so shows no empathy towards me, which means I owe you no empathy by either answering your questions, listening to your non-arguments, or questioning my actions according to your logic. If anything, the extremely crude heuristic, "If Jer disapproves of it, I should probably do it." is an excellent opening rule.

My point is that men have gone to prison for what you described and I was suggesting you protect yourself from the wrath of the law as well as an angry lover. The fact that there is a malleable definition of rape goes to my point which is that you should avoid any activity that needs to be explained as "not technically rape" because I guarantee you there are a thousand prosecutors with women's studies minors who are happy to broaden the definition and lock you up to fit their political ambitions.

Just because what you did may have been morally permissible doesn't mean it wasn't a bad idea.

Kevin Beal · March 21, 2015

I agree with you, but you just unwittingly supported my argument.

Someone made a similar argument to me, and my reply was, "They are free to seek whatever emotional connections they want, but they can't legitimately call themselves Philosophers or People-Interested-In-Philosophy while doing so. They can call themselves Emotional-Connection-Seekers or Empathy-Above-All-Else-Seekers, but not philosophers."

Hey wait just a minute, Buster Brown!

Did they say in the very moment that they were expressing the facts of their experience, that the facts of their experience was the same thing as philosophy? Did they say that their feelings were philosophy? So far you have not mentioned anything like that, and because it sounds ridiculous, I am just going to assume that they did not.

What kind of a ridiculous standard would ever make sense to say that in order to be a scientist, every action you make has to be science. This is specious reasoning. "A philosopher must always be doing philosophy!"

If they were honest with you about their feelings (and not putting the responsibility for managing their feelings onto you, or use their feelings to try and stop you from making an argument they didn't like), but something actually resembling RTR, then it's not incompatible with philosophy.

The scope of the conversation has simply changed.

It's no longer about the abstract issue, but about something more subjective going on. Something that, as yet, has no propositional content and cannot be evaluated according to objective empirical/rational standards. The methodology is to discover the feelings and the core beliefs that inform them.

You can have an objective standard about a domain which is subjective, though. Considering this, it's not accurate to say that because the subject is now about a domain which is subjective that it must therefore be in opposed to or at the expense of philosophy, rationality, empiricism. That's why I say that it's specious.

To anyone who hasn't yet read Real Time Relationships: The Logic of Love, it's fantastic and you should go do that, but also, it's got a lot of epistemology in it and is in no way incompatible with philosophy.

J. D. Stembal · March 21, 2015

My point is that men have gone to prison for what you described and I was suggesting you protect yourself from the wrath of the law as well as an angry lover. The fact that there is a malleable definition of rape goes to my point which is that you should avoid any activity that needs to be explained as "not technically rape" because I guarantee you there are a thousand prosecutors with women's studies minors who are happy to broaden the definition and lock you up to fit their political ambitions.

Just because what you did may have been morally permissible doesn't mean it wasn't a bad idea.

If the woman is engaged, and spending time with another man behind her fiancee's back, the odds are that sex is consensual. Also, she knows that she can't go to the police to report any supposed crime, because then her fiancee would find out about the affair. Logically, since she knows this all of this ahead of time, she would never put herself into a situation where she would be raped because that would immediately call her loyalty into question with her fiancee when she starts answering questions for police.

However, if at such a time, the fiancee finds out about the extra-relational hanky-panky, that's when MMX becomes vulnerable to false rape accusations. Pulling the victim card would be her last ditch option to keep the relationship going.

I agree, though, that MMX needs to be very careful with this affair.

MMX2010 · March 22, 2015

For fear of going around in circles here. The whole point of philosophy is about putting theory into practice. Emotionally connecting with people and expressing vulnerability is how you make strong friendships with people based on mutual trust and empathy.

That's not true, though, Patrick.

Using an deliberately extreme example, two KKK members who commit violent crimes against minorities together will experience strong emotional connections based on vulnerability - (because what could be more vulnerable than committing violent crimes together?) - but their lack of devotion to philosophical truth will make their friendship extremely weak. Because the moment someone comes along with The Truth About Racism or The Truth About Racial Differences, both of these highly emotionally-connected individuals will work their damnedest to deny the truth.

