Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dreamspirit

Regulars
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dreamspirit

  1. It is not until I read this article that I realized that Lillian Rearden's confusing behavior and elegant profile is symbolism for this type.
  2. I am writing a coming of age novel with it's underlying themes mostly being social corruption, perfectionism, individualism, and teenage angst. It's similar to the Catcher in the Rye I've been told (although I haven't read it so I don't know if this is false flattery). I think the storyline has some potential in it and I've gotten about 25 pages into the first act. I think it will probably end up being around 250-300 pages. I think the storyline and characterization is good, but I'm a little worried about consistency and flow. I want to make it more appealing and compelling to read for a young audience but I want some feedback on what I've written so far so that if I'm making major mistakes that will undercut the important parts, I don't ruin it and get frustrated. What kind of person could I ask that would give me serious advice and critical feedback as I go along?
  3. After reading the psychology of psychologising, I realize that even a lot of my recent thoughts regarding it are flawed. I realize I have taken on the inquisitor-victim role which was imposed on me, by weak or amateur people who have no problem invading my personal space. Now I realize the full truth about psychologising. It is never moral, helpful, or rational to automatically psychologize someone who seems strange to you, and really not even for therapists, except in some really extreme cases of psychosis maybe. The purpose of therapy should be to teach someone the skills to think and act clearly to resolve what's bothering them and nothing else is ever moral or helpful really. Anything else is pretty much brainwashing. I want everyone on this forum to know that I am not a psychologising freak, but in childhood when I had no control over who I could be around I was influenced by these people and although I had a strong aversion to them, I kind of started to believe in their ideas. Psychologizing is sick and anybody that considers himself an objectivist should find out the truth about it because it is truly ridiculous. It also does a lot of damage, especially to people who are already weak.
  4. It's not that I'm against gifted teenagers reading it, I just think the average 13 year old would not be capable of getting anything out of such mature issues, let alone being able to read it, so it's not exactly an ideal choice for a teenager with an average vocabulary and reading ability. It's not that I think there is any "right" age for the book, I just think it's logical to give them more level appropriate choices (like Anthem) so that they don't become confused or disinterested in literature. However, I do think it is innapropriate and harmful for a child to be exposed to adult sexual scenes because they really do not need to have those kinds of ideas in their head without more maturity. They'll obsess on it because it will seem like the greatest thing in the world and be more likely to make a decision they will regret.
  5. IMO the most ridiculous thing is the God stuff. I guess this parent thinks that kids shouldn't rely on ambition, just whatever gives them comfort, and if they fall to low to serve society, whip them into shape. The sex stuff is a feasible complaint and the fact that it is philosophically complex is as well. It is more of a concern to keep your children away from sexual stuff at that age, because if you don't they'll obsses on whatever they can find. But for an academically gifted child, mature philosophical issues aren't as much of a problem, but 13 is still really young.
  6. It is quite possible that the different mental disorders are the way that people of certain metabolisms resolve inner turmoil. For example, I have what a psychiatrist would call bipolar tendencies (grandiosity, irritability, intense interest in one subject after another), but you couldn't possibly diagnose me as a full blown bipolar. It seems to run rampid in European people for some reason. My genotype produces less dopamine (associated with giving aversion to making errors, negativity) which could explain more grandiose thinking patterns. It is probably the result of multiple genes that influence hormones like dopamine, but I don't believe these chemical imbalances can influence someone's psychology in any signifigant way except in maybe very rare cases. And anyway, what is a NORMAL chemical balance? Humans aren't exactly the same and are evolved for different environments. On a gene test I scored 50% more likely to get it so those sort of thinking patterns must be associated with genetics. But the question is really whether it's a disease or just a benign abberation that people make out as bad. Psychiatrists don't want to explain the phenomena of artistic manic people, because it makes it look like it's not such a big deal, since those people can control themselves and merely come across as a bit neurotic. They will make some excuse like, they are gifted but become artists because they're unstable or something. Interestingly enough it is "in vogue" to be bipolar right now. Have you ever heard of it being in vogue to have cancer or some other terrible disease like that?
