Mind Reading

We are predisposed, as pattern-seeking mammals, to find "causes" for things we can't explain. That's why ignorance creates anxiety in human beings. It's this anxiety that drives us to find the answers we need. The human mind prefers a made up answer to no answer, because it's better to assume that something is attacking you, than wait and potentially get killed. Survival is more important than knowledge. Although this trait has been of great evolutionary advantage to us, it can get in the way of long-term relationships and many other aspects of human life where predictability plays a necessary role. Here is the definition of Mind Reading:

You conclude, incorrectly and without considering other alternatives or testing your assumptions, that you understand how another person is thinking and what their reasons and motives are for taking a particular action. This is an example of the Fundamental Attribution Error where you incorrectly attribute an action or intent to an agent. One example of this is drawing a negative conclusion in the absence of supporting information. Focusing only on evidence that supports a negative position, while neglecting to consider alternative positive explanations is the fallacy of not considering representative evidence.

First of all, why would you want to know what someone's reasons are for behaving in a certain way? Ultimately, it's the consequences of their actions that affect you, but predictability is also important, especially if you should interact with this person on a regular basis. And you can't estimate the predictability of their behavior solely based on consequences, because there are external factors that may have been a major influence, as well. In short, we need context in order to more objectively judge a person's behavior and estimate its probable occurrence in the future. Accurate judgment helps us prevent bad consequences and maximize good consequences. Hence, it is in fact very useful, in the long term, to know why people do what they do, in case you plan on interacting with them on a regular basis.

People fear the unknown. If they lack context, they make shit up. Optimists assume you didn't say "Hello", because you didn't see them. Pessimists assume you hate them. Some who try to be objective consider both options and can't decide which one they should go for, which makes them even more anxious. They're like, "It's more probable that he didn't see me, but what if he does hate me"? So clearly popular cognitive psychology fails in their approach of solving the issue of Mind Reading. They suggest that for every negative example that pops up in your head, you should think of a counter example; a "rational response". To me, this is simply a waste of time and energy.

Here is my approach: when in doubt, think about whether it's within your control to find an explanation. You can't know everything, because you are a limited human being. If it's not up to you, don't bother thinking about all the possible options. If you don't know why somebody did something, and you have no evidence to back up any claim, you can simply accept that you don't know, and ask the person why he did it as soon you get a chance. Embrace your ignorance. Let go of religion. What do you want? Made up knowledge, or real knowledge? The fact of the matter is, you don't know. Being aware of the context is useful for maximizing predictability. When the context is false, the whole point is lost. If I want to know how rockets are constructed, I can think of a hundred possibilities, and they'll probably all be wrong, because I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm better off trusting the latter, even though there's a possibility that they could lie to me.

There's this potato chips factory. You felt sick after eating their chips. What happened? You have no access to the product ingredients, and there's no way to know what's inside. If you assume that the ingredients are poisonous and you turn out to be wrong, you might miss out on some great tasting product. On the other hand, if you assume that the product is healthy, you may get sick again. You could assume both are plausible options, and take no action. The owner of the factory claims that there is nothing unhealthy about his product's ingredients. You can't fully trust the owner of the factory, because he has the incentive to sell his product; he wants to advertise it to you. There's good advertising, and there's deceptive advertising.

When you have no evidence against the owner's claims, you have no other choice but to either reject the product, or initially trust the owner. It's more probable that you get the truth from him, than from your blind assumptions. If it turns out that he lied to you, you could simply choose to no longer trust the owner and discontinue consuming his product. Trick me once, shame on you, trick me twice, shame on me. So did the owner lie to you, or was it something else that negatively influenced your health? You initially trust him. Later on, you decide to buy potato chips from his company again. Same thing happens - you catch diarrhea. Well now you really have a reason to doubt the owner's credibility. You buy his product one more time - diarrhea. Now you have enough evidence to make your own judgment about the ingredients, and conclude that there's something in these potato chips that is detrimental to your health.

The factory manufactures a product, the same way a person's brain provokes his actions. When you interact with someone, his behavior is the product that you consume. The ingredients of the product represent the person's thoughts that lead to his actions. And if you want to make sure the product is good, you should know what the ingredients are. Overall, you shouldn't fully trust the owner. Listen to his opinion, but ultimately trust your own judgment, depending on how his product makes you feel, and also considering his previous products. So if someone often hurts you in a certain way, but he claims his intentions are good, he is lying that his product is harmless, because objectively speaking, his product does seem to poison you.

Sometimes a company would produce many products, but only a few would be bad. It's up to you to decide whether you want to boycott the company, or simply choose to avoid those specific harmful items. Sometimes compromise is better than boycott. If the company overall produces superior quality products, it will not be a beneficial decision to refuse their services because of a few bad apples.

Ultimate Success Recipe

I heard you wanted to lead a successful happy life. Well, I've got some good news and I've got some bad news for you. The good news is that I have the secret right here with me. The bad news is, it burns. Wanna be rich and happy? Well fuck, if you ain't already, the chances are, you won't be. See if you meet the requirements:

1. Have happy parents.
You need to have a pair of well-informed loving parents who would give you the proper upbringing that you need in order to grow up and be a strong confident individual. Hey, if your parents were unhappy, you're pretty much screwed, son. If that's the case, you'll never be happy, unless you have the capacity to change your way of thinking, or in other words, reprogram your brain circuits. Most people are already too brainwashed to be deprogrammed, so they lack that capacity.

2. Have rich parents.
Your parents should be wealthy, period. Otherwise, you're pretty much stuck being a slave to the wage. Most business owners owe it to their parents, who owe it to their parents, who owe it to their parents, etc. Aristocracy has never stopped existing. If you lack the capital, taking advice from successful people like Donald Trump seems rather useless; it would only give you false hopes, because you'll never be Donald Trump. He is the product of generations of success. Education won't get you anywhere, either. If life didn't teach you a lesson, do you expect a goddamn institution to do that for you? That's just naive. And you're willing to pay top dollar to those who exploit your innocent hopes. If you're born poor, the odds are, you'll die poor, unless you get really really lucky.

3. Have good health.
So now you have a pair of rich loving parents. That still doesn't guarantee you a happy life. Excruciating pain and frequent visits to the hospital kind of ruin it. Therefore, you need to have good genes; no predispositions to nasty illnesses! Eating healthily would surely benefit you, and it's totally within your control.

In conclusion, let me paraphrase this for you: no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, if you lack these three predispositions, you are most likely to fail. But hey, it's not the end of the world. Have fun with your failures. Being a loser can be an art, too. Risk is your best friend. You have nothing to lose anyway, so why not take risks? You might get lucky. Anything out of the ordinary.

Let me finish with a quote from one of my favorite movie characters, Two-Face Harvey Dent: One man is born a hero, his brother a coward. Babies starve, politicians grow fat. Holy men are martyred, and junkies grow legion. Why? Why, why, why, why, why? Luck! Blind, stupid, simple, doo-dah, clueless luck!

Virtue Vs Loneliness

In this post, I claim that if you are not satisfied with your current friends, you have to ditch them in order to find better ones. Well, I don't think so anymore, and here is why...

Because humans are social animals, it would be irrational for one to choose loneliness over virtue. A rational human being would always seek to satisfy their human needs. When you try to ignore your needs, you are trying to be more than human; you are ignoring your genetic limitations. You become a believer, and you are no better than a religious person. When you begin to value virtue more than you value yourself, you become an idealist. Moral standards are there to help you pick who to associate with. Moral standards are there to help you socialize. If they become a handicap to your social life, they are no longer serving their purpose, but rather working against it. It's like a person whose knowledge of nutrition is making him starve to death.

If you can't get what you want, you can at least settle for what's best on the market. You don't have to lower your moral standards in order to have friends; just keep a clear mind, always be on the lookout for someone better. Don't try to fool yourself that your flawed friends are perfect; be aware of their moral flaws, be honest about your fundamental disagreements with them. That way you won't get trapped in a Master-Slave relationship.

If you state your preferences and you're clear about what you like and dislike about each other, you're going to have a stress-free relationship with that person. Sometimes new friends are not compatible with old friends. If you can't have both at the same time, then prioritize. It doesn't matter how long you've been friends for. You don't say that about your old TV when you buy a new flat-screen HDTV. Keep sentimentality out of the way, look for value. Who is more valuable to you? Whose company do you enjoy more? Who do you feel more comfortable with? Who provides more predictability to you? If you find yourself torn between two (groups of) people, you'd better make that choice and reject one side. The choice should be between your current friends and new people, not between the former and loneliness.

Finally Free

This is it! I am finally living the dream.
I'm independent, I pay cheap rent, and I eat great food.
How did I achieve this? Integrity.

My mother believes in magic. When two people are related, she believes that they magically love each other, no matter how much they differ. So I used that against her. I said to her, "You're my mom, therefore you should love me". The truth of the matter is, my mother and I disagree on fundamental principles. If anything, we should hate each other. So why the fuck did I want to depend on someone who's supposed to hate me? Remaining in the "son" position meant that I had to be a slave and constantly manipulate her in order to get what I want.

