Theg_01
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Theg_01
-
-
8 hours ago, Ninth Doctor said:
I have a feeling this song might help, even though it's about a good relationship that's (evidently) not going south.
I think the song hasn’t any relevance to this post.
-
21 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:
Most of the time, a narcissist has been that way for a long time. They've built up to it their entire life, testing methods, refining, thinking about "how to get away with it," etc. Their primary orientation toward other people are their narcissistic behavior and tactics, why? Because it works. It's rare for a narcissist to change, and promise of change is a lot of the time another tactic. Going no-contact with this person took some courage by you, and it sounds like it was a good first step to a positive life.
As far as suggestions go, education will likely be a good endeavor. A good book on manipulators and their tactics is In Sheep's Clothing, and you can watch a few interviews by the author online to get a better idea what the book is about. I don't agree with everything in the book, but moreover I found it to be rational and helpful. It would also suggest to study/continue to study philosophy and psychology as well. It would be a more balanced approach this way, because taking a deep dive learning about manipulators and narcissists might cause someone to lose focus on themselves and the good.
There are a lot of Youtube channels out there that can be helpful, but most of them aren't actual psychologists. Vital Mind Psychology is a Youtube channel that has many helpful videos and is a licensed and practicing psychologist, if you haven't found it already. It will likely take some time. I noticed you said you went no-contact just one week ago, so chances are you haven't heard the last of this person.
Thanks so much. I listened to the author of that book in a few interviews and was impressed with his rational approach, a nice change from the other psychologists I was listening to on the topic. Will definitely be getting the book you mentioned, as well as the other books he wrote on character and “how did we end up here”... Good suggestions.
Nicky, I also appreciate your response about seeing therapists, which I’m a bit hesitant to do, simply because of the money factor. I agree that’s the best option, but I can imagine that it may take a few run throughs to find the appropriate one, which I’m not in a position to pay for right now... my parents offered to help but I’d rather save the money if possible... that’s why I’m looking for more “home remedies,” if possible?
-
Thanks - I may comment later, but for now do you have any reading/lecture recommendations for someone trying to start out learning about the mind and the topics you touched upon.
-
Few questions:
1) What about people who are in chronic state of being “moody” due to this or other factors? To what extent does this render them deterministic, if at all? If, for example, someone is in a chronic state of mind due to the part of the brain releasing or restricting chemicals because of a reaction to outside factors outside of their control, how much freedom of choice do they really have if they are unable to think properly?
2) To what extent does the conscious mind have the ability to bypass this mood? For example, I was listening to a Jordan Peterson lecture and he mentioned the fact that introverted people are put into moods in large social settings that make them irritable and not happy (for lack of a better word) in those situations vs 1 on 1 where they are perfectly fine. Assuming the reason for this is the “ancient brain” determining their “rank” in society, as he likens to the lobsters in his book, and not other factors (like diet, etc.), to what extent are we able to bypass or control this feeling? (Please don’t harp on the example, I’m just trying to concretize my question) Is it the more successful we are as determined to be by the conscious mind, the way that the ancient mind ranks us follows and the way it reacts to outside factors changes? Or is this reaction unchangable and determined genetically? I.e. can we change the way the “ancient brain” restricts or releases seratonin?
3) just going off #1 + 2, do we need a corresponding period of normal state of mind and reflection to necessarily change the way we think during the state of moodiness? Essentially creating a habit of focus and awareness during these periods, etc. that alerts us to recognize and act accordingly during these states of moodiness? Is it possible to do so without that state of normalcy?
4) how do you know when you are in a state of normalcy? By normalcy I mean a state where your mind is clear and is able to process information and think properly according to your values. Is it a continuum - e.g. depression would be farther from normalcy than a headache.
-
3 hours ago, Grames said:
It is not clear to me that Rand has committed to a position that emotions can only ever be caused by one's conscious integrations, or how how important that is to the rest of Objectivism if Rand did make that commitment and was wrong. Emotions are not tools of cognition, after all.
That has always been my understanding of her view. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html
An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises.
-
3 hours ago, Nicky said:
Sure. But that's not the issue. The issue is, the brain (it is claimed, I'm happy to name the people who make the claim, but I assume you're aware) reacts automatically to something being perceived (perceived automatically... this part Oism agrees with).
The effect of that reaction (the mood) isn't knowledge. But what about the cause? If event X is automatically, and entirely independently of anything a person learned in their life, is causing reaction Y, isn't the ability of the primitive mind to recognize event X, and KNOW that this is the time to react in manner Y, "knowledge"? It is the brain acting on information (information that is innate, it's not information gained through perception + integration).
I mean sure, it's not knowledge the way Rand defines it...because her definition of knowledge assumes tabula rasa ("Knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation"...ItOE). But there's a lot of of editorializing in that. The actual definition should just be "knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact of reality". Perceptual, innate, however it came about.
I would also like to remind you of this claim in Objectivism: " man’s values and emotions are determined by his fundamental view of life". ("Philosophy: Who needs it?", via the AR Lexicon). So okay, moods are not knowledge, they're emotions. But are they determined solely by knowledge as defined by Ayn Rand, or can you get into a mood because a primitive part of your brain has the ability to automatically react to something in the outside world that invariably causes it to release a mood altering chemical? No matter what you do, think, value, etc.?
This topic has actually been a great interest of mine as of late. Can you provide a concrete example of the “primitive” part of the brain reacting to outside stimuli?
Let’s suppose what you are putting forth is true, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it is, what significance does this have?
Vox vs Speech
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted · Edited by Theg_01