Using a less extreme example, any two individuals who've expressed deep vulnerability will have strong emotional connections with each other, but the strength of their friendship is determined by their devotion to philosophical truth. Because if someone comes along who knows an unpleasant truth, then their friendship is strong solely to the extent that they both can accept this unpleasant truth.

You consider 'game' as your way to do this philosophically. Except game is very much an artful way of avoiding emotional connection with people. Which I proffer is the whole reason for this thread. You disagree with their application of philosophy.

I don't experience 'game' as "artfully avoiding emotional connection with people". Moreover, if you google 'avoid emotional connections' and any game-teacher's name (such as Roosh, Rollo, or Heartiste), you won't find any articles which explicitly advise people to avoid forming emotional connections with people. Lastly, I experience 'game" as (1) A scientifically-supported description about the nature of men and women, followed by (2) an artfully-applied series of instructions designed to prevent a man from being emotionally connected to anyone who will exploit that emotional connection.

As far as "the whole reason for this thread", you're mistaken about that, too. I don't "disagree with their application of philosophy", I disagree that they ever applied philosophy to certain important decisions, such as their interactions with members of the opposite sex or their conclusions about the degree of honesty present in modern romantic relationships.

Yes, the negative issue around therapy is that it's about self-reporting and it's true that clients can and do attempt to manipulate their therapists. However, there are therapists that have experience of this and will prompt their clients into areas they might be managing or avoiding. Of course it's by no means an exact process and it's entirely plausible that areas may get overlooked, important ones even. Therapy is just one part of a continual process of development. You get from it what you're honestly willing to put into it.

Your words in bold are highly-important to me, because you're the first person in this thread - (and perhaps in the FDR-audience in general) - to admit that clients can deliberately manipulate their therapists to avoid grasping important truths. My experience with the FDR NYC Group is that at least three of them were doing this.

As far as FDR-members-in-general doing this, all I can say is that too many FDR-members have been in therapy and the temptation to manipulate your therapist is so high, that it's mathematically impossible for zero FDR-members to engage in this behavior. I, obviously, cannot name specific people - because I don't deeply communicate with all of them; but I can argue that it certainly happens.

I also want to point out that people (including yourself) are free to exclude whomever they wish. If people excluding you upsets you then I would suggest a private conversation with that person or persons. Rather than a long board post, which they are likely (with some merit) to construe as passive aggression.

Yes, anyone is free to exclude anyone they wish. But there are two ways to do this: (1) Philosophically, because the person is making bad arguments and you're focused on acquiring truth. (2) Anti-philosophically, because the person is making philosophically-sound arguments, and you're focused on avoiding truth.

My experience was that I was excluded for anti-philosophical reasons.

Thanks for your replies, though.

My point is that men have gone to prison for what you described and I was suggesting that you protect yourself from the wrath of the law as well as from an angry lover.

There are two problems with your point, though: (1) As someone who avoids putting yourself in these risky situations, you have zero experience (or interest) in developing counter-measures against them. (2) I already have access to a large collective of men who both put themselves into these situations AND know how to avoid the worst of consequences.

Thus, I'd rather listen to their advice than yours. And since you didn't even ask whether I needed your help, you can't argue that you were empathetically trying to protect me.

What kind of ridiculous standard would ever make sense to say that in order to be a scientist, every action you make has to be science?

No one. You'll also notice I never explicitly stated that I adhere to that standard.

My standard is, "If you're not using science to make the really important decisions in your life, then you're not nearly as devoted to science as someone who does." And the same standard applies to philosophy.

My experience is that a large number of people who claim to be interested in philosophy avoid using it to discuss really important (and seriously painful / frightening) issues. Hence, these people are not nearly as philosophically-rigorous as people who use philosophy to discuss these issues.

If they were honest with you about their feelings (and not putting the responsibility for managing their feelings onto you, or use their feelings to try and stop you from making an argument they didn't like), but something resembling RTR, then it's not incompatible with philosophy.

I agree with you here.

But my experience of the meet-up was that certain members were NOT being honest with me about their feelings, WERE putting responsibility onto me for managing their feelings, and WERE using their feelings to try and stop me from making an argument they didn't like.

And my experience of RTR (the book) is that it contains zero warnings or disclaimers that such a thing is possible.

And my experience of FDR (the community) is that you are the only person who has explicitly implied that such a thing is possible. So thanks for that.

This conversation has been very helpful to me. I hope that others have been similarly helped by it.