Property is that which is under one's control. When you surrender your responsibilities to somebody else, you become their property, because they have control over your life. Children are property of their parents. I wrote a Family Manifesto long time ago, where I claimed that parents are obligated to take care of and share property with their children. How manipulative of me. Who's to say that one shouldn't abandon their property?

Children remain property until one of the following things occurs:
1. They acquire enough experience and skills to take care of themselves.
2. They choose to abandon their parents.
3. Their parents choose to abandon them.

You'll never guess what I did. It's the best choice I've ever made. I decided to become my mother's employee. My job? I'm a domestic worker. Where do I live now? I am my mother's roommate. I live in the living room, I sleep on the couch. The rent is cheap, it's covered by my wage. And so is the food. I no longer depend on my mother's benevolence, and I don't have to manipulate her anymore. Instead, I just have to complete the tasks in my daily planner. My work schedule? 3 hours a day, at most. I feel so much more confident and independent. No more pressure to find a job. No more feeling like a fuckup. Now I live with integrity. I am finally my own.

Dethalbum II Review

After a decent second season of Metalocalypse, the notorious DETHKLOK are back with a new eardrum-popping album. Yes, the writer of this article no longer has hearing capabilities, for his ears bled to death. Nathan Explosion's voice has been destroyed from drinking and fatigue, which only increased the impact of brutality that the new songs bring. His voice is now weaker and raspier. Reminds you of something? Yes, this is the sound of death coming closer to you.

D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DIE!

The [adult swim] network recently aired the TV premiere of DETHKLOK's latest video, "Bloodlines". Babies all around the world woke up weeping, with cockroaches coming out of their orifices (including anus, urethra, and vagina). Old people shat their pants, resulting in deadly colon ruptures. Women gave birth to malformed freaks that bit off their mothers' private parts. The fans who were watching lost their sight. Their imagination started projecting horrific hallucinations of an altered childhood. Dads mutating into demons, while having intercourse with their mothers. Grandmothers cooking their husbands' sex organs. The survivors are few, and they are chosen to help the Antichrist demolish the world in 2012.

LET NO ONE SURVIVE!

What's next after "Bloodlines"? 11 more tracks of rapture. Skwisgaar's strings cut through the speakers as he violently punishes his guitar with an angry fist of death. "Laser Cannon Deth Sentence" is pretty catchy, and it's probably the most memorable song on this album. The chorus of "Dethsupport" is awesome. The whole song is epic. Ever since Deathalbum II got released, the death rate of senior citizens has been steadily and quickly growing. Coincidence?

PULL THE PLUG! PULL THE PLUG!!

Most DETHKLOK fans had to go through an electro-shock training program in order to learn the title of "I Tamper With The Evidence At The Murder Site Of Odin" by heart. Half of them died during the educational process. The other half managed to learn it, but after reciting the title aloud, their hearts exploded. Great song. "Murmaider II: The Water God" is not nearly as awesome as the original. It's rather dull and boring. The rest of the songs are pretty much filler. Dethalbum II is a self-destructive repertoire of sinking talent in the depths of Hell. How does this critic rate the album? Well he's already blind and deaf. The last thing he screamed into the recorder, before cutting off his tongue, was "666 out of 10".

Brain Modification

To understand this post, you might have to read this first: I Speak, Therefore I Am

This body is seemingly conducting an experiment. He will probably avoid talking and thinking in the first-person for the rest of the week, also keeping in mind the E-Prime model. That would perhaps lead to his better understanding of his inner world. This individual already feels more powerful and independent. His sense of self has been partly under public control, which has prevented him in a way from fully indulging his body. The personal pronouns (I am) had handicapped him to accurately validate and express his internal experiences, because these words have been wired in his brain circuit to require external factors that should allow the internal states to be validated. If those factors (behavioral cues in people) are not recognized, then the internal experience is rendered invalid and thus the individual is prevented from having the thought, for instance, "I am angry", because "I am" is only valid if the external factors are also met.

if (me_anger && !authoritative_figure){i_am_angry = true}else{i_am_angry = false}

Now that Sparx speaks of himself in the third-person, he finds it easier to validate and express his internal experiences, because he's already used to looking for, and recognizing, the tell tale signs of others. So this is a great way for him to get around the old habits and rewire his circuits.

if (sparx_anger) {he_is_angry = true; i_am_angry = he_is_angry}

One does no longer need to mind-read other people, because he's not dependent on their states anymore, hence he becomes less paranoid. Another great advantage of speaking in the third-person is that one gets to see things more objectively, which leads to a greater extent of empirical thinking. One is nothing more than an organism, after all. There is no soul. There is no spiritual "self". The self is the body.

Debunking Perfectionism

One becomes a perfectionist when one has a wrong idea about control. Perfectionists believe they can be perfect, which is like believing in God: it's a false belief. Perfectionists reject the emotion of shame, because shame reminds them of the truth that they can't be perfect, just like religious people reject scientific facts. When perfectionists experience shame, they become incredibly defensive and agitated. They are terrified. That's why they fear failure so much, and that's why many of them become procrastinators. There are three main beliefs that perfectionists hold: "I procrastinate, because I fear risk. I fear risk, because I fear failure. I fear failure, because I fear shame". Let's destroy the onion of perfectionism, peel by peel.

Belief: I procrastinate, because I fear risk.
Update to: Procrastination is risky.

Procrastination eats up your time and increases the probability of failure. The more time you waste doing nothing, the less time you'll have to complete your tasks. It might become impossible for you to complete a project, if you simply run out of time. But hey, you know what? Risk is good for you.

Belief: I fear risk, because I fear failure.
Update to: Risk provides value and prevents disappointment.

When you fail at something that you believe you can do, or something that you've already done a couple of times before, the disappointment can be painful, because of your positive expectations. When you risk, however, failure becomes a very probable outcome. If you expect to fail, you can't really disappoint yourself. Success becomes a pleasant surprise. As soon as success stops being a surprise, failure becomes less probable, which acts as a reminder that the bar can be further raised, in order to minimize your disappointment.

Taking on a challenging task means that you will do your best to do the job by fully utilizing your existing abilities. Inevitably, you will also learn more and improve your skills, as you fail. The burden of expecting to complete the task successfully, on the other hand, decreases your incentive to try your hardest, and increases the chances of doing a sloppy job. You would be so ashamed, if you failed like that. But guess what, shame is good for you.

Belief: I fear failure, because I fear shame.
Update to: Shame provides satisfaction.

Shame is the emotion which reminds us that we are limited, for we are only human beings, and we can never be perfect. If you ignore shame and forget that you are limited, you're in for an endless frustrating strive for perfection, which will mess up your priorities. You'll be like a bug trying to fly out the window, not realizing that the window is closed. If only the fly could discover that it was limited by a piece of glass, it would prioritize on finding another way out.

Perfectionism requires manipulation. Success is not solely dependent on you; it depends on external factors, as well, no matter how hard you try. That's why the strive for perfection makes you want to manipulate others in order to always succeed. Objectively speaking, you're either gonna do a good job, or you're gonna fail. The best thing you can do is do your best. This is the difference between "I want to succeed" and "I MUST succeed".

Perfectionism sets impossible goals. It's one thing to say "I must do my best", which is within your control. It's an entirely different thing to say "I must make it perfect". "Perfect" here is any standard that you think MUST be satisfied. This would result in a disappointment, no doubt. The fact of the matter is, you have no full control over the outcome, because you are only a limited human being.

Vague goals create unrealistic expectations - When you don't know what you want, but you want it to be awesome, there's a high probability that you'll be disappointed. "Awesome" here is a subjective arbitrary ideal that doesn't have any specific guidelines and requirements.

The Journey

I've been treating self-help like a subject in school, and happiness like the high grade that I strive to acquire, in order to not get my parents angry at me. I was acting out as my own parent. I've been working through my issues, not because I wanted to, but because I feared getting angry at myself, in case I failed. My journey has been fear-driven. Only recently did I discover the paradox of my attitude. How am I to become happy, if I'm constantly fearing failure? Failure is unpredictable, which means I am in a constant state of expectation and anxiety, because I don't know when and how it's gonna hit me. That, of course, makes me frustrated, and takes me back to managing my anxiety through different forms of dissociation.

I've been treating my goal of becoming psychologically healthy like something that I MUST achieve, before I can do anything else with my life. Happiness as a means to an end. A prerequisite for leading a productive life. This was a rather paralyzing strategy. Happiness is a vague goal, unlike school grades, so it would be pretty hard for me to estimate when it's been achieved. Whenever I was miserable, I perceived it as a "fuck you". "You're so weak, you'll never be able to get over your issues, no matter how hard you try", my inner bully would say.

