Is FDR Wrong About Empathy and Therapy?

[Kevin Beal]

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.

Well, that would certainly be unjust. Howard Roark was definitely not doing anything I would downvote, not that I downvoted anything in this thread (I didn't).

 

I kind of got what you were saying before, suggesting that people aren't living up to rational values, and going against those values even. Values they themselves would likely claim. It was a charge of hypocrisy if I understand you correctly.

 

You are correct that it is donators who are able to vote, and I'm not saying that people should downvote his or your posts, but certainly, simply saying that his posts were all very calm and rational is not the same thing as demonstrating it, right? It's clear that you think the downvotes are bad like downvoting Howard Roark would be bad.

 

An argument is "if you accept this, then you should accept that". It's demonstrating a conclusion by use of reason and evidence. Of course, it would make no sense to say that a conclusion is true because it is true.

 

So, from what I could glean, and correct me where I've misquoted you, you are saying that if you accept that MMX's posts were logically valid and well argued, and his posts got downvoted, then you should accept that it was unjust, especially coming from people who would purport to value rational arguments.

 

Would you say that this is a good argument?

 

Framing a discussion is simply asserting who is right and who is wrong, especially when doing so shines a bad light on your opponent, like, them being emotionally immature, or hypocritical or unintelligent.

 

If we accept that you simply asserted that MMX was making consistently valid logical arguments, and the effect is that you suggest hypocrisy on the part of the people who voted down his posts, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that what you did was frame the discussion.

 

And so, it appeared to me that you were doing was instigating. Which I actually thought was kind of funny. I have no real emotional investment in this thread. But if it's true that you were instigating, downvotes are to be expected. And it's convenient too when you can just use that as proof of your claims.

 

It is a form of passive aggression to provoke a feeling in someone and then condemn (or whatever word you like) them for it. I'm not particularly bothered by it since I can usually smell it a mile away, and it's just boring to me, at this point.

 

How boring it is to listen to people frame discussions. How exciting it is to get logical arguments! So, give it up, big boy! You claim to value logical argument, so let's do it

[Kevin Beal]

I thought about it some more, and I think it definitely is worth talking about that more than a few people who claim to represent the values of this community are manipulative bullies who try and get other people to manage their emotions. If you are part of the facebook group, you may have heard about a recent example of this.

 

I think a word of caution is necessary, that: just because someone is in this community, it is no guarantee that they actually have any principles. And it would be kind of an insult to the people who've actually worked hard to shake off the propaganda and dysfunctional parts of their pasts to simply grant that participation in the community means anything.

 

This is the only forum outside of facebook that I post in, and I find that the people attracted to philosophy tend to be a lot more insightful than the average person. I read far more than I post and enjoy the diverse and considerate thought that y'all put into your posts. But there are exceptions to this general rule, instances that, to me, are like sacrilege.

 

Appealing to philosophical rigor with pretentiousness. Bullying people into empathizing. Pedantically charging opponents with hypocrisy. It's no good, and it's an important discussion to have.

 

I think that pointing out where people are being manipulative and giving other people the heads up is important. I really wish that I knew about a particular group prior to becoming the target of their venom, and even some people with some degree of clout that you would not guess are really dysfunctional actually are, and it would be helpful to people to know about it, or at least be very sensitive to it.

 

I've had people express nervousness about talking to me because I've got a reputation (I'm not talking about points), but I've got my own problems and get things wrong all the time. I can think of a few recent examples that are bothering me.

 

I think that the problem is not that people are wrong, but rather how they respond when you point it out. If I ever refuse to acknowledge mistakes I make, then I want you to be skeptical. I'd like you to challenge me on it, but I can't put that expectation on you, of course.

 

I've regretted taking people at face value despite my gut feeling, simply because they have some reputation. Those regrets cause me physical pain. Not that a gut feeling proves anything, but I don't think it's something to ignore, ever.

 

As a rule, I'm very cautious about who I work to establish trust with. And because what I want is to have the kind of relationships where I can trust other people not to take out their crap on me, and because I bet you do too, I think conversations like this are important to have.

[thelion]

The point was aimed rather at the pattern downvoters. They seem to be unaware that an effective rational discussion aimed at knowledge looks something like this : http://mathoverflow.net/

 

The thing to notice there is not the mathematics. In fact, ignore that. Notice rather that nobody downvotes answers or responds negatively in case of especially long verbose posts whose content include further arguments about definitions etc, simply following rules of logic one after the other, wherever that leads. There are only downvotes if and only if a definite error is found.

 

This was my point, nothing more (and nothing less). All patterns besides that one are very soon noticed by people knowledgable about the topic professionally and they stay away. Many scientists are libertarians, but they won't bother to write substantive arguments if they find behavior contrary to the above.