Tservitive · March 23, 2015

I have just read through the entire chain from start to finish. I will most likely need to process my emotions and thoughts as well as read through some of the more recent responses before I can contribute in any meaningful way to the discussion.

Keeping the above in mind, I do think that the rape subtopic would be better suited to another thread altogether. This is due to the fact that this thread has become a character evaluation of MMX2010 and while links back to my topic https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43354-help-i-like-this-girl/#entry396846 have been informative, I feel as if the subtopic is close to derailing the thread. I do agree with Jer and EndTheUsurpation that MMX2010's statements and arguments about rape can contributed to his mentality as a whole and maybe why he did not get along with the NYC meet up group, and I could very well be wrong about my thoughts on the matter (for which I apologize ahead of time), but it seems to me that the rape subtopic will need to tie in to the main thread or will need to be discussed in another thread altogether for the sake of other posters coming across this topic only to be repelled by blocks of text and as seemingly disjointed conversation.

I hope my viewpoint was helpful and that it furthers the conversation :thanks:

MMX2010 · March 23, 2015

Keeping the above in mind, I do think that the rape subtopic would be better suited to another thread altogether.

Small corrections: (1) The discussions at the FDR NYC Meet-Up group centered around "mistressing" - (sleeping with a woman who is engaged to someone else) - not rape. (2) Jer is the user who passive-aggressively asserted that the way I sleep with my mistress "sounds like rape" - and he hasn't backed down from his passive-aggressive and non-factual use of that term.

So, as you're processing your feelings about this thread, you'll certainly benefit from the above corrections.

PatrickC · March 24, 2015

That's not true, though, Patrick.

Using an deliberately extreme example, two KKK members who commit violent crimes against minorities together will experience strong emotional connections based on vulnerability - (because what could be more vulnerable than committing violent crimes together?) - but their lack of devotion to philosophical truth will make their friendship extremely weak. Because the moment someone comes along with The Truth About Racism or The Truth About Racial Differences, both of these highly emotionally-connected individuals will work their damnedest to deny the truth.

Using a less extreme example, any two individuals who've expressed deep vulnerability will have strong emotional connections with each other, but the strength of their friendship is determined by their devotion to philosophical truth. Because if someone comes along who knows an unpleasant truth, then their friendship is strong solely to the extent that they both can accept this unpleasant truth.

I don't experience 'game' as "artfully avoiding emotional connection with people". Moreover, if you google 'avoid emotional connections' and any game-teacher's name (such as Roosh, Rollo, or Heartiste), you won't find any articles which explicitly advise people to avoid forming emotional connections with people. Lastly, I experience 'game" as (1) A scientifically-supported description about the nature of men and women, followed by (2) an artfully-applied series of instructions designed to prevent a man from being emotionally connected to anyone who will exploit that emotional connection.

As far as "the whole reason for this thread", you're mistaken about that, too. I don't "disagree with their application of philosophy", I disagree that they ever applied philosophy to certain important decisions, such as their interactions with members of the opposite sex or their conclusions about the degree of honesty present in modern romantic relationships.

I say it again, this is all about your preferences. What you're saying is because these people don't want to engage with me or the topics I raise, therefore they're not 'philosophical'. It's a pretty crude and bold conclusion to come to. Which so far you still haven't proved beyond your own subjective standard.

It's no doubt this groups preference is to not discuss the things you raise. It may disinterest them or it might be your delivery. Either of which is entirely up to them.

As for game theory, well it doesn't surprise me that the exponents of it don't explicitly advise against emotionally connecting with people. The theory itself does that, without much need for further explanation. I know this because 'game' was very much a part of my own history. I'm very familiar with it.

Your words in bold are highly-important to me, because you're the first person in this thread - (and perhaps in the FDR-audience in general) - to admit that clients can deliberately manipulate their therapists to avoid grasping important truths. My experience with the FDR NYC Group is that at least three of them were doing this.

As far as FDR-members-in-general doing this, all I can say is that too many FDR-members have been in therapy and the temptation to manipulate your therapist is so high, that it's mathematically impossible for zero FDR-members to engage in this behavior. I, obviously, cannot name specific people - because I don't deeply communicate with all of them; but I can argue that it certainly happens.

My question is compared to what?