How am I to become happy, if I'm not already happy with pursuing my happiness? You can't be happy unless you're happy. If my failures make me feel miserable, there's no way to proceed further. It's a Catch-22. So from now on, I go beyond this bullshit. From now on, I look up to failing, and I forget about succeeding, because failure is more probable than success. I want to fail on my journey towards happiness. I want to fail as many times as I have to. Happiness is not a destination, anyway. It's a state of being. I can be happy with having issues, and still work towards solving them. It's a want, not a need. I don't need to be perfect to enjoy life.

This week, I'll do an exercise. I'll teach myself to get used to failure. I'll take on impossible tasks and try to complete them, knowing that I can't. Every day, I'll set a different goal and destroy it. No more safe zones. Only risks and challenges, at least for a week. To be continued.

The False-Self

I've been wrongly addressing the false-self as "the ego" in a couple of my past publications, which might have confused a lot of readers, so I think I owe you an explanation. Here are a couple of quotes that draw a pretty good picture of what the false-self is like. John Bradshaw:

"Since one's inner self is flawed by shame, the experience of self is painful. To compensate, one develops a FALSE SELF in order to survive. The false self forms a defensive mask which distracts from the pain and the inner loneliness of the true self. After years of acting, performing and pretending - one loses contact with who one really is. One's true self is numbed out."

enotes.com:

"The false self, in Donald Winnicott's developmental schema, refers to certain types of false personalities that develop as the result of early and repeated environmental failure, with the result that the true self-potential is not realized, but hidden."

Donald Winnicott:

"When the person has to comply with external rules, such as being polite or following social codes, then a False self is used. The False self is a mask of the false persona that constantly seeks to anticipate demands of others in order to maintain the relationship. If the mother is "not good-enough," she is unable to sense and respond optimally to her infant's needs and instead, substitutes her own gestures with which the infant complies. This repeated compliance becomes the ground for the earliest mode of the False self existence. The compliant False Self reacts to environmental demands and the infant seems to accept them. Through this False Self the infant builds up a false set of relationships, and by means of introjections even attains a show of being real, so that the child may grow up to be just like mother, nurse, aunt, brother, or whoever at the time dominates the scene. The primary function of the False self is defensive, to protect the True self from threat, wounding, or even destruction. This is an unconscious process: the False self comes to be mistaken for the true self to others, and even to the self. Even with the appearance of success, and of social gains, there will also be unreality feelings, the sense of not really being alive, that happiness doesn't, or can't really exist."

Sam Vaknin:

"The false-self serves as a decoy, it "attracts the fire". It is a proxy for the True Self. It is tough as nails and can absorb any amount of pain, hurt and negative emotions. By inventing it, the child develops immunity to the indifference, manipulation, sadism, smothering, or exploitation - in short: to the abuse - inflicted on him by his parents (or by other Primary Objects in his life). It is a cloak, protecting him, rendering him invisible and omnipotent at the same time.

The false-self causes the narcissist to re-interpret certain emotions and reactions in a flattering, socially acceptable, light. The narcissist may, for instance, interpret fear as compassion. If the narcissist hurts someone he fears (e.g., an authority figure), he may feel bad afterwards and interpret his discomfort as empathy and compassion. To be afraid is humiliating - to be compassionate is commendable and earns the narcissist social commendation and understanding (narcissistic supply)."

echo.me.uk:

"The false Self is a protection mechanism against attack from the outside world. Narcissistic people will do whatever they can to ensure people see them as they see themselves, i.e. special. Some focus on materialistic things ensuring they are seen in the best clothes at the right places and driving new or expensive cars etc. even if they can't afford to live that way. Some Narcissists in particular will focus on the perfection of their bodies.They will want to impress others with stories of their accomplishments; new jobs, wage rises, expensive holidays, their sexual conquests etc.

On a personal interaction level they may offer to put themselves out to help you in your work, treat you like a Princess/Prince, taking you out and buying you gifts, complimenting you, making seemingly creative one off gestures to show they care or have thought about what you would like, treating you as a valued friend, spending lots of time with you etc. They make you feel special and at this point you are special to them, not for who you are but because they see you as an extension of themselves. This view of you is known as "Inflation".

Narcissistic people do not make these gestures selflessly; they behave this way to feel good about themselves which is accomplished through how you feel about them. The positive feelings (and at times negative ones) that they are in essence trying to extract from you are a bid to confirm that they are important or special."

More on Masters & Slaves

This is a follow-up to Masters are Slaves.

The slave compromises her standards in the face of her master. The slave is easily influenced by her master and becomes a lot like him when she's in his company. The slave compromises her standards in order to feed her false-self. The false-self constantly wants to be in control, and when the slave gets in a role that emulates her master, that's her way of being in control; to be manipulative, to trick her master that she is like him, and then steal his trust and use him for personal gains. But in this way, the slave becomes dependent on her master, because she could not fulfill these personal desires without him.

The master's false-self, on the other hand, wants to believe that the slave is just like him. "We like people who are similar to us" (Byrne, 1971).The master's real self deep down knows that this is not true, and the real self knows that the slave is fake. But the ego's wishful thinking mechanism keeps the illusion alive. When the slave sometimes breaks down out of character, her master wants to "fix her" back to "normal", for fear of losing such a wonderful friend who is just like him (or so he badly wants her to be). The master becomes dependent on his slave because he wants to keep this illusion of true friendship alive, he wants to know somebody like him.

The master is more vulnerable than the slave, because the slave can always leave him for another master. The slave's true feelings are not involved, because she's constantly playing a friend-role, which dissociates her from reality. The slave's burden is keeping the role alive and consistent. The master's feelings, on the other hand, can be badly hurt once the slave leaves him. The master had a hope that was destroyed. The slave is usually very different from her master, and believes she is morally superior, which makes her resent her master and find his company unpleasant. The opposite could also happen - the slave believes that she is morally inferior. She hates herself, and/or she envies her master, strongly wishing to become like him. She irrationally idolizes him and models her behavior after him. More on this here: Our Greedy Director

It's hard for the slave to leave her master, once she doesn't find him profitable anymore. It will be a battle. The slave will have to lead a long war. A single battle won't be enough. The master is used to seeing his slave as a mirror of himself. Once the slave started behaving naturally, the master would try his best to get her back into her slave role, because the master badly needs a friend who understands him. He will speculate that his slave is just having a bad day, or that she is mad at him for some reason. The master will become paranoid and cautious. All of these types of behavior would only handicap the slave from being herself and showing her real skin. She would have to avoid her master and completely ignore him. The master can't even hate his slave, because he will always remember her as the good old friend that suddenly changed into another person.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming, or NLP for short, is the teaching of temporarily becoming someone's "mirror image" in order to get what you want from them. It's great for short-term success if you're a car salesman, manager, supervisor, or whatever... But my advice is, don't ever use NLP on people who you plan on meeting more than once. It will set you up for a Master-Slave Relationship from the very beginning. NLP does not empower you over anyone, it just makes you their slave.

To all the people who I have wrongly manipulated: You don't know me. The Me you know is not the real me. I tell you what you want to hear because I am sick of pointless debating. The more time passes by, the stronger I believe that people don't want to change their habits. Why do I debate when I can simply nod and change the topic instead. Or worse, I can empathize with you and see the world through your eyes, thus, agreeing with what you are saying. You only see what I want you to see. Too many excuses for what is actually pretty simple. The real issue is, and has always been, for me to be able to state my preferences. Instead, I adapt to your preferences and you discover a person with seemingly similar preferences, which is nothing more than a lie. I am sorry, and if I have blocked you for no apparent reason, now you know why.

Love for Favor-Rapists

If you love someone and you want the best for them, if their happiness is as important to you as your happiness, then you would want to constantly favor-rape them. If your loved one lets you favor-rape her, she would be doing you a favor. In return, if she loves you back, she would want to favor-rape you. You let her do that, because you owe it to her. Basically, you owe her a permission to favor-rape you, because she lets you favor-rape her. And vice versa. This way reciprocity is still being met and a Master-Slave relationship can be avoided.

I really don't understand the concept of long-distance "love", as it doesn't make sense to me how one's happiness can be important to me if we are not together. The lack of physical contact is just killing any kind of sympathy for me. As long as I am with her, I act as one of her most influential external stimuli, to which she responds the strongest. Similarly, she's my strongest stimulus at that time. So whatever she experiences with me, I feel partly responsible for. Her happiness is important to me while both of us spend time together, because I can't be happy around her if she's suffering.

It's something like a mutual symbiosis: A symbiotic relationship between individuals of different species in which both individuals benefit from the association. In this type of symbiosis, both organisms of different species rely on one another for nutrients, protection and other life functions, hence, they are usually found living in close proximity. You become a symbiotic creature. Once you part your ways, you don't depend on that person anymore, and each becomes their own individual once again. Once you are physically not together, you are no longer a symbiotic creature, and the responsibility for your significant other disappears.