  7. That is just one aspect of it. Sociopaths are like that in a way, but after you get to know one, you begin to feel as if you're not even talking to a real person. You can't quite pinpoint it, but something's just not there. It's a bit hard to explain, but it's only obvious that they are dependent on the emotions of others after you carefully analyze how they react. What I had at the time was an intuitive reaction, it was not on purpose. If I really understood what was going on, it would have turned out differently. Sociopaths are not concerned with having feelings for others, but they need to to get by in the world, and since they are lacking parts of their brain that do that, they have to manipulate people and control relationships. This is why they mimic emotions, it's just like a person with aspergers who can't read facial expressions (although sociopaths are not really intellectually handicapped like autistics are). When they can't have control over other people they break down because they can't survive the way they want to.
  8. I'm not holding her for what she wrote, but it is a little upsetting to hear that the person you admire greatly once viewed something you think is monstrous with positive emotions. I was explaining why objectivism is inconsistent with that view in order to denounce to unthinking people that Rand thought it was positive to have no feeling for others. I guess the only "mistake" is people thinking that the objectivist philosophy is influenced by these emotionally based opinions she had in her journal.
  9. Well, I sort of integrated that if I did opposite psych (acting intimidated when I was confident) it would upset him very much because his response didn't get the reaction he wanted. Then he would go from being the all knowing big brother psychologist to the victim or the justified bully. One time when they did this phone prank, he was on the line but I didn't know. The girls asked me if I liked him, and I said no and just started shouting out he's gay he's gay he's gay eeew in a dramatasized way. Then he started crying and shouting at me out of no where, playing the victim, unable to insult me.
  10. I know what you're talking about, and I suppose it's similar in a way, but this is very different, because it's a single person at the root of the problem. Young girls like to be manipulative and gossipy, but not in the same way as a true sociopath.
  11. Yes, he acted like a big brother lecturing his hopeless little sister at times, except when I would give off emotions that were false and he would break down mentally. One time in the beginning he said to me, "You've really changed (name), before this you were really sheltered and ignorant." This was mostly about my dislike for gay people. Of course now I see the difference between a bad homosexual and one that just wants to live their life, but back then all I was seeing were the bad ones. Everyone would praise him for his psychology skills and tell him he could be a psychologist so yes, it does seem to be a very similar situation as to what you're talking about. He liked wooing or psychologising me a lot more than the other girls. When I started giving off false emotions he started retaliating though.
  12. No, she didn't openly suggest it, but she seemed to have this sympathy and admiration for William Hickman which is a little strange IMO. She did, in a quote seem to suggest that some of the traits sociopaths have are a gift. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was something about not having an organ to process feeling for others. But she did very clearly draw the line about where it becomes degeneracy, so I'm not saying she really believed that it's good to be a psycho, I just don't think she actually understood what he really is. Her admiration of Hickman was emotional and not rational. We all make some intellectual mistakes, no matter how precise we are.
  13. I know what you're talking about, but sociopathy is WAY different than hormonal teenage neuroticism and stupid self absorption. You might not fully realize it at first, but the person definitely will come across as strange, because they mimic your emotions.