Compared to people that don't engage in therapy and are manipulative, perhaps never realising it. Or compared to those that do that are manipulative and learn to overcome it. The fact that some manipulative people may never change, even with therapy, is not the fault of therapy.

It's not particularly gone unnoticed just how manipulative you are with your own language. You continue to elevate yourself to the one that knows better and everyone else as wrong. I can't take your points seriously anymore and see this whole thread as your crude attempt at psychologically leveling with some members of the NYC group.

Lingum · March 24, 2015

MMX, in this thread linked you nonchalantly admit to what sounds like rape and didn't respond to my question. From that experience, I wouldn't want to go to a meetup with you.

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43354-help-i-like-this-girl/?p=397159

The post you are referring to sounds nothing like rape. He clearly explains that there is an unspoken agreement, and this is nothing out of the ordinary. In fact, this falls perfectly into the description of the most common female sexual fantasy; being "taken". Are you not aware of the fact that women instruct men to "not take no for an answer" frequently? You can find this in the media, in advice columns and from Youtube commentators. This is one of the common complaints women make about men when asked, under the guise of romance and spontaneity. I've heard it countless times in my personal life. You can pretend that words are binding and actions are arbitrary, but you're not the only person in this world. Men have to navigate this jungle. Clearly, your definition of consent is in direct opposition to the standard most women want to operate on, and demand men indulge in.

Call me a puritan for thinking it's a bad idea to have sex with someone who is engaged and repeatedly asking you to stop. It's just my preference, but if you have to get technical about the definition of rape I don't want to be pals. Call me a bigot or feminist or whatever.

Suppose she admits the relationship to him and says "But I asked him to stop 100 times" might be a moral grey area but you're going to have a bad time...

Edit: on topic of the thread. Can you empathize with the partner of the person with whom you are cheating?

I think sleazy is a better word, because you don't even go all the way accusing him of rape. You just leave the insinuation out there a month later, and then later pretend you didn't. I wouldn't have responded to your post either, because you casually pretend female sexuality is a blank slate, and there's no such thing as non-verbal communication. There's mountains of research on female sexuality contradicting your claim, which is why you don't commit to it.

There is no moral grey area, she'd just be manipulating the guy. She specifically chose to half-heartily contradict her actions verbally, just for this purpose. She wouldn't be telling a lie, she did ask him to stop (while consensually proceeding). This way, if the guy finds out, she can mislead him into thinking the situation was different. She will play on his heart strings, and he will absolve her of all responsibility without questioning her.

Why is empathizing with the partner being cheated on a part of the discussion? There is no way in which MMX is responsible for the choices of another person, or her relationship. I consider this another segue. You have already backed away from a few arguments so far, without acknowledging it. Instead you claim it was a different argument all along:

At first you claim that MMX admitted to something that sounds like rape. Then you assert that your claim was always that people who have to get technical about the definition of rape are not worth associating with. MMX points out that this is an anti-philosophical claim. Later, you claim that you were only concerned that MMX could get in trouble because of the legally malleable definition of rape.

shirgall · March 24, 2015

My wife says that I have never gotten anything good out of therapy because I'm extremely good at reading people and then manipulating conversations away from I don't like. I need to explore this.

MMX2010 · March 24, 2015

I say it again, this is all about your preferences. What you're saying is because these people don't want to engage with me or the topics I raise, therefore they're not 'philosophical'. It's a pretty crude and bold conclusion to come to. Which so far you still haven't proved beyond your own subjective standard.

No, it is not about my preferences, it is about the definition of philosophy.

"The purpose of philosophy is to discern truth from falsehood." - is Stefan's example from the introduction to philosophy series.

One example he repeatedly uses is, "The statement, 'I had a dream about a unicorn last night..." can never be True or False, because there is no way to provide objective evidence that I did, or did not. (The implication is that you can either believe me or not believe me - but this is measured by the words Sincere / Insincere or Honest / Dishonest - NOT the words True / False.)

The second implication is that the statement, "I feel frustrated and emotionally disconnected whenever talking with you." can also NEVER be True/False, because there's no way to provide objective evidence that you either do, or do not, feel that way. At best, I can either believe you, or not - but this, too, is measured along the Sincere / Insincere; Honest / Dishonest continuum, never the True / False one.

It's no doubt this groups preference is to not discuss the things you raise. It may disinterest them or it might be your delivery. Either of which is entirely up to them.