Until a consensus has been reached on what the couple should do together, if anything, each individual can go on minding their own business without feeling guilty. You can't just BE together without having anything to DO together - that wouldn't be a mutual symbiosis. So it's not only physical closeness that matters in such a relationship. There also needs to be a transaction, a mutual activity.

Let me know if I'm wrong.

Favor-Raped

If you give me help that I didn't ask for, I will stay away from you.
If you steal away my problem, I will get mad at you.

You have cooked food for me and I'm not hungry; plus, I don't like this kind of food. You say you'll get mad at me if I reject your favor. I eat your food and then you say that I owe you 5 bucks for the dinner. You are not a friend, you are not a businessman, you are a thug. If you were a friend, you wouldn't expect anything in return for your favor. If you were a businessman, you would make sure that I want your product, and you wouldn't force me to take it. But no, you are what you call "an altruist". You are so "generous".

If you give me help that I didn't ask for, it's me who's doing you a favor. You should be grateful that I accept your territorial invasion, and I don't ask for anything in return. How are you invading my personal space, you ask? Forcing anything on anyone equals violence. A man raped a woman. She was a lonely woman, very shy. She had been looking for sexual encounters to no avail. But when she got violated, she didn't enjoy that specific sexual encounter at all.

to favor-rape: to force an unsolicited favor upon someone.
favor-rapist: a person who favor-rapes people.

He/she who favor-rapes could also enter a Master-Slave relationship, especially if their favors have actually been helpful. The more I permit you to solve my problems, the more dependent I become on you. I let you make decisions for me. You become my Master, as you personalize my issues.

Was the master provoked to be a master by the slave? Is it that they care for their slave as much as they care for themselves, because they sees themselves in the slave? If I accept unsolicited favors that I can take advantage of, and I know that thus I am doing a favor to the favor-rapist, I have noticed that the latter gets greater pleasure out of giving things to me. If they later attempt to blackmail me, I indicate that I am fine left alone, and that I don't actually NEED their help in the first place. The slippery slope here is becoming dependent on the favor-rapist and forgetting one's own skills.

What if I don't have those skills? A big favor would be for the favor-rapist to TEACH me those skills. But what if I don't want to learn them, because I am too busy studying other skills? One can't possibly know everything about everything. In this case, I would ask them to use their skills for my benefit. Then it wouldn't be a favor-rape, because I will have asked for their help. I can ask for help and either receive it for free, or pay a price.

Our Greedy Director

Many people work full time as actors under the directing of their false egos. The false-self wants the person to be like somebody else whom it irrationally identifies with. So the person would act and convince himself that he enjoys and approves of things that his real self would actually disapprove of. He would get some sort of momentary pleasure out of his play, but would later regret it and experience guilt or some other painful emotion. The false-self wants the person to adapt to the social environments, no matter what, because the person was raised to tolerate and integrate. Or maybe the person idealizes some sort of an irrational philosophy, and in order to act upon his beliefs, he has to overcome his real self and be an actor.

"I like this", someone says. Okay, how do you like it? Is it that it satisfies your aesthetic preferences, or is it that it represents your values and you find it virtuous? I won't stop repeating that art often portrays the opposite of virtue. We find things humorous or entertaining when they are illogical and/or unusual. So which one is it? Do you like the Nazis because of your support for national socialism, or is it because you support war and murder? Or is it because you are entertained by their uniforms, slogans, and loud explosions? Or maybe it's because you identify with your Nazi uncle, because you think he is very virtuous. You want to be like him and you overcome your critical thinking to satisfy the needs of your false-self. You think you like something for A B and C, but the real reasons turn out to be X Y and Z.

You know you're in a character when you say something and you feel smug about saying it. You know you're in a character when you are in rapport with someone else, and you agree with his irrational point of view, just because you can look at the world through his eyes, like that somehow makes false things more true. You know you're in a character when you feel guilty about not being something that your friend wants you to be. You play a role when you troll somebody but you don't know that you're trolling them. When you look around for people's approval. When you convince yourself that the bad thing you did was awesome, just to dissociate from your rational sense of guilt and shame. You want to be this kickass person who has no feelings because you are a perfectionist who despises everything that you perceive as weak. That's why you identify with imaginary heroes who lack these emotions and you pretend that you are them.

You don't need idols to change your behavior. You need convincing truths.

Shooting Blanks

Talking behind someone's back is like having loaded your gun to kill your enemy, but then shooting at his silhouette target. It's like making a dummy of your evil boss and lashing out your anger at it, just so that you don't lose it tomorrow at work. Your anger is your bullets. Let's say your coworker Dick has a bad habit that really pisses you off, but you're too chicken shit to let him know about it. Instead, you turn to Bob, the colleague who you're better friends with, and you tell him the emotionally-charged story of Dick's disgusting habit and how he should stop doing it. It's like you're a mime fighting the invisible Dick. Could be very entertaining, depending on Bob's taste. And it surely feels great for your false-self, because you get to be a winner in front of an audience, without actually fighting the enemy. You could tell this story to anyone over and over again, and you'll have to keep telling it, unless you got rid of the problem. This is how you become a performer under your false ego's directing. But every time you tell the story, you empty your magazine full of anger, and the next time Dick does that annoying thing, it'll be too late for you to reload and shoot at him, because he'd already be out of range. Best case scenario, you'd have some ammo left, but it won't be enough for the kill. Meaning, you won't be angry enough to take action, because you'll feel like you've already done this before.

That's how you minimize your chances of finding real friends, and instead you surround yourself with enemies. Talking behind a person's back strongly contributes to avoiding the conflict that needs to be resolved. And avoiding the conflict would only lead to a compromise of your personal preferences, and letting the individual invade more of your personal space.

Keep your ammo.

Troll Vs. True Self

Why act like an asshole and troll strangers when you can be yourself and piss off your enemies? Many of your so-called friends are people who you tolerate only because you can't currently replace them with better alternatives; or at least that's what you think.

In order to find better alternatives, you're gonna have to ditch your old friends. Ultimately, their incentive is to keep their relationship with you because they probably gain a lot from you without giving back things that you want. They'll do anything to stop you from replacing them with better friends. The other option is that they actually change their behavior to keep you as a friend, but that's not very likely to happen, because people hate change when it's expected from them to give more than they have already been giving.

Back to the point, there are many friendships that are based on roles, and you have to be in a character to keep them alive. That is, your friend Peter doesn't like you, he likes what you become when you're around him. And you become something else, because you know deep down that he wouldn't tolerate the real you, and you unconsciously conform to his unwritten social norms for fear of losing the relationship. But why would you value such a relationship? Usually, the false-self would make up all kinds of excuses and justifications - "He's very entertaining", "He lends me money", "He's my hero", "He's a great artist", etc. Forget all that bullshit and accept your feelings, instead. There may have been a time when Peter was very fun to hang out with, but things have changed.

If you compromise a relationship with the thought "I don't like hanging out with Peter but I need him for X Y and Z", you're setting yourself up for a master-slave relationship. If you don't like being around him, it will show in one way or another. Most likely it will be expressed in a passive-aggressive behavior. You will become Peter's slave because you use him as a means to X Y and Z, for the price of putting up with him. When you use people as a means to an end, those people become your masters that you emulate in order to get what you want.

Note: Some of my views on this issue have changed. More on that here: Virtue Vs Loneliness

The Art of Manipulation

Art can be presented in the form of a product, or it can be used as a tool to sell other products. I see art as a tool for manipulation of the mind, the same way a scalpel is a tool for manipulation of the flesh. It's good or evil depending on the context. Doctors MUST know how to manipulate a person's physiology to successfully treat them. In a similar way, artists should know how to manipulate the human mind, if they want to avoid unethical actions. Doctors have tools of manipulation, like scalpels, retractors, needles, drugs, etc. The same tools can be effectively used for torture and evil deeds. Even the most powerful, most manipulative persuader, cannot make you do things against your will. What they do is convince you that what they want you to do is what you want to do. It's always your final decision that matters. There is no way to persuade somebody without their consent.

One can be exposed to propaganda without their awareness of it, and that's called indoctrination. A child doesn't have a choice to NOT give consent, because they're entirely dependent on their parents. The external threat of the parents abandoning the child forces the child to give consent. I call this type of manipulation irresponsible, when you take advantage of one's weaknesses to brainwash them. It's not manipulation itself that's the issue, but rather that it's forced upon one. In the case where you depend on somebody else, you choose to comply because it's best for your well-being. So practically, you still give consent because it's the best option for you, compared to the alternatives. If your dependency is forced, the persuader is obviously aggressing against you, and his actions are immoral. But it's not persuasion itself that is evil, but rather it was the manipulator's coercion.

Intimidation is a form of manipulation that might force someone into making a choice, whether a good one, or a bad one. But that's an impractical form of persuasion because the intimidated person won't own the decision, and it wouldn't take them long to change their minds later. Intimidation is most commonly used by con-artists, because they benefit from their victim's short-term confusion. Bad tradesmen also use intimidation to pitch their products, and they often end up not being as successful as the honest merchants.