 

Consider if I go to a union rally, get on the podium, and argue that unions can't raise income without leading to unemployment -- because of the way partial derivatives work for any production function. This is literally the case, but for my effort I'll simply be pushed into a fight. So I won't bother to go to a union rally, to argue there. I don't want to get into fights.

 

In any substantive debate, technical nitpicking, constructing precise definitions, bluntly following logical operations, it all needs to be encouraged, not discouraged with downvoting.

 

----

 

If you were not downvoting in the first place I think we agree on the values themselves and the point was not aimed at you: don't take offense.

 

----

 

As regards the charge of pedantry, from the perspective of plain speech, the majority of well constructed essays or speeches or technical pieces are utterly pedantic. Merely it is not easy to speak like that in real time, so it's rarely done. Since it's rarely done it's considered a faux pas. But there is nothing praiseworthy about this fact. Blunt and unambigious prose ... that's a good thing, in a purely content oriented communication, is it not?

[MMX2010]

I was linked to this article on empathy, oxytocin (the hormone responsible for empathy), and male/female differences in the display of empathy after being injected with oxytocin. 

 

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/311.abstract

 

 

 

Abstract

It has been suggested that the degree of compassion—the feeling of warmth, understanding and kindness that motivates the desire to help others, is modulated by observers’ views regarding the target’s vulnerability and suffering. This study tested the hypothesis that as compassion developed to protect vulnerable kinships, hormones such as oxytocin, which have been suggested as playing a key role in ‘tend-and-befriend’ behaviors among women, will enhance compassion toward women but not toward men. Thirty subjects participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject study. Following administration of oxytocin/placebo, participants listened to recordings of different female/male protagonists describing distressful emotional conflicts and were then asked to provide compassionate advice to the protagonist. The participants’ responses were coded according to various components of compassion by two clinical psychologists who were blind to the treatment. The results showed that in women and men participants oxytocin enhanced compassion toward women, but did not affect compassion toward men. These findings indicate that the oxytocinergic system differentially mediates compassion toward women and toward men, emphasizing an evolutionary perspective that views compassion as a caregiving behavior designed to help vulnerable individuals.

 

 

 

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

 

Unconscious Premise Held By Many FDR Members: Men and women are equally capable of being empathetic towards each other, because both men and woman have moral agency.  Philosophy tells us so. 

 

Truth Revealed By The Linked Study:  Men and women are biologically hard-wired to have differential levels of compassion towards each other, with men being far more compassionate towards women than women are compassionate towards men.  Therefore, any man who expects an equalitarian relationship formulated on roughly-equal levels of compassion is much more likely to be frustrated than satisfied.

[Lingum]

That is fantastic. It explains so much in society.

[MMX2010]

That is fantastic. It explains so much in society.

 

 

Absolutely.  I'm trying to push that discovery into as many areas as possible to make more distant speculations.  I know that some of these speculations are so far-reaching that they'll be difficult to prove, but I'll find them interesting all the same. 

 

My biggest emotional experience in learning this, though, is emotional relief.  I no longer expect women-in-general, nor society-as-a-whole to show me compassion and empathy whenever I'm expressing emotional vulnerability.  Because of this, I feel relieved from the expectation that I communicate my every emotional vulnerability to people. 

 

The woman I'm currently enamored with is fully capable of hearing my emotional vulnerabilities, but she has said, (in no uncertain terms), that she feels "icky" whenever she has to teach me things.  Her "ickiness" encourages me to deal with whatever emotional frailties I may experience outside of her emotional view - which is better for both of us. 

 

I've been reading a lot of Rollo Tomassi, and his concept of Amused Mastery is his end-goal for all readers. 

 

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

 

 

 

Roissy made this distinction a couple years ago; there’s a difference between an arrogant ‘aloofness’ and a confident Amused Mastery.

 

A presence of Amused Mastery puts you into a position of maturity while still remaining playfully approachable and forcing her to qualify to you by acknowledging your mastery of her (really all women by association). An attitude of Amused Mastery implies to a woman that by virtue of your maturity and/or authority you’ve “seen it all before”, you already know what women mean when they say or do what she is, and it’s amusing to you. You’ll play along, but only so far as to cleverly poke fun at her attempts to get you to qualify to her. It means you never take her seriously, like a bratty younger sister, but also with the presence of mind of a senior Alpha male who knows her game before she plays it.

 

I’ll admit, I never fully appreciated the potential of Amused Mastery until I had a daughter. I found myself naturally using it with her because that’s the actual, unforced relation I have with her. When she was younger this added to my Daddy-Alpha credentials, but now that she’s 14 theres a history of my Amused Mastery she finds comfort in. However, I also noticed my wife finds Amused Mastery just as appealing, to the point that she includes herself in my Mastery over my daughter.

