or: Same Species-Wide Angst Leading to Rejection of Humanism, Different Name I've timestamped the discussion. It's not about who says it. It just happens to be quite illustrative. “I think it's possible they operate in the space of ideas for example. Ideas could be aliens. Feelings could be aliens. Consciousness itself could be aliens.” Lex is further along the evolutionary path than most alien contact believers. He's wisely given up on there being tangible evidence, and instead reached into more modern sci fi for his beliefs. Why not God? Paul did somewhat follow up on Lex's statements with that, more in the hypothetical sense of “imagine if the angels and spirits were just aliens.” Paul is being the reasonable sceptic, though. He admits anything not disproved has varying degrees of plausibility, but he will only believe it when he sees proof, and that the absence of proof is quite compelling. Damn. This guy is naturalist to the core. I know why it's not God. It's because God is a human creation. Of all the things humans do and don't get credit for, the literal notion of God is still one of them. Humans couldn't have just evolved from primates, built the pyramids, developed higher and lower consciousness all on their own. I mean, I can't imagine my ass doing all those things, so humans must not have. They definitely came up with God and war, though, and especially war in the name of god. Lex can't say that ideas or feelings are God because it's now implicit that God is a human concept. It's beneath him, too far within the scope of ordinary human behaviour. For the theologically minded, all things come from God and he is capital M Mysterious and most definitely still from without. Serial killers and concentration camps are... mysterious things. In some cases they may attribute this behaviour to demonic possession or influence. Some sort of parallel force but still from without. Upper-tier behaviour is saintly or divinely blessed. And if they're non-literal religious (like Jordan Peterson) then they're not even on the same planet as the alien bros—they're instead humanists by any other name. An alien bro does however still differ from a literalistic religious actor in one significant way. They both reject some part of the human condition, but alien bros do not reject the lower bounds. Aliens never turned someone into a murderer, made him sexually assault others, sent him to war, told him to slash and burn great swaths of forest. No one is worried that aliens will turn humans upon each other and create the ultimate nuclear holocaust. Alien bros have the regard (or possibly just general distaste) towards the human condition to grant it all credit for humanity's worst, but are so baffled by humanity's best that it must have come from omnipotent, ever-wise space daddy. Every notion of aliens, and all boons they may carry, has emerged from within the human mind. Aliens are just as human as God.
There is no such thing as a stupid question, but some questions are post-Thanksgiving-prandial stuffed with implication. I swear the most telling sentences end with a question mark. Saw this on the Red-it. I don't have an account, though, so I'll have to circle-herk about it here instead. The expedient answer is standard fare: write characters until they're something like the ones in all the books you've read. You at least have almost infinite examples of what. There is nothing hidden in text i.e. body language, vocal tone, emotions, intent etc. You might be blind to those cues in real life but you can't miss them in ink and they're exaggerated in the latter anyway. Writing a 'typical' character is nothing like being a typical person in the same way that writing a ruthless business person or brilliant sword duelist has nothing to do with actually being those things. Use your creativity and the mimicry byproduct of consumption—fiction characters are so permanently divorced from real people that you will never be at a disadvantage as an abnormal author. The language is there for anyone to read who can read. But that's a bit of a trap. By answering that I've accepted that neurotypical is an is or to be. It's not. Rather, it is a not. A negative can hardly suffice as a defining trait when it's only notable in its positive form. You wouldn't ask, how do I write a non-disabled person? How do I write a non-writer? A non-guitarist? How do I write a non-boat-owner? "But Non-Territory," you say, "The asker of that question is merely looking for advice on how to pursue that creative challenge in the same way you might ask how to write a convincing trapeze artist or billionaire. You can't naturally think like a convincing billionaire, and they can't naturally think like a convincing 'typical' person." Not so, because he didn't ask that. He didn't ask for literary examples of a compelling maternal character, or son, or firefighter, or vacuum peddler, or bicycle... operator, or sick dying man who loves his dog. It's just a soup of non-something, non-something that's not whatever he is. He's victim to rampant over-generalized typification, his semantic command centre has been maldeveloped by irresponsible intellectual leaders. So why does he ask that question in particular? Ass down, crack knuckle, "Okay, so this character will be... neurotypical Dan. Hm. What does neurotypical Dan's day look like? What are his motivations?" You don't start with that. Continuing, and this is the real tenderizer blow: most 'normal' people are bad at writing convincing fictional characters who are typical or otherwise. Amateur writers will hear: "That's not something someone would actually say out loud." or "Her motivations are nonsensical." or "This character's demeanor and voice is entirely inconsistent." But if the amateur writer is a 'neurotypical' person, she should be able to nail those things on the first try, right, or at least be able to tell where she missed the mark without the help of a second party's criticism, right? Because she has the power of normative perception? She doesn't. It's not a thing. Anyone who's critiqued new writers has seen the foibles countless times. A normal person doesn't even know how to map normal people. There is no neurotypical advantage and fictional characters are mapped representations (almost mathematical ones) of real people anyway, untranslatable representations at that. They are entirely unreal. The fact that something can be unreal but also normal is a contradiction that fiction faces—always have always will—best represented with the 'reality is stranger than fiction' phrase. So why does he ask that question? If neurotypical fictional characters act or think like neurotypical real people, then it must follow that the latter know how to map the former when he doesn't, because he doesn't belong to the latter group. That is why he asks. However, it's bidirectional. He's been led to believe that neurotypical real people act or think like neurotypical fictional people. But that's always specifically wrong. His prospective characters will not exist as bell curves generated from thousands of people. They'll exist as fictional individuals. He would implicitly understand that only if he saw normative presentations as individuals themselves. He's been taught otherwise. In other words: "Help, I've been betrayed."