We see art being used in advertising as a way of promoting different products, people, and ideas. Art has always been a very useful tool for religious nuts to promote their delusional beliefs - the hypnotic church liturgies, the repetitive use of symbolism (with certain symbols serving as anchors), sponsorship of events in the name of god, etc. Art is used in advertising to strengthen commercial brands, catch people's attention, and persuade them to buy products. Not to mention ideological political beliefs and new-age philosophies that are constantly being propagandized by confused artists.

Art as a product in and of itself is not that important, to say the least. Pop music performers take advantage of art as a tool to promote their artistic products and get paid. They want to convince you that their compilation of sounds and words are special, which in 99.99% of the time is not true. So still, at the end of the day, it's the application of art as a tool that makes the difference. Are you an artist, or are you an artister?

Illusion of Bias

I finished my new short film, Illusion of Bias.


Link on Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/5145980
Link on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDZBzXa6BUM&fmt=18
You can see some of the work in progress in my deviantart account:
http://sparxdragon.deviantart.com/gallery/#Illustrations

Inducing Dreams

I can trace back each element of a dream and find out what has influenced me during the day to have that exact element in my dream. Usually it's things that made me wonder or space out; most of all, it's things associated to a dilemma. I'm interested in inducing dreams in others. Why am I interested in this? I simply find it fascinating. To all the ethical faggots who think this is an immoral thing to do: quit reading my blog; I don't care about my reputation, and I don't care about readers. This blog is simply for introspection purposes. I have a curious spirit and I'm not going to allow the social pressure and taboos get in my way of exploring things that capture my interest.

There are three main components that I think are needed for inducing a dream: subject's full attention, their full interest, and an unanswered question. The question itself has to be a thing that the individual can personally relate to. The three elements should be incorporated. In other words, the subject has to be provided with a question, or a dilemma, that is left unresolved. This allocates a small buffer in the subconscious mind, where a search device is on the lookout for anything that might be related to the subject of the question.

The way I explain it is, we've all had this instance of not being able to remember, for example, the title of a movie. Let's say it's a film with Billy Drago and prostitutes. We get in this deep trance state but we simply can't remember the title. Perhaps hours later, we experience this Eureka moment, and we finally recall what it was, because something reminded us of it. The subconscious mind is setting up a search agent with keywords "Billy Drago, Movie, Title, Prostitutes". The search agent constantly compares new input to the keywords and checks if they all have anything in common. The movie title is "Imprint", but you don't remember that yet. You have to print a document for a project, so you click on the "Print" button with your mouse. At the same time, the search device recognizes that the word "print" is related to all of the keywords, and you suddenly remember what the movie title was.

If what we're dealing with is a "Yes/No" dilemma, the unconscious search agent would constantly be on the lookout for more instances that support either of the options, until one of them becomes convincing enough. The Keywords would be "Do X, Yes, No". Each encountered instance supporting the alternative options would be added to a list. If one falls asleep undecided, there's a chance the buffer may still be left open. And we'll tend to see the elements from the listed instances in our dreams.

In order to influence one's dreams, you have to be able to inspire them to open up a buffer in their subconscious mind, and feed them with associations. It would be one or more of these associations that they're gonna see in their dreams. So if Cats and Dogs are related, and you want Chester to dream about Dogs, you have to ask a vague question about Cats; Cats should be important to Chester; and you have to expose Chester to Dogs. Basically it goes like this:

1. SET OBJECTIVE: What do you want the person to see in his dream? Let's say it's Dogs. 2. FIND ASSOCIATIONS: What would the person associate with Dogs? Perhaps Bones, Teeth, and Cats. 3. PICK THE BEST: Pick the association that you think the individual can best relate to, and personalize. Let's say that out of Bones, Teeth, and Cats, you picked Cats. 4. GET FOCUS: Get the person's full attention. 5. PROVIDE THE QUESTION: Ask an ambiguous question, or suggest a dilemma, regarding Cats. This would activate the person's subconscious search agent. Next, change the topic, and leave the question unanswered. 6. SEED: Now, expose the individual to Dogs. This would make the search agent register Dogs as a keyword, right next to Cats, because both things are related.

I'm not sure if this works yet. I'm being merely speculative. In order to test this technique, one must know the dreamer very well. This framework helps for influencing the WHAT, but not the HOW. That is, you can put actors and objects in one's dream, but you can't write the script, itself.

Misunderstood

I can't handle being misunderstood. If somebody assumes the wrong thing about me, I just can't let it go, and it haunts me for days. I think it's the thought that people hate me for who I'm NOT that bothers me the most. They hate me for what they THINK I am, because they are paranoid and delusional. I think I take it personally because I'm supposed to be a communication expert. Frank Luntz says, it's not what you say, it's what people hear. But it's also true that you can't please all of the people all of the time. There will always be someone who's going to shit on you. Still, I get mad when people misinterpret my intentions. When they morally condemn me for being an evil person, they cross the line. I never shame other people and I hate being shamed. I think this is the most destructive way to tell someone that you think they're doing something wrong:

"HEY YOU'RE EVIL AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED. "

Well thanks for letting me know. What am I supposed to do now, punish myself? That was very helpful of you to point out how evil I was. It must feel pretty good that you're not evil like me. It must feel pretty good to point your finger at me and be the morally superior being.

It's absolutely intimidating and bigoted. Why do you have to condemn me if I'm not hurting you in any way? I believe it's hypocritical to claim that you are fighting for other people's rights. What are you, the protector of the Universe? By morally condemning me, you are essentially claiming that I should change. Who are you to tell me how to live my life, if it doesn't affect you in any bad way? Fuck you in the neck, I am not changing for your delusional cause. Helping people... you wanna be like mother Teresa or something? Fuck your hypocrisy, man, I'm sick of moral preaching faggots like you.

You claim that manipulation is evil, and yet you are trying to manipulate me into changing, and manipulate other people's opinions about me. You are like the politician who claims that guns kill people, and threatens people with a gun to prevent them from buying one. What a fucking hypocrite. Fuck you in the neck. You're assuming what is good for other people, instead of focusing on your own preferences. You have no sense of self, because you hate who you are; and you project this by shaming your perceived enemies, who can't live up to your unrealistic irrational standards, that you yourself can't satisfy.

Why is it that I care so much about what strangers think of me? What makes them so important to me? Why do I feel the need to justify myself to such unimportant faggots? This shit makes my life stressful. I can't deal with rejection when I find it to be unjustified. I should be able to accept that people are free to interpret my intentions as they wish, and take responsibility for the consequences of their misinterpretations. I'm open to advice.

Miscommunication

I'm going to explain my theory of miscommunication in simpler terms, and provide more examples, because I feel like miscommunication is the root of all hostility. I believe that most people have good or neutral intentions. But everyone has their own filters, and interprets things in different ways. And because people have insecurities, they sometimes get paranoid, and interpret things the wrong way. They assume bad intentions from the other side, and they become hostile and defensive, which then reflects back at them. In other words, they enter the Game.

The Game is a social situation where Winning or Losing is assumed to occur, and empathy is blocked away. If you get caught up in the Game, you've already lost. It's a back and forward play with no productive outcome, just like the Master-Slave relationships. The Game is not about coming to terms; it's about proving Them wrong. It's not about you being happy, it's about Them being unhappy. It's not about being honest and vulnerable, it's about being tough and strategic. It's a mechanism that feeds one's false-self but provides no real value in the long run.

People have unwritten rules about communication, mostly based on reciprocity. The perfect communication is the one where the desires of both interlocutors are met. You give me what I want, I give you what you want. Miscommunication occurs when at least one of the conversational partners cease to receive the desired feed. A variety of emotions would indicate that this has happened: anxiety, fear, boredom, frustration, anger, shame, guilt, or sadness.

There is, however, a type of communication that does not require reciprocity: Donation. Favors and gifts are one-sided transactions of preferred content that demand nothing in return. Gifts are material, favors are non-material (free services). To reject a donation, or to refuse donating, are both perfectly acceptable and non-offensive behaviors. In the former case, because you don't find the gesture preferable; hence, it's not really a favor nor a gift. In the second case, because you don't owe anybody a favor. Don't mistake donation for restitution - the latter is a way to make up for a lack of reciprocity. Make sure you clarify whether you are asking or being asked for a favor or restitution.

Individuals prefer different kinds of communication. Depending on their psychological state, people might look for one thing or the other, as the preferred feedback in a conversation. Some people prefer to talk a lot, others prefer to listen. Some prefer to debate, others like to talk about agreeable topics. Some appreciate discussing relevant issues, others prefer talking about irrelevant bullshit. You can never know, everybody's different. I call this factors "feed submodalities". Here is a full list of them:

Logical: feedback/no feedback.
Verbal: agreeable/disagreeable, relevant/irrelevant, acceptable/offensive, valuable/useless.
Physiological: congruent/incongruent, matching/mismatching, close/away, loud/quiet, low/high, fast/slow, intonation. Physiological submodalities are about one's body language. A person's body language is incongruent when it contradicts their verbal message. A matching body language is one that is similar to your interlocutor's body language.