 

Amused Mastery is particularly effective for older men / younger women Game. Assuming you’re in reasonably good shape and have some degree of affluence, being older gives you a degree of authenticity. With maturity comes an expectation of knowledge and experience for Men. I’ve used Amused Mastery with my “pour girls” at promo events and it’s like cat nip for them. You become that Father figure to them (FILF?) that they crave, but can’t seem to get from younger guys. There’s a certain Alpha security dynamic at play between a woman and a Man who emits an ambient vibe of having been with enough women to be able to predict her shit tests, and then pass them with a casual roll of his eyes and a knowing smirk. When a man is giving off the cues of Amused Mastery there's an unspoken presumption by women that he “just gets it” when it comes to dealing with women.

 

 

 

The first (seemingly harsh) lesson of the link I provided is, "Most people strongly believe that most of your feelings do not matter." 

 

The second lesson (which turns the harshness into cold indifference) is, "Now that you know that most people believe that the majority of your feelings are insignificant, you must turn your desire to share your feelings into a desire for productive action. 

 

The third lesson (which turns the cold indifference into bemused indifference) is, "Now that I've been living my life according to productive action for a very long time, I've discovered that those jerks were right the entire time!  The majority of my feelings are insignificant, particularly the ones related to fear, doubt, uncertainty, bitterness, and laziness." 

 

The fourth lesson (which turns the bemused indifference into amused mastery) is, "Now that I've realized, for a long enough time, that the majority of my feelings are insignificant, I've also realized that the majority of other peoples' feelings are similarly insignificant, particularly the ones related to fear, doubt, uncertainty, insecurity, bitterness, and laziness.  I can now be amused by their declarations of heartfelt emotion, because I've learned to laugh at my own declarations of heartfelt emotion." 

 

tl;dr - You can not achieve amused mastery without internalizing that the majority of your feelings are insignificant to others - and that this is a GOOD THING. 

[iHuman]

The only problem I see with therapy is the Misconceived negative views that so many have of people who go for therapy, the ones I mean are "X Person Going to Therapist = X Person must have Mental Problems and likely is dangerous etc"

 

this is a very dangerous view to popularize as it can inadvertently as well as purposely be used to stigmatize and shame/scare people away from getting the help thy might desperately need.

[MMX2010]

Framing a discussion is simply asserting who is right and who is wrong, especially when doing so shines a bad light on your opponent, like, them being emotionally immature, or hypocritical or unintelligent.

 

How boring it is to listen to people frame discussions. How exciting it is to get logical arguments! So, give it up, big boy! You claim to value logical argument, so let's do it

 

 

It's interesting that you think the framing aspect is the least important, while the arguments are supreme.  From this, I know that you don't read Rollo Tomassi, and are, therefore, unaware of this definition of Frame. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/12/frame/

 

As always, whenever I reference Rollo, I only highlight specific points - but the entire article is always worth reading. 

 

 

Iron Rule of Tomassi #1

Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are. 

 

The concept of “frame” is yet another ephemeral idea that had need of a term in the very beginnings of the great masculine awakening that’s become the ‘community’. If memory serves I think it may have been Mystery who first picked up on what’s really a very rudimentary and well established psychological principle. In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy.

 

The concept of frame covers a lot of aspects of our daily lives, some of which we’re painfully aware of, others we are not, but nonetheless we are passively influenced by frame. What concerns us in terms of inter-gender relations however is the way in which frame sets the environment, the ambience, and the ‘reality’ in which we relate with both the woman we sarge at a bar and the relationship with the woman we’ve lived with for 20 years. One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers. Also understand that the balance of frame often shifts. Frame is fluid and will find its own level when a deficit or a surplus of will is applied to change it. The forces that influence that lack or boost of will is irrelevant – just know that the conditions of an operative framework will shift because of them.

 

 

 

I highlighted the definition of Frame in red - but focus on the bolded part.  The key concept that Frame is often subconscious is a reminder that Frame can become conscious, if and only if you're aware of it and know how to spot it.  Rollo's goal for all of his students is to always be conscious of all Frame, both his own and especially those who disagree / challenge him.  When I am conscious of both my Frame and your Frame, while you are not conscious of either Frame, I always enjoy a major advantage. 

 

Even better, philosophy is nothing more than a series of rules to determine whose Frame is better.  That's all philosophy ever is.

 

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

 

My Frame in this discussion was never stated, but never forgotten by me.  I am a 38 year old male, with a 140 IQ, with years of reading in evolutionary biology (focusing especially on sexual competition, status, and lying), body language (focusing especially on confidence / lack-of-confidence), AnonymousConservative's r/k selection thesis and amygdala framework (focusing especially on rabbitry, trolling, and how to handle being trolled), and a near-perfect memory.  Furthermore, and most importantly, I WAS THERE, so I have more direct experience with what happened. 