  14. In the 8th and 9th grade, I was manipulated and psychologically tortured by a sociopath, who enjoyed it thoroughly. It was a gay male, who liked to tell really really strange and disgusting sex jokes. He was fascinated with Freud and would always try to psychoanalyze everyone. He would hang out with the group of girls I wanted to be friends with, and would turn them against me, play cruel practical jokes on me, and spread false rumors about me. He sucked me in because I didn't have any friends and had a way of targeting me emotionally that made me want to keep being abused. Is it rational to go against what I really am (a naturally honest and sensitive person) to protect myself from people like this? The only reason this happened was because I was a vulnerable little girl and I had no knowledge of the world, but I will be honest, because of the fact that it went on for so long, and the details got absorbed subconsciously because of trauma, it has and will effect me for the rest of my life. Has anyone ever experienced this, it is a common occurance? I've heard of "the sociopath next door" and things like that. Despite my disbelief of the chemical imbalance theory, I do believe there are people who are "lacking something" in their mind, but there is nothing you can do for them, you just have to stay away from them. You can't put something in that's not already there. IMO, what Ayn Rand said about sociopathy being a gift is wrong. It is one of the only things that I disagree with her on. It is not good to be truly free of conscience, every such person who is will turn out degenerate. Sociopathy has nothing to do with being productive or rationally self interested, its about being disconnected from other people, and not having the pleasure of sharing human emotion. Although, I will add that I think there are a lot of people fasely thought of as sociopaths who simply don't conform, or are more interested in what they want for themselves than others. Sociopaths have no self worth, because they respect themselves indiscriminantly, they don't earn their pride, thus they don't even have pride really.
  15. Follet has written some very interesting stuff. I've read the man from st. petersburg and a lot of the characters are quite peculiar in a good way and fascinating. The protagonist was a lot like Raskolnikov in crime and punishment though, except he didn't feel any guilt in what he was doing. The protagonist's girlfriend, Lydia reminded me so much of myself. Somewhat fiery, loyal, and likes "forbidden fruit." I like thriller novels about unlikely situations, that's why I like Follett's writing, but I'm sorry he's just a commie. He is not an individualist. He looks like a commie, you can see it in his facial expression.
  16. I would have to agree with this. I used to think that socialism was good, and the only way to maintain order in a society is to have strict control, simply because I went to school with a bunch of trailer trash baptist idiots that I didn't want to deal with, but over the years I began to see how wrong that was. I read all about Karl Marx and eugenics and was fascinated by it, I'm so disgusted remembering it.
  17. Well, they certainly did. My parents refused to take me to the worse mental institution they were going to put me in for months that was across the country, and they even begged me not to go to the little adolescent drug overdose ward right there, but the cops outside the door said if they wouldn't take me I would have to go in a police car. My parents had to track down the doctor, tell him a bunch of things about my past, and BEG him not to. The other psychiatrist that I was required to see as an outpatient said that it was actually a mistake and that I didn't belong in there, but he was still very slick. Maybe the nurse misinterpreted what I said to the doctor or maybe they are allowed to assume that someone is dangerous I don't know. based on my emotional gibberish, I guess they could have interpreted some of the things I said as sort of semi threatening, because it was very intense sounding and I think I did say something like, everyone hates me and is out to get me. But supposedly since there was no official diagnosis and I was under 18, I have no kind of limitations or anything like that in my background check but it is very upsetting remembering having to go through that.
  18. I told you a thousand times, I was forced into it simply because I said a bunch of gibberish in the hospital room when I was sleep deprived. My parents took me there to talk to someone, not to stay overnight. I wouldn't talk to anyone, I wouldn't even get out of the car, because I didn't like talking to strange people about my private issues. I sounded very emotional and was imagining things, but I know for a fact that I wasn't dangerous and made no threats. It was not threatening, was not suicidal or self mutilating. I had assaulted no one. They never actually legally forced me to take medication when I was out of the hospital, but DSS threatened my parents with medical neglect for some reason, I don't know how they did it. It's possible that they thought I had been abused or beaten, but they had a lack of proof. In fact, that's probably part of why they held me in there for so long, they were trying to dig up something they could use against them. If my parents had refused, they would have taken me away in two seconds. For some reason it made them very angry that I wasn't taking on the role of the sick patient and that my parents were not too keen with the freaky psychological stuff, so they retaliated. Well, no. I don't understand what you're talking about. So you believe that if a physical problem is producing behavior that is undesirable, you should simply numb the person's mind rather than figuring out a potential pathological cause for it? Just because a neurotransmitter is effected, doesn't mean it has a disease. Perhaps it's easier for the medical professionals, but it is of no benefit to the person, because they will keep having problems until the hormonal or organic problem is corrected and that medication has long lasting effect on the mind and body most of the time. There is no reason why I couldn't have simply had a bodily problem in which I produced too much of certain hormones in response to normal life stressors and that actually makes a lot more sense really because it would explain the gradualness of it and the fact that I have no personal tendencies or family history of any of that stuff (not saying I believe it's genetic anyway, but speaking in theory in a doctor's point of view). I also found out a couple years ago when I donated blood that I have a tendency to collect too much iron in my blood, which I think is linked to adrenal hormones in some way but I could be wrong. I guess my question is, if a psychiatrist is a REAL doctor, why can't he distinguish symptoms of real pathological problems from "mental disorders?"