Asking a question automatically presupposes that an honest answer is preferred. Otherwise one wouldn't even want to ask the question in the first place. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the content of the answer is preferable. It's the answer itself that has to be preferable, or in other words, it has to be honest. Basically, you're obliged to say the truth, even if it's horribly painful.

There are three main types of miscommunication that I have discovered: Unwanted Feedback, Vicious Cycle, and Dishonest Feedback. Let's have homosexuals Bob and Alan talking at the coffee table, and give out examples for each type of miscommunication:

Unwanted Feedback: Alan says, "Hey Bob, your hair looks great today". Bob is happy to hear that, and he replies back, "Yours, too, Alan". Needles to say, Alan hates his hair, and he perceives Bob's comment as a sarcastic insult. "Fuck you, Bob! My hair is SHIT", he replies. Bob sent out the wrong signal to Alan, and Bob's message was thus not reciprocal. Bob is responsible for the miscommunication because he was either being disrespectful, or he was unaware of what Alan's preferences were.

Vicious Cycle: Bob takes Alan's anger personally, and he scoffs back: "Way to be nice, asshole". Now, Bob should have interpreted Alan's outburst as an indication of his preferences; instead, he snapped back at him. Alan was sent the wrong type of feed, and reacted accordingly. Bob is responsible for the miscommunication because he gave Alan the wrong material to work with, in the first place. Instead of taking responsibility, he invited Alan to enter the Game.

Dishonest Feedback: Alan hates when Bob snaps back at him. He's now in the Game, though, and he decides to Win by coming off as the morally superior. "I'm really sorry, baby. I'm just having a bad hair day". What happens next is, Bob keeps attacking him: "It was very rude of you". Alan received the wrong type of feed, but he was incapable of indicating his disapproval. Alan is thus responsible for the miscommunication because instead, he sent out positive signals which assured Bob that reciprocity had been met.

Reciprocity wise, one can be a Creditor, or a Debtor. Creditor is the person who currently weighs more on the scale of reciprocity, and Debtor is the interlocutor who was sent a preferred message and is now expected to reciprocate. In the very beginning, when the conversation starts, the initiator is the one who requests attention. In order to give attention, the other side has to change his/her priorities. Because of that, the initiator is essentially a Debtor. During a conversation, it may be hard to trace back who's the Creditor and who's the Debtor, but it doesn't even matter. Because if you're the Debtor and you didn't reciprocate, you will be informed. If not, it's the Creditor's responsibility that he/she didn't let you know. Therefore, you're always in the clear. Assume that you're a Neutral - either wait for input, or send a message.

How do we handle miscommunication? As soon as your emotions hint that something is wrong with the conversation, indicate so, ASAP. What has happened in the past does not matter. Make no compromise, make no excuses that might justify the miscommunication. Instead, indicate as soon as possible, no matter if you're the Debtor or the Creditor. You will learn to enjoy awkward situations and even find them entertaining, when you realize who's responsible for their occurrence, and when you clearly realize what your preferences are.

Be angry! You are entitled to your anger whenever someone's being disrespectful to you. You are being disrespected when you are deliberately given unwanted feed. How do you know if it was intended? If the person is clearly aware of your preferences, but keeps violating them, you know there's something wrong going on. So make sure you let him/her know that you find his/her behavior to be disrespectful and explain why.

If you are a Creditor, and you receive unwanted feedback, you could either ask a question, make a statement, or exit the conversation. The most open-minded thing to do is to ask a question; Share what you observe and ask what to make of it. Alan could have asked Bob, "Do you honestly think my hair looks great, or were you making fun of it?". If you wanna make a statement, share how you feel in the moment, and congruently speak out your opinion. Alan could have said, "I am feeling very upset right now. I think my hair looks horrible".

If you are a Debtor, and you've been signaled that your feedback was perhaps unwanted, you could either ask a question, paraphrase what you've said, or apologize. If you want to go with the question, ask if the Creditor finds your message preferable to accept at this moment. Bob, could have asked Alan, "Did that hurt you, baby?". If you want to paraphrase, find other ways of delivering your message and/or explaining how the Creditor can relate to it. Advertise your feed. Bob could have said, "My perception of your hair is strongly biased by how much I love you".

Human automatic behavior allows for cheating in the process of reciprocation. Emotions that we find positive are prioritized and thus, someone who's influencing us to experience our preferred emotions can be perceived as being reciprocal. Factually, this is true, but if mixed with unwanted feed, preferred emotions can act like a Trojan horse in the long run. When this happens, one would usually feel ambivalent and paralyzed.

There are ways to get around being manipulated in such way. Imagine the Debtor delivering the message in a neutral state. Would you still feel the same way about it? Would you accept the message if it were delivered to you by someone whom you didn't like, or by a robot? Was the emotional rush what you expected to get in return for your input, or did you expect something more than that? Did the Debtor switch your beefsteak for a lollipop?

When you want to end a conversation, it's because you stopped getting what you prefer at this moment - the conversation is no longer your priority. Therefore, you have the perfect right to leave, because the other side can't possibly be reciprocal to you anymore. If you're leaving as a Debtor, apologize or give gratitude before your departure, and do not wait for feedback. Expecting feedback would be disrespectful. If you're leaving as the Creditor, you don't have to announce your departure. The person on the other side shouldn't feel guilty, because it was your preference that you get no more feedback from him/her, and therefore you have "received" the preferred lack of feedback. Respectfully, if someone is ending the conversation with you, the right thing to do is to not respond, unless the person is a Creditor who expects your feedback.

Unsolicited Criticism

My friend made a new song, and I assumed he would appreciate some criticism, so I critiqued his song. He got offended and complained that he never asked for my advice. John Bradshaw writes in his book "respect for others means letting them live their own lives, suffer their own pains and solve their own problems". When I say to my friend "The guitar levels are too loud", what does that mean? It essentially means I want them fixed, or else why should I bother telling him this? So what I'm really saying then is, "You should turn down the guitar levels". It relates to Bradshaw's statement in a way that if you're telling others what they should be doing, with your criticism, you're not letting them solve their problems, themselves. Music is also a subjective matter, so my assertion then translates to "My subjective opinion is more valid than yours", which is an ignorant and bigoted thing to say. It's like saying that someone is stupid for liking the color red, because you like the color blue.

Let's look at another example: I posted a new topic on a message board: "In this thread, we post pictures of ourselves". This one user, let's call him Fuckface, replied back with a sarcastic comment, expressing his disapproval of people posting their pictures in a forum. So when Fuckface posts his sarcastic comment there, he is suggesting that my subjective preference to make such a thread on the forums is inferior to his subjective preference not to do it. Why do I translate this in such a way: Why would he be posting in a thread that he disapproves of, if he didn't strongly believe that his opinion was superior? Not only that, he's doing it in front of everybody else, thus intimidating me. Did I ask for his opinion? I don't think so. I had clearly stated what the thread was about, and I had also given instructions on how to participate.

Here is an analogy: I rent a room in a hotel and I put a sign on the door saying "in this room we wear pants". Suddenly Fuckface enters the room naked and he starts giving me lectures in front of everybody else on how wearing pants is stupid. He must be really confident in his opinion in order to enter the room naked and assert that they're wrong. If he believed that both his and the pants-wearing people's personal preferences were equally valid, he would never have done that, unless we're talking about an idiot. In a way, he is denying them the right to do whatever the fuck they want with their lives.

Now let's look at an example of unsolicited criticism about an objective issue: John claims that "two plus two equals five". Here comes Hank, who overheard John's obnoxious claim. "You are incorrect, John! Two plus two equals four", says Hank. John's face gets red and he screams back, "SHUT UP, SMARTASS, NOBODY ASKED FOR YOUR STUPID OPINION". Is John right to be angry? Well, in this case, Hank is asserting a fact, and regardless of his opinion, two plus two always equals four. I call this constructive criticism - giving an opportunity to someone to see their mistake. Providing constructive criticism is like doing somebody a favor; it's like a gift.

So the question then becomes: Is it rational to become angry at someone who has bought you a gift that you didn't like? I'd say that it's perfectly moral and acceptable to reject the gift, or throw it in the trash. Surely, you didn't ask for such a gift, so you have no obligation to accept it, or to be grateful. If the gift provider was not aware that you didn't like the thing he bought, he's doing nothing disrespectful; hence, getting angry at him would be irrational and rude. You could instead simply indicate politely that you don't like being given such gifts. If Hank, however, knew that John didn't like being corrected on his Maths, I would conclude that John indeed did have the right to get angry at Hank. Once again, "respect for others means letting them live their own lives, suffer their own pains and solve their own problems". Hank should let John take responsibility for his stupidity and suffer the consequences.