You aren't addressing my argument, Patrick. I said, "There are two ways to refuse to engage with someone: (1) Anti-philosophically, because they're making solid arguments that you wish were false, but cannot refute. (2) Philosophically, because they're making non-arguments and you're solely interested in the truth."

In response, you're saying, "It's entirely up to them...", which I already mentioned earlier, and agreed with you.

Do you agree with me that those two ways to refuse to engage with people exist? You'll notice that this is a Yes/No question, which requires only a Yes/No answer. I will also stipulate that agreeing with me that these two ways-to-disengage exist, does not provide evidence that this is what happened. Still, I need you to answer Yes/No

It's not particularly gone unnoticed just how manipulative you are with your own language. You continue to elevate yourself to the one that knows better and everyone else as wrong. I can't take your points seriously anymore and see this whole thread as your crude attempt at psychologically leveling with some members of the NYC group.

You're not addressing my argument, Patrick. Worse, you're turning my argument about the definition and purpose of philosophy into a secret psychological reading of my intentions.

My argument, which you have not addressed, is that there are TWO WAYS to refuse to engage with someone: (1) Anti-philosophically, because they're making strong arguments that you wish were false, but cannot refute. (2) Philosophically, because they're making weak arguments that you've easily refuted, but refuse to change their minds.

Why won't you (or anyone else, for that matter), either: (1) address that argument by proving that those two ways don't exist OR (2) address that argument by accepting that those two ways do exist, while accepting my stipulation that your admitting this doesn't prove that the other members of the FDR NYC Group were doing this?

Matt D · March 24, 2015

When you defined empathy, you probably defined Emotional Empathy

No, I defined empathy both in terms of affect (emotion) and cognition. And I don't think it's a fair assessment to layer that interpretation on FDR as a whole. I can remember vividly the intense cognitive empathy I felt when listening to Stef once describe the life of someone living in Mexico who had little incentive to accumulate wealth or build a house since it would be taken from him by the Mexican government.

There is a book I'm reading right now about empathy with some more scientific explanations. But just to warn you, it's written by a sociologist (socialist?) and is quite sympathetic with the Left. Actually, I've been meaning to write a review because this guy is clearly using empathy as a tool to advance a leftist agenda. Philosophy in the wrong hands can be very dangerous indeed.

MMX2010 · March 26, 2015

No, I defined empathy both in terms of affect (emotion) and cognition. And I don't think it's a fair assessment to layer that interpretation on FDR as a whole.

It's definitely not a fair assessment, but that isn't the only unfairness that's happening in this thread.

Statement, "ALL members of the FDR community who have been to therapy have used it to maximally pursue self-knowledge."

*dissenting hand shoots up from the back row* "ALL?! Are you sure about that? There are so many ways that people-in-therapy can use to avoid seeking self-knowledge about painful topics that I don't see how ALL of them can behave as self-knowledge seeking paragons."

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

Statement, "ALL members of the FDR community who have read Real-Time Relationships will use RTR-sounding language to engage in empathetic, philosophically-focused conversations with other FDR members."

*dissenting hand shoots up from the back row* "ALL?! Are you sure about that? There are so many ways people can use an RTR-sounding statement to avoid philosophical discussion, to wrongfully place emotional self-management onto another person, or to refuse to acknowledge a philosophically-sound argument that they wish weren't true. With so many ways to use RTR-language inappropriately, it's hard to assume that everyone who knows RTR will be empathy-seeking, philosophy-seeking exemplars."

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

Statement, "But no one has said "ALL"!

*dissenting hand shoots up from the back row, crowd groans* "Really? No one has said?! Isn't it fair to assume that when people don't acknowledge the negative aspects of therapy and RTR-language, then they're behaving as if they believe that everyone who uses therapy and RTR-language is good?"

I already apologized for framing my original post in imprecise language. But I won't acknowledge that I've been unfair without pointing out ways in which others have been unfair.

This is an acknowledgement that my original post was unfair and imprecise.

Kevin Beal · March 27, 2015

Statement, "But no one has said "ALL"!

*dissenting hand shoots up from the back row, crowd groans* "Really? No one has said?! Isn't it fair to assume that when people don't acknowledge the negative aspects of therapy and RTR-language, then they're behaving as if they believe that everyone who uses therapy and RTR-language is good?"