  19. What do I care what others think of my credibility? I say something because I know it's right, not because it has a source that validates it. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, but in this case, I'm not sure the overwelming majority of information on psychiatry is accurate because the drug companies have a lot of power over how people think about it. You cannot prove that for example, drug companies conduct meaningless clinical trials on psych drugs because you are not there for one and no source is going to expose them because they don't see the whole picture. However, from a simple google search, you could see that the process that it takes for a psych drug to get on the market has many loopholes, one example being that it is pretty much totally unmonitored and the doctors can just simply not include some participants in the studies for pretty much any reason. I don't understand people that accept so called "evidence" such as medical journals or scientific studies as irrefutable even when the overwelming majority proves the point because that doesn't mean it isn't corrupt or falsified, especially when the drug companies have so much power. I don't see why I should have to provide a source about the details of what it takes for a psych drug to get on the market. That is basic knowledge. It is not objective to trust a source solely on it's credibility, this doesn't mean it's not wrong. It takes a little more critical thinking skill to figure out the truth than some here have. If someone is interested enough in my opinions to want to know the reason for them, there is no reason why they can't do a simple google search and investigate them on their own. Some of the detail oriented people on here want me to give a source for every specific assertion that I make so that they can disprove it's credibility or argue against it with another specific source to make it look like psychiatry is indeed useful and necessary contrary to my opinion. What I am talking about is overwelmingly complex and broad and you cannot properly resolve it with such trifles whereas if you were to experience the other side more, you would see what was wrong with it. For example, we were arguing over whether electroshock can serve a purpose for someone in certain cases. Eioul was arguing that if someone needs quick emergency treatment, it is helpful. Then Mark 2 was so disgusted with this assertion that he couldn't post about it anymore. This gets no further in answering the question objectively of whether psychiatry is actually really necessary and whether it truly helps people in the long run. I'm not anti-psychiatry or whatever, I am anti encouraging or forcing people to undergo medical treatments frivolously that have a potential psuedo effect or cause long term damage that could otherwise be solved in some other way (ie. fixing an underlying medical problem or living in a soteria house). Fact is, it is not necessary for a person to be tranquilized with electricity and risk brain damage just so that they are not depressed or a pain to deal with for a couple of weeks. The people who are taking care of the person are seeing it, because it costs time and money to hold the person when they're in that state, but not for the person getting shocked, who suffers brain damage for the rest of their life. There is no proof that a person can't get out of an extreme state of mind without biological interferance, so why would you want to damage a person rather than investigating other cures, like soteria house? It all boils down to the power of drug companies and doctors who want to get as much "bang for their buck" as possible. Traditional or alternative ways of helping a person cope with a thinking disorder is a pain in the ass for them and it is more economical to shove a pill down their throat or brain damage them so they don't know what's going on. You will find no specific scientific source that proves these things (I'd have to provide tons), you'd have to experience being in a mental hospital for yourself to begin to understand it, or just watch a movie like one flew over the cuckoos nest.