So here's a few tips about providing unsolicited criticism:
If the issue is subjective, don't bother criticizing. It's disrespectful, arrogant, and bigoted. If the issue is objective, give it a try. If you're met with indifference or annoyance, don't provide any more criticism on that same issue. It's going to be unproductive, and disrespectful.

And if you're on the receiving side:
If the issue is subjective, let your anger free! I would suggest rather ignoring that person; but if they're someone important to you, you gotta let them know that you're angry and annoyed at their behavior. If the issue is objective, I suggest that you listen, if you have the time. If you're tired, or you have something better to do, let them know this is the case. Maybe you're right, maybe he's right, but this is not a good time for a debate.

I assume that you coming here reading this means that you care about my opinion and ask for it; hence, my subjective and objective suggestions are not really unsolicited.

Free Will

I have decided to summarize my views on determinism, compiling various excerpts from message boards. There is no rational reason to believe that free will exists. There is just no evidence for such a thing. I am going to list a few arguments FOR free will and refute them one by one. First of all, let's look at the definition of free will:

"Free will is the ability to choose otherwise than one might have chosen."
Why should this matter, that one could have chosen otherwise? To me, this is completely irrelevant. Fact is, what's done is done. Free Willies claim that without choice, there can be NO moral responsibility. "Moral" is a key term here; so what's the difference between "moral responsibility" and "responsibility"? I have no idea. I can only assume that if one is morally responsible, he can be morally condemned.

What is moral condemnation? The act of shaming someone for something harmful they have done. Once they've been morally condemned, they could also receive punishment. I don't believe moral condemnation is a constructive thing to do. Usually it's people who've been shamed all their lives that become criminals. So further shaming them for their hamrful behavior would be like putting out a fire with more wood. Once a person is given the label "criminal", they start perceiving themselves as such. "I'm a bad person". It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now that they believe it, they can embrace their evil selves and just go on being mean with even less remorse; because hey, "it's just the way I am".

Free Willies believe in punishment. There can be no punishment without moral condemnation. That's why they need free will to exist in order to justify their irrational beliefs, caused by bad parenting and the like. The deterministic solution to crime is prevention and self-defense. You either prevent things or they happen. Free Willies cannot be content with this because they need Revenge. They are caught up in the Game where you either win or lose; and they can't stand being the losers. Free Willies love to talk about empathy, but when it comes to a criminal, they usually have none for him. That's because they like to assume a role, where they're the good guys, and the criminals are the bad guys. The eternal battle between Good & Evil - it's nothing more than a delusional game.

Under the same circumstances, different individuals make different choices. If Dick acts in a destructive way, compared to Jack, who would have acted differently in the same situation, we can positively claim that Dick's behavior was immoral. The question "Could Dick have chosen otherwise?" is irrelevant to the morality of his actions, and rather they're trying to label Dick "immoral", himself. The question "Compared to what?" is much more practical and constructive. Dick chose this, compared to Jack, who would have chosen that. My point being, free will is not a prerequisite for morality. A rock falls on your head and kills you. It doesn't matter if the rock wanted to do it, it's still responsible for your death.

Here is the quantum mechanics perspective: "Because randomness exists at a quantum level, there's a reason to believe that people make random choices, too." They so badly want to believe that a person could have chosen otherwise, that they come down to quantum mechanics. The problem with this claim is that randomness is the opposite of intentional, willful action. Free Willies are now contradicting themselves. If Dick made a bad choice at random, how can he be held "morally responsible" for it?

The most famous claim against determinism is the fatalistic one: "If the future is determined and won't change, why not just sit back and watch it unfold? Nothing you do can change the future, right?" My answer is: If you're predetermined to decide to sit back and watch the future unfold, that means you've got issues. Nothing's gonna happen unless you act upon it. Determinism is simply the claim that everything happens for a reason. You chose to do this, BECAUSE you were influenced by a variety of events. The latter CAUSED you to make this choice, which makes it predetermined. If you want to fight psychological causation, check out my article: Introducing Chaos.

Stefan Molyneux's argument is similar to the fatalistic one: he says, "In the past, people prayed to Gods to alter the weather - however, these gods do not exist, and the weather is merely the complicated and predetermined movement of atoms and energy. When people gave up the idea that the gods controlled the weather, they stopped "debating" the weather, or attempting to alter its behavior through words, prayers, supplications and arguments." That's an argument from ignorance. It does in no way prove the existence of free will, but rather justifies it as a tool of comfort and convenience. My response: When the tribe finds out there are no Gods, they'll stop praying, but they'll start searching for ways to scientifically influence the weather into changing towards their benefit, after discovering what causes it to change. Once you find all the factors that influence an action, it becomes predictable and susceptible to change.

I'm gonna finish this with a quote from PCRS: Many questions on human behavior have been explained by finding causes in the past of the human being in question. Yet there is still a lot of ignorance about what moves men. Some people have given this ignorance a name (free will), called it an explanation for the remaining unexplained behavior and defined it as virtuous. When confronted with the contradictions in their uncaused cause, they defend it vigorously, bull charging determinists, thinking that disproving determinism gives their named ignorance more credibility as an explanation for yet unexplained human behavior. Science however will keep nibbling away on ignorance, leaving less and less room for their named ignorance (free will). Ignorance is not virtue.

Public Education

Here's a list of false associations that schools imprint into students' minds about studying:

* SCHOOL: "If I want to learn about something, I should attend to school/college/university."
Wrong. I can easily learn things on my own by reading books, watching video tutorials, modeling, and practicing. Educational institutes create the illusion of a professional environment, but trust me: you can easily learn everything on your own, without being pressured by rules and authority.

* OBLIGATION: "I must study or else I'll be punished."
Not true. Education is a choice. Because schools make it obligatory to attend, one can be left with the impression that education as a whole is a must. You get scolded when you're absent, you get shamed for low grades. It's like a prison you get sent to, but you have to realize that education itself is not imprisonment, but rather liberation.

* CHORES: "Although studying is not a pleasant task, I should get it done for my own good."
Not really. I find it pleasant to learn about things I'm curious about. Schools make it seem like a chore because they make you study shit you don't necessarily care about. They make you compromise for the sake of good grades, or else you get punished.

* OBEYING AUTHORITY: "I should study because that's what teachers and parents tell me to do."
Wrong. Studying is not about following orders, it's about advancing my knowledge. Educational institutes promote ranks and hierarchy. If you refuse to obey, you get scolded and punished. But fuck what your parents and teachers say. They don't care about your intellectual development, all they wanna do is be in control and look important. You're the only one responsible for your education, so forget this bullshit.

* COMPETITION: "I should study because I shouldn't stay behind."
Absolutely not. I'm free to take as much time as I need to fully understand the lessons. Grades create the impression that education is some sort of a game where one wins or loses. Grades pressure students to rush things and compare each other hierarchically. There are no grades in real life.

* RESPECT: "I should study if I respect my teachers/parents."
Not true. Showing respect has nothing to do with advancing my knowledge. To say the least, if you study a subject that you're interested in, you respect yourself, not anybody else. Teachers and parents create the impression that if you don't do well in school, you're being disrespectful. Horseshit.

* BEING MORAL: "I'm a bad person if I don't want to study."
Wrong. Not being motivated means I have no clear interest in the subject. It has nothing to do with morality. Knowledge can make you a better person, but not necessarily. Resisting boring information, resisting to obey authority, and resisting to attend, have NOTHING to do with being a good person.

* SOCIAL STATUS: "I should study or else I'm a loser." or "I'm a loser if I study too much."
No. There are no winners and losers. This is not a game, it's just a process. Students resent good achievers because good achievers at school are often also good slaves and asskissers. In real life, that is not really the case, as intelligent people are not followers, but rather leaders.

They give you high grades in school for obeying the teachers and kissing their asses. Parents give you love for being a good student, and not just for being their child. So education here becomes a manipulative tool for control. It's not the education of the student that matters, but rather how they can be exploited. Most teachers don't really care if their students learn anything - they get paid nonetheless, and their excuse is that the students are lazy. So in this system, everyone is doing something for all the wrong reasons. The incentives are totally twisted and bizarre. Students end up procrastinating, because their motivation has been murdered. School is a form of imprisonment: it limits your freedom and it scars you for life.

Studying is really just the process of learning something new. Nothing more, nothing less. People learn all the time without even realizing it. They think they're having fun when they're playing a new game, and guess what: they have to learn the game. They have to study the whole thing in order to become skillful and beat it. Etc. In order to take advantage of college, have this in mind: you are in this class because you demand guidance and help with the subject that you wish to learn. You are in this class for knowledge, not for grades. You are in this class because you chose to, and you DON'T have to comply with anything that you dislike about it, including the teacher's instructions. This class is NOT a game, and there are no winners and losers - the school grades are fatuous - they are NOT an indicator of your intellect, and they are NOT an indicator of your worthiness.