Just to be clear. I did acknowledge both those things. And I'll do it again:

There was a recent exchange among people who've considered themselves part of this community, who expressed their anger with me over facebook. It was a reporting of their immediate subjective experience, and at first glance sort of resembled the type of subjective reporting that is characteristic of RTR. It was, however, incredibly manipulative and horrible on multiple levels, because they put forward an effort to appear vulnerable and honest, but they wanted me to acquiesce, because they claimed to know both the origins of their tantrum (my statements) and also what my motives were. They were very clear about that.

This is not the first time something like this has happened to me. It is ironic, though, that this is exactly the type of thing that RTR is designed to avoid, and that it is narcissists who say "I feel angry, therefore you need to change".

Also, many therapists SUCK. Many clients suck. Many therapists subject their clients to the managing of their own compromised consciences,... or are just incompetent. I've known a client to completely bail on a friend in a time of extreme need, only to blame the entire thing on their therapist of several years and start seeing another therapist. Or clients just don't put any effort in and think that by simply showing up they get some kind of points.

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

Is it fair to assume that people's posts are meant to be unique (or else why post?) that if someone else already posted something they agree with and would express in roughly the same terms, that they wouldn't mention it in their own posts? That is, is it fair to assume that other people could have agreed to the same sentiment that I offered?

If the argument is that some people are manipulative about how they report the facts of their experience, and that some therapy is worthless, then I absolutely and totally concede the argument. I agree completely.

*correction*

You already acknowledged that I acknowledged this and thanked me for it. I forgot about that. I apologize for speaking as if you hadn't already said that. I can imagine that would be annoying.

And further, if it's true that you experienced something like what I experienced, then I sympathize, and agree that it's a completely disgusting and lacking in any integrity. People who try and bully you into managing their emotions are contemptible.

MMX2010 · March 27, 2015

Just to be clear. I did acknowledge both those things. And I'll do it again:

Yes, you did. And yes, you will. Thank you for that. So far, though, you are the only poster on FDR (not counting me) who has.

PatrickC acknowledged only one of these (the potentially negative aspects of therapy). Everyone else, to my knowledge so far, has acknowledged none of these.

(And, oh yeah, by the way, my reputation has fallen from 100 to 46 in the days since I started this topic.)

There was a recent exchange among people who've considered themselves part of this community, who expressed their anger with me over facebook. It was a reporting of their immediate subjective experience, and at first glance sort of resembled the type of subjective reporting that is characteristic of RTR. It was, however, incredibly manipulative and horrible on multiple levels, because they put forward an effort to appear vulnerable and honest, but they wanted me to acquiesce, because they claimed to know both the origins of their tantrum (my statements) and also what my motives were. They were very clear about that.

This is not the first time something like this has happened to me. It is ironic, though, that this is exactly the type of thing that RTR is designed to avoid, and that it is narcissists who say "I feel angry, therefore you need to change".

Vox Day has a large series of articles discussing Gammas, a particular class of people that lives in a delusionary bubble, and can never admit they're wrong. "I feel angry, therefore you need to change." is a classic Gamma attitude.

Unfortunately, when I say "large series of articles", I mean a large series of articles.

(1) This is the foundational article, which defines all important terms. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html

Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!

Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.

Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.

Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.

Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture.

Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.

I'm not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it's merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.

(2) If you find those terms interesting, then the four-part Graduating Gamma series, (designed to make a self-aware Gamma stop being Gamma), is excellent.

Part One - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/graduating-gamma-1.html

Part Two - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/graduating-gamma-2.html

Part Three - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/graduating-gamma-3.html

Part Four - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/03/graduating-gamma-4.html

(3) If you love those articles, and are thirsty for more, just click on the Gamma tag at the Alpha Game Plan blog.

Is it fair to assume that people's posts are meant to be unique (or else why post?) that if someone else already posted something they agree with and would express in roughly the same terms, that they wouldn't mention it in their own posts? That is, is it fair to assume that other people could have agreed to the same sentiment that I offered?

No, but I'm using three additional facts.

(1) I know that the members of the FDR NYC Meet-Up Group know that this topic exists, and that they disagree with it. One person's summary, (as always, I refuse to name names, but his initials are CU) stated, "What (MMX) posted wasn't really all that accurate."