Subversion is always shallow. Thematic correctness doesn't change when a trope is subverted, it only changes in satire. Satire subverts the theme, not the tropes, because it needs the tropes in order to signal its identity. For example, the virgin or child saviour. She hasn't yet entered society fully, so she hasn't yet been fully corrupted by it. Her perspective is quite figuratively virginal: "But stabbing other people is wrong." The two men look up from their knife fight, understanding dawning in their eyes just like the two people that frustratingly had to step aside to let the piper pass. She exhibits simple virtue through ignorance. She most likely dies for this in order to reach martyrdom, sainthood, and stay a child forever. Compare with the noble savage, who is far from virginal, but is virtuous still by simple right of not being a part of the society in question. He doesn't need to die because he's already grown. He can't be corrupted by the 'normal' society because it would imply his virtue is also from ignorance. That would destroy his value as trope. His motives have to be spiritually superior to 'normal' society, not susceptible like the virgin's implicitly are. How do you subvert the virgin? The most obvious answer is making her curse like a sailor or ride anything that moves, surface things that deride her metaphorical characteristics but not her thematic ones. I encountered this recently in The Black Iron Legacy, but I think dark fantasy in general is where one is most likely to find this subversion.* Sex robots in sci fi might work, too, since in spite of their purpose they can't grow into and integrate with society. They would make a fine, and generally unexpected herald of basic virtue. Similarly, the noble savage never becomes the ignoble savage, rather, he becomes even more civilized by our own perspective. His culture's advanced complexity, memetical and technological, is the subversion. Marvel's Rwandans come to mind as an illustrative example of that. Mileage varies. Subverting tropes is all fun and games until you're just left with antitropes, which are quite predictable at best and pointless at worst. Conversely, satire will undermine the theme itself. The tropes will be there, but their purveyors are ultimately incorrect. The virginal saviour leads everyone to throw their weapons down to hold hands only for aliens to come along and Carthage their asses, the noble savage's values and honour lead to might is right decision making or failure in the face of a cunning enemy. Ruin is the easy way to signpost that a character was 'wrong.' Does a work have to be satire in order for a trope character to be wrong, or at least not fully correct about the theme? I don't think so. But is that outcome a reflection on the tropes, or is it a reflection on the theme? In other words, which one am I abandoning, the virgin or the world in which the virgin is right? Does leaving one destroy the other? Ultimately, I'm fine with foregoing the prescriptive perspective and accepting it's just a story that is, but thought for food and all that. *I originally suspected prostitutes in vigilante movies could count as a subversion too, but they are brought back to life by the hero with a frankly virginal perspective on society (consider Taxi Driver, where De Niro is much more the virgin than Foster. He came so close to dying, too), so they are too far from the trope.
There are complaints from college teachers that young students either don't use or can't even grasp the concept of file directories. I didn't believe this at first, given that the terms file and folder are sort of there to help understand the slightly abstract notion of directories, and that operating systems are mostly visual (GUI) anyway. https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-directory-structure-education-gen-z https://pcgamer.com/students-dont-know-what-files-and-folders-are-professors-say/ Favourite anecdote is from Reddit, r/teachers, "They're Not 'Digital Natives,' They're 'Click Natives'": Whose fault is it? It's not Apple, Microsoft, cellphones, nor Tiktok. It's people. People of all ages. You grow up in a world dominated by computers and don't stop to think that learning how to type or use operating systems could be a marketable skill. Coasting along will always screw you. Everyone has that inclination, it's just keeps getting easier to coast. There has to be a part of you that pauses, hand halfway to the cellphone, and thinks: maybe I shouldn't use a tool to tell me what 7 x 16 is, maybe I should take the less expedient or more challenging path for literacy's sake.