  20. Oh, of course other hormones can cause problems, but testosterone is not directly harmful, just undesirable. A couple of years ago (and still do on occasion), I suffered from what I call "adrenaline attacks," which made my whole body feel like it was buzzing, like an electrical feeling almost (very powerful I can really tell when I'm having one) and psychologically I felt very powerful and strong, resulting in me saying stupid things that got me in trouble. I got goosebumps and chills up my spine and had a sort of distorted self image of myself. This is part of why I think bipolar is a myth. Someone could be really unhappy about their life situation (not clinically depressed), have a recurring adrenaline imbalance (brain produces adrenaline innapropriately from the stress), become what the DSM calls manic from the adrenaline, and then come back down. Adrenaline has addictive qualities to it, once you know how it feels sometimes you can't not get adrenalized. It took me years to come down off of it, I probably got addicted to it in adolescence when my hormones were already really crazy. When I was 14, it felt good at first but then it happened every day, and I couldn't control it. I started to freak out. I didn't know that I was high on adrenaline and that that was the reason for my disoriented thoughts. When I got past 16 things got dramatically better which I think can only be attributed to puberty being completed. I was much calmer and clear headed.
  21. Not happen primarily in women. It might make more sense as a disorder if the symptoms weren't so specific to women is what I'm saying. I know what you're saying, and there are even a lot of differences in the way men and women think as far as brain structure. This can lead to some so called mental disorders occuring a little more often in either gender (there are not many pathological disorders that occur primarily or exclusively in either sex unless they involve private parts). ADD occurs a lot more often in boys than girls and OCD occurs slightly more often in women than men but you'll see that all the disorders that make the most sense (not saying I'm convinced at this point), such as schizophrenia and bipolar, occur about equal in both genders. So, you're saying that if a woman has too much testosterone, she's unhealthy? This is simply not true from what I know. She might be hairy and unattractive, but she's not unhealthy. Also, sometimes you might not even know if a woman has too much testosterone. There are women with a testosterone imbalance who are very feminine and pretty. It is likely that women who produce a lot of boys have a lot of testosterone, but it's not proven. It is more obvious when men have too much estrogen, especially with their behavior, and they'll probably have man boobs. So, I'm not sure it's unhealthy as much as it is undesirable.
  22. Forgive me if I'm citing research that doesn't mean anything, but bodies have been weighed the second before they've died and come out lighter when they pass away. That is, the bodies are all the exact same amount lighter, I'm not sure how much though. This probably doesn't mean anything, but it is a bit hard to explain.
  23. I was not diagnosed with borderline (in fact I technically wasn't diagnosed with anything), but I sneaked a look at his notes and I saw the word everywhere, with a lot of little abbreviations and things related to the medication he was trying to push that I didn't understand. All I could gather was, is that he thought it was possible that I had it and was just keeping a record in his notes to use in the future. I actually do have a lot of the features of a person with that so called thing, especially when I was that age. I could never be sure about my plans for the future (which is quite normal IMO), had binge eating or disordered eating, identity problems (ie. I would act like I was a different person every day), would do the opposite of what people say, irritability, benign short lasting delusions (which is a symptom of so called BPD), and excessive anger towards family members (verbal). I was very angry at my parents for not listening to what was going on (wouldn't believe me when I said a teacher was being abusive), and I guess that's what brought on the emotional disturbance. I was also resistant of treatment exactly the way a BPD person would be, although manic people are as well (but in his opinion, I wasn't manic when I got out of the hospital, so I guess that's why he was investigating personality disorders). But the main hallmark of a BPD person is their extreme depression, and I don't have depressive tendencies at all (although I did have some symptoms back then). I was actually legally forced to see the psychiatrist, and part of his excuse for medicating me was that I wouldn't talk to him or the therapist. They contacted DSS and threatened to take me away if my parents didn't give it to me. My therapist was an evil, nasty, ugly bitch that I hated and she gave off a vibe that infuriated me (and it turned out she was friends with the principal of the school I went to). I didn't really understand the purpose of therapy, so all I did was talk about random unrelated things and how angry I was about what