Gaysbook & Privacy

I did some research on why Gaysbook is so popular. Turns out that one of the gentlemen who created facebook.com, Chris Hughes, now works for Barack Obama, and primarily acts as the coordinator of online organizing at my.BarackObama.com - the campaign's online social networking website. The COO of facebook.com, Sheryl Sandberg, was hired to handle facebook's sales, marketing, business development, human resources, public policy, privacy issues and communications. Before that, she was Google's sales head, and prior to that, she was chief of staff to U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in the Clinton administration. Why the sudden popularity of facebook.com? You make your own conclusions.

On a sidenote, Gaysbook can get you killed, if you're stupid enough to publicly expose your privacy: In December 2006, campus police at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington were investigating the theft of two PlayStation consoles, which had been stolen by the two perpetrators of a beating and robbery on campus. They planned to raid the rented house of Peyton Strickland, an 18-year-old student at nearby Cape Fear Community College. They discovered that the other alleged robber, Ryan Mills, had posted photographs of himself on Facebook in which he posed with guns. Expecting "heavily armed resistance" at Strickland's house, the officers called in a SWAT team for backup to raid Strickland's house. When they arrived at the residence, which three students rented, they were not immediately let in. As one officer began to break down the door with a battering ram, another officer mistook the sound of the battering ram for gunshots and shot into the door, killing the unarmed Strickland. The officer, Christopher Long, was not charged with second-degree murder by two different grand juries.

So remember kids, by registering an account at Gaysbook, you are feeding the Beast information about you and your friends. Everything that you publish on the internet can and will be used against you.

Big Brother is watching you.

Stephen Colbert Sucks

Here's a list of 10 unfunny people funnier than Stephen Colbert:

1. Bill O'Reilly
2. Ben Stiller
3. Jacky Chan
4. Dane Cook
5. Jeff Dunham
6. Ray Romano
7. D. L. Hughley
8. David Alan Grier
9. Carlos Mencia
10. Zach Braff

Most of the Colbert Report is just filler, including the cheers and applause. The rest is shit I can't relate to. I mean, sure, it's a lot of fun mocking bigotry, but it's also very hypocritical. I mean, if you really hate the fact that ignorant people can vote and become politicians, the solution is definitely not making them look cute and funny with your comedy. There are already too many real bigots, and acting like one, just for laughs, is just an act of passive aggressiveness. In this case, laughter is just a defensive mechanism; the joy of the slave. People get to feel morally superior, big deal. What's the recipe for NOT FUNNY? Take satire and mix it up with politics. Let's not blame it all on Stephen. His screenwriters are stuck with the same template and nothing new ever comes out of their asses. And now, get ready for... TONIGHT'S WORD: *applause and cheering, vocal chords torn apart*



Here's a list of 10 unfunny things funnier than the Colbert Report:

1. Fart jokes
2. Dirty pun jokes
3. "Your mom" jokes
4. "What's with that?" jokes
5. Slapstick comedy
6. Celebrity anecdotes
7. Played out memes
8. Sitcoms (Friends, That 70's Show)
9. "Here's your sign" jokes
10. Comedic relief in Star Wars

This is what the Colbert Report writers would've come up with if they had to bash their own show. It's always "hilarious" to paste Stephen's face on a picture. Fuck this guy. He should either quit or demand that they hire new writers. I admit the show used to be funny, back when it wasn't just a pleaser for smug socialist snobs. I used to like Stephen's interviews, most of all. If you like shit like that, check out Zach Galifianakis and his show Between Two Ferns; he's the real deal. I hate Stephen Colbert is just a clown that I hate.

Masters are Slaves

The master depends on his slave.
Without a slave, he will be no master.
He has to keep the slaves motivated.
He has to manage the slaves.
He has to protect his slaves from other masters.
He has to protect himself from other master wannabes.

Masters are slaves to their slaves, like farmers are slaves to their animals.

There are masters and slaves in relationships. If Tom hates Jack's company but keeps communicating with him, he is a masochistic slave. Tom is going to project his healthy pain onto Jack, by passive-aggressively annoying him. So this makes Jack's experience equally unpleasant now. Jack feels either annoyed, guilty, ashamed, or simply paranoid, because Tom is being too friendly, too submissive, or too ambiguous. It never feels like Tom is expressing his honest thoughts. These triggered painful feelings in Jack really provoke him to want to figure out Tom and manage him, being the master that he is. There is this S&M bond between them, but Jack is not only the sadist, but also a masochist, too. Jack needs to fix Tom because he depends on him, in a fucked up way - he likes to be in control. So he personalizes Tom's issues and becomes even less free than his slave. And Tom needs Jack because he has a victim mentality - he must be the morally superior, altruistic victim.

You know who Jack is. That's me. I'm a sadomasochist. My dad was a master, my mom is a slave. I can be Tom, too. Especially around people who I can't relate to. I don't know what that means. I didn't know my father too well, maybe that's why I associate strangers with him? Who knows... but I don't want to be either.

What makes people play such roles? My guess is that it all comes down to personal responsibility. Slaves are too afraid to take personal responsibility, and masters feel responsible for their slaves' behavior. The slave wants to avoid personal responsibility because he fears making a bad choice, because he fears punishment. He would do anything to stay away from being held accountable - submit to master's commands, get in a character (often impersonating his master), engage in a dissociative behavior (take drugs, play videogames, pray to God), engage in a passive-aggressive behavior (look below). The master, on the other hand, wants to avoid his slave's failure, because that would feel like crashing his favorite car in a reckless accident - it would show what a bad driver he is, and it would prevent him from being in control again. Basically, the master takes his slaves' problems personally, for fear of losing them. He personalizes other people's issues, because that's how he was taught to solve problems in the family. His parents would emotionally manipulate him into doing things for them in order to make them feel better. He couldn't have done otherwise, or else he'd lose them.

And losing parents is equal to death in the eyes of a child.

Here is a list of common signs of Passive Aggressive Behavior: Ambiguity or speaking cryptically (They engender a feeling of insecurity in others), Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness, Avoiding conflict or confrontation, Blaming others (unable to accept blame), Chronic lateness and forgetfulness, Complaining, Compulsiveness (including excessive cleanliness, tidiness and attention to detail), Does not express hostility or anger openly (e.g. expresses it instead by leaving notes), Fear of authority, Fear of competition, Fear of dependency, Fear of intimacy (infidelity as a means to act out anger), Fosters chaos, Intentional inefficiency, Irrational Fears/ Paranoia, Losing things, Lack of Trust, Making excuses (This sort of individual will usually not agree with the particular reason you provide for their mistake but will create their own reason), Manipulative (Similar to being in need of control but more sinister as an offensive mechanism to achieve a self-serving goal. Therefore, the passive aggressive person is often very greedy), Need for Control, Lying, Obstructionism, Prideful, Procrastination, Resentment, Resists suggestions from others, Sarcasm, Stubbornness, Sullenness, Unable to communicate well, Victim Mentality (Example: Being willing to accept someone's apology as a pretense to being right), Willful withholding of understanding.

What's the solution? Respect a person enough to let him deal with his own problems, unless he genuinely asks for advice. I know it's very hard to resist the temptation to be in control, and if you can't, try to stay away from that person. Let me know if there's anything I've missed.

Note: I have expanded on that subject in this post: More on Masters & Slaves

Intimate Relationships

A bunch of questions from a virgin:

Why do you always have to look at women as potential sexual partners? Let's say you have a girlfriend and you guys decide to break up, but stay friends. How do you stay friends with a chick who you've never been friends with? Why would you wanna stay friends with somebody you've broken up with? Can you break up with a friend? Is sexual intimacy something independent of friendliness? Isn't your girlfriend supposed to be your best friend, too? What if you have a female best friend who you're not intimate with? Would mating with another girl be fair? Is sex a reward? The tip of a good friendship? Or is it something entirely independent of friendly exchanges? I know it comes down to brain chemicals. But what triggers these chemicals, besides physical attractiveness? Isn't hiding your real self from your girlfriend equivalent to being pussy-whipped?

I don't know man, shit is so fucked up and confusing. It starts out with stereotypes and taboos and goes all the way up to this mess. I believe that if we took all these out, sex could be more like playing a game with your best friends, and not the sole purpose of having a good relationship with a member of the opposite gender. I don't know, these are just some ignorant embarrassing speculations. I'd like to be better educated on this topic, but I'm almost sure there are like a thousand different theories.

A friend of mine helped me realize that I have a bit unrealistic standards. That's why I don't understand the friend-to-girlfriend transformation. I was asked about my sexual fantasies so I found out that I would only be comfortable to engage in an intimate relationship with a woman like the fictional character Maude Lebowski: care-free, no issues, no sentimentality, just completely honest and content with her own nature. Women like that don't exist. Some create the impression that they are such, but the more you get to know them, the more you hear about their issues, taboos, and insecurities. So that's why the friendlier a relationship becomes, the less sexually appealing a woman would appear to me. And it's unfair of me to have such standards for females, because I myself have my own issues to deal with.