(2) I know that my reputation has fallen from 100 when I started this thread to 46 right now.

(3) I know that the leader of the FDR NYC Meet-Up Group (whom I've strongly disagreed with about therapy) has repeatedly visited my profile ever since I started this topic.

At bare minimum, it's safe to conclude that a sizable minority (if not the majority) of the members of that group simply cannot handle philosophical-dissent. They can't discuss the potentially negative aspects of therapy, nor the potentially negative aspects of RTR, nor the potentially negative aspects of seeking a virtuous women in a very narrow way - (i.e. - refusing to associate with anyone who shows the slightest hint of "non-virtue", while hoping that someday a "virtuous woman" will appreciate them).

Beyond this bare minimum, it's either safe or reckless/unfair to conclude that a sizable minority (if not the majority) of FDR members are exhibiting similar behaviors.

Unlike certain people who complained about Stefan's advice in FDR 2927, I don't expect anyone to change, (least of all, Stefan). I only expect to manage myself. But I do hope that everyone reading this thread can accept the good arguments I've made in order to better manage their emotions and thought processes, where necessary.

thelion · March 27, 2015

This is a really interesting thread, for another reason besides the discussion itself -- from the perspective of a social scientist, making observations of their fauna of interest so to speak.

If I understand correctly, the little RED and GREEN boxes with numbers indicate upvotes / downvotes like on other forums. (By donators?)

If so, then notice that although MMX is consistently making logical and generally true arguments, staying away from vague language, all his posts consistently get negative votes ... in a philosophy forum ... yes?

Kevin Beal · March 27, 2015

If so, then notice that although MMX is consistently making logical and generally true arguments, staying away from vague language, all his posts consistently get negative votes ... in a philosophy forum ... yes?

Go on, mr social scientist. Is this the entirety of the observation, or was there more? It seems like you are implying things, but I'm not sure, much less what it would be. I'm very curious. I don't know that I've ever had the opportunity to get feedback from a social scientist before.

thelion · March 27, 2015

I suggest visualizing Herbert Spencer going :< and imagining yourself looking straight at his mutton chops while reading this comment. That is the spirit in which it is written.

So in this thread I point out an interesting "folks reacting negatively to Howard Roark for behaving like Howard Roark" phenomenon going on. That is, in reactions to MMX's perfectly fine and valid arguments. I refer to the downvotes. Do you see what I'm talking about? One cannot be wrong for responding with a valid argument.

Yet many people respond negatively to other individuals who naturalistically bring calm and composed reasoning to every situation, for the very act of doing so, despite this being most productive behavior (read: ultimately want satisfying behavior) they can bring to that situation. (This is why science is so productive in such a short time: it consists of endless anarchistic disputes at least half of which are done in this useful manner.)

The endless negative responses to "cold logic", and resulting illogical disputes which led nowhere, unimpressive clutter one does not want to be associated with, was the reason the LvMI closed their forum.

For example, MMX said that ostracizing people for making valid arguments, instead of reacting emotionally, is not a productive form of osctracism. It shouldn't be done. (That is true; such behavior leads away from knowledge of truth. But knowledge of truth is the only thing going for the human species compared to other living heat engines.) His comment got downvoted. All similar comments too. My comment as well.

This I found noteworthy. It's behavior typical of the category of socialists or nonthinkers, but isn't this a libertarian philosophy forum?

Who cares if a train of infererences is "mere logic" or "mere reasoning"---whatever that means by the way? And so what if that's what it is? (The response made famous by Edwin Cannan.) In an argument the sole criterion of good is truth, or at least proper inference. What problem can anybody have with somebody posting logical well constructed arguments? Yes, it's an emotional topic. So what? Bullshit baffles brains. And, again, our brains are the only thing going for us as a species.

Reminds me of an anecdote. Saunders MacLane could never get any support for his positions or initiatives on the various committees he was in, despite being often in charge. He felt making the correct argument and being right should decide things in his favor, given the fact everyone on the committee selfidentify as scientists. But no, the more solid logically his position, the more negatively the majority of participants reacted to it, resulting in nothing getting done.

Science typically involves prediction and retrodiction. My prediction: this comment too shall be downvoted.

RECOMMENDED READING: Schopenhauer's Art of Controversy.

Sign In

Is FDR Wrong About Empathy and Therapy?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Important Information