the people in the hospital did to me. I also foolishly told her that I wanted to sue the hospital (the psychiatrist I was seeing was the head of the adolescent wing). The psychiatrist wasn't even going to give me medication before that. I didn't feel comfortable talking to the doctor, because he of course had forced me to do a lot of uncomfortable things that I thought were irrational (like telling my problems in "group therapy" *rolleyes*) so naturally I just made up whatever random crap I could think of to pass the time. Later it started to become a game and I tried to make his job as hard as possible. The problem was that it wasn't exactly a good time to understand what was going on around me so I could say the right thing. It was not just sleepiness, the yawning almost became like a sort of tic because I started to do it when I wasn't even tired. Yeah, that certainly is odd, that's right. I'm not sure of the exact hormone (I found it a long time ago but can't find it any more) but dopamine transmitters do play an important role in memory and problem solving (I also found that I was very very unorganized when on that pill compared to when I was off it). When you're giving it to someone who doesn't even have a so called imbalance exactly and it's getting rid of the neurotransmitters needed, then yeah, I don't see why it doesn't make sense for them to have trouble functioning. And I'm not just making this up, it is very exact. When I was on the medication, I was making F's and D's in algebra and the second I went off it, I bumped right up to A's and B's. I had so much trouble at the beginning of the semester and the very people who were shoving it down my throat to make me "better" were actually making life harder for me. They don't even know all the harmful effects of SSRI's and don't have to report them anyway. The only things that doctors know about the side effects is what other doctors choose to report about them basically. I kind of wonder how people who work in psychiatry could possibly defend the existance of BPD as a disease brought on by malfunctioning in the brain, because if it was it wouldn't only occur in women. The defining characteristic of BPD is emotional unstableness which the overwelming majority of men do not have at all (even mentally ill ones). So how can they even investigate a cluster of symptoms that basically only occur in women as being a disease with a specific cause? That doesn't make sense to me at all. There are differences in the way women and men think, but I doubt a so called chemical imbalance could only occur in one gender. Btw, I am aware that there are rare cases of it in men, but if it were to be a real disease it would clearly show an extremely overwelming dominance in women.
  24. I can sort of agree with most of what you are saying. I only think consumerism is bad when people simply become drones and lose all sense of taste. Really it's not the consumerism that's the problem, but the lack of taste and self control in people.
  25. Growing up, I certainly had a second rate mind and adopted mystical ideas, but I think this is because I was opressed by others for my selfishness. It is a bit hard to explain, but I isolated and separated myself mentally from other people, thus making it hard to notice details and think logically. From childhood on I definitely had a strong aversion to doing things because I was told and was skeptical and truth obssessed. I also had little concern for others. For example, with every childhood friend I had, I had no tolerance for what they wanted to do, I would only suggest what I wanted to do and thus I was happier playing by myself. I would look down on people often and think of them as dirty, gross, weird, retarded etc. When I read Anthem in 9th grade it was like validating these feelings. I started pondering about why there is no God, why people don't like things because they're the best, and why it never makes sense for someone else to decide what's best for you. I once told a shrink at that age that therapy doesn't help me because I don't need someone else to tell me what I should do or what they think I am. The only way someone can be truly helped is to think about what is really best for themselves and what they want. I think someone's ability to be objectivist has to do with a variety of factors including the ability to control their emotions, cognitive processes (both learned and inborn), and personality or "sense of life," as Ayn called it. There are plenty of people with average intelligence whose values naturally correspond with objectivism (doesn't have the ability to write 1,000 page books or come up with something original, but has a healthy cognitive ability and self reliant psychological tendencies). It is also worth noting that it is very difficult for some people to go aganist what they've been taught but they are not necessarily lacking in cognitive ability. In fact, I think these people are often the ones who tend to become religious or political fanatics because they have to go to extremes to convince themselves that what they believe or do is moral. Their cognition tells them it's not quite right, so they try to justify it by being extreme.
×
×
  • Create New...