 

PatrickC was unaware of both his Frame and my Frame.  (Hearing my Frame probably makes him annoyed, even though my Frame is true.)  But his Frame goes something like this, "Well, I wasn't there...BUT.  And I don't have your training....BUT.  But I study philosophy, and think I can make up for the huge gaps in awareness and training by using philosophy.  Not only that, but I'm going to assume that, because it's just your experience versus their experience (and they outnumber you), then you're probably wrong, and they're probably right." 

 

Now, if I told you that one of us was going to be easily defeated in philosophical "combat", while the other will have a very easy time of it, who would you bet on?  And why does it matter? 

 

It matters because people who begin with Bad Frame / Wrong Frame inevitably make bad arguments, and then the choice arises: Change (by submitting to the better argument) or Rage (by unjustly attacking the person who made a better argument, usually by trying to get an entire crowd of people to attack on his behalf).  You discovered this in your thread on the Gold+ forum, where I mentioned the importance of hierarchy. 

 

 

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

 

As far as his arguments go, I can dismantle them very quickly.  You claim this is the most important and interesting part of my post: I claim it's the least of both. 

 

(1) He says, "Emotionally connecting with people and expressing vulnerability is how you make strong friendships with people built on mutual trust and empathy."

 

(2) I counter-punch, "That's not true, Patrick.  A strong friendship is developed if and only if connecting with people and expressing vulnerability is done with the primary focus being on Truth.  Certain friendships, like between KKK-members who commit crimes, and emotionally-vulnerable people who are committed to falsehoods, give strong feelings of connection but are actually weak.  They dissolve whenever someone who knows the Truth just shows up and speaks it." 

 

(3) He counter-punches, "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."

 

(4) I didn't make this counter-argument, but I'll make it now.  (Note, I was well-aware of my counter-argument the moment I read PatrickC's post, but decided not to post it immediately so that he could calm down a bit.) 

 

My counter-argument is to first remind everyone of My Frame versus His Frame.  My Frame is objectively better because, even if you don't agree with my claims of being well-trained in certain areas, you must agree that I WAS THERE and PATRICKC was not.  Why PatrickC, who wasn't there, expects his arguments to be given equal merit as someone who wasn't is beyond me.  But you'll notice that PatrickC himself isn't conscious of it; he just expects to be taken equally seriously as me, even though he wasn't there.

 

The second part of my counter-argument is to focus on PatrickC's word-usage.  He says, "I continue to elevate myself as the one who knows better and the others are wrong."  His language is manipulative, because it focuses on My Personhood versus Their Personhood.  But someone's "personhood" takes years of intimate conversation to understand, and I only knew these people for two or three weeks, so it's literally impossible for me to attack their "personhood". 

 

Instead, the far simpler (and, therefore, most likely to be objectively correct) conclusion is, "MMX2010 continues to elevate his arguments as better, and the other arguments are wrong."  If he were to make that statement, though, PatrickC would realize: (1) that this is exactly what philosophy is supposed to do, and (2) what he calls my "subjective preferences" are really "objective preferences" for Truth over Falsehood and Truth over Emotional Connection, Vulnerability, and Empathy. 

 

The first preference he cannot debate; the second one he doesn't want to debate. 

 

(5) Finally, he says, "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."

 

This is a manipulative way to leave the discussion before I can respond, and sets him up to ignore my counter-argument regardless of whether it's better or worse than his argument. 

 

I pressed on this by pointing out, "There are two reasons to no longer want to engage with someone: (1) They're making bad arguments.  (2) They're making better arguments, but you don't want to acknowledge this.  Can you acknowledge that these two possibilities are true, even while accepting that this acknowledgement doesn't prove that I'm right about the group?" 

 

Of course he didn't.  He had subconsciously promised himself that he wouldn't by leaving the conversation before I could reply. 

 

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

 

You'll have to take my word for it that the quality of the arguments from the other members of the FDR NYC group were just as bad.  As much as people claim it's bad of me to highlight their arguments while they're not here to defend them, no one operates under the assumption, "Hmmm, they're not even here to defend their arguments?  Wonder if that's a bad thing?" 

 

Overall, I'm leading to something very big: the ultimate Frame of disagreement between members of the FDR community.  As usual, I'm conscious of both My Frame and Their Frame, while they're unconscious of both Frames.  So I expect to enjoy both a gigantic advantage and a gigantic amount of downvoting. 

 

This post is already too long, so I'll post that later. 

[Donnadogsoth]

I haven't found anything amiss with MMX2010's posts and want to share my opinion so I will be downvoted too.