Bars, cul-de-sacs, Main, that mall, social web. It's somewhere between the two places you have to be: work and home. A third place. How does that advice go? Don't ever let him (Misery be damned it's always a him) take you to a second location. The third location is really a second, second location. Second squared. The worst. Stay home like a man. Eat a sleeve of saltines, a jar of green olives, and pop a second one because it's been a long day. Put on the football game but watch it ironically, then pass out before putting the mayo back in the fridge. At least you're not a poser who has to go to the third place just to tell people you don't go to the third place. The bonus, spoken, unspoken, is that you can't lose if you don't play, and you might even get some shit done. Or maybe you'll keep telling yourself you'll get some shit done. At least you're not proud of it like they are. As soon as you lose contempt for inaction you've lost your last bit of self respect, held yourself to the lowest standard you can invent. Hell isn't hating yourself, it's loving yourself into irrelevance. They take another day off, get a little older, externalize that festering resentment into whatever will take it: politicians, their own kids, actors, their own kids, tycoons, their own kids, you get the idea. They have to do something with it because it won't just go away. It's a tumour that eats impotence and poops snide Internet remarks. Who knows, maybe the bad cells were there all along and just needed time to grow. But you're better, you save your contempt for those that won't rather than the people who do. If only your will wasn't just as meek as theirs.
Or: just why exactly Thanksgiving is unbearable, and how it's your fault as much as it is Aunt Jones's. The too long, didn't read version of this is that critical evaluation needs to scale with emotional investment or you're just another dunce. Onward to the weeds... You know about weaving then attacking straw men. It's disingenuous at best, lazy at worst. The term is also now shorthand for 'I don't like your argument,' unfortunately, which is a shame but that's how language goes with trickle-down misuse from our culture's intellectuals. Digress. If you value your own opinion, you need to steelman it. If you actually put work into challenging your own notions, finding the most informed opposition and digging into wells of evidence, you'll find things you didn't consider. They will at the very least add nuance to your original position and increase the ease of refuting counterclaims. "But Territory, I don't have the time or energy for that. I've got kids, and Netflix, and Twitter, and my wifehusband and I work full time in demanding jobs and we still can't pay the bills." Spoiler: Relevant image View attachment 23430 This was me, every night. This is how I became Sodium Man. That's fine. Just stop talking about politics. "But I heard that x/y is a woke fascist good feminist or white supremist bad feminist." Yeah, and at what age do you learn that you can't trust those claims? 30? 45? 85? 110? You're running out of time. Think about it critically or stop thinking about it at all. Every individual capable of cognition has a personal responsibility to adhere to this principle. This isn't 'echo chambers' or the 'algorithm' trying to rile you up. Stop externalizing. Take responsibility for your own level of information. You didn't stop being a free agent as soon as your opened an application on your phone. If you don't have the time to look into it, don't. Then move on. It's either important or it isn't. It either matters or it doesn't. Match the degree of emotion or engagement with the level of critical thought. J.K. Rowling and the allegations against her are one example. No intention of side-tracking here, our opinions on that are moot—how we got there is what matters. I have met countless, countless people that parrot she is transphobic, but never actually looked at the content of her open letter or tweets in question. It's a dangerously innocent question I ask, as well: "Oh, well what did she say?" No one ever knows. Again, and I will carve this into your forehead if needs must, I do not care what you actually think about J.K. Rowling and you shouldn't care what I think either, but if you made up your mind without reading her tweets or open letter, and worse, experienced any kind of outrage (in her favour or against) about it without gathering evidence, you're part of the Thanksgiving dinner problem. It is you. You're just as bad as Aunt Jones.
Yesterday was my last day at work. A few days from a ten-year span. I did other things during, but this was the one I could count on to pay the bills. I realized "It's been a pleasure" and "thank you" frustratingly does not seem to be enough. There's something else I should say, but the words won't come. Oh well, done and done. I'm driving home, windows down. I stop for a walker-bound lady to cross (I'm turning right, light green). Person behind me honks. No big deal: he just can't see the lady. Misunderstanding. Another pedestrian feels the need to comfort(?) me, says "Good job, bud" from behind an upward thumb, then tries to inform the honker of the lady's presence. Any other day I would just shrug that off, even see it as a little patronizing. After all, I'm just obeying basic traffic laws. But he struck me while I was down. The words said to my ex boss and coworkers couldn't bear a smidgen of the meaning I felt, yet those three words from a random hit me deep in the feels in a way the speaker could never have intended. God damn it man, why did you have to say it that day, of all days, when I'm driving home from that workplace for the last time? Class ended today. My new vocation more or less starts Monday. I hope I do a good job.
I was listening to the Joe Rogan Experience the other day. Yes, I’m that mainstream. For those uninitiated, you have to scroll down through this long list of comedians you don’t care about, past hunters you don't care about, past motivational people selling something, and—oh, there’s Gad Saad. This will be good. I was listening, washing dishes, having a great time… until he just had to go and say something that ruined the whole show for me. Context: his book was quite successful. He also has tenure. Put those two things together, and the portion of his income corresponding with book sales ends up in the 55-ish% tax bracket in the glorious land of Canada. He’s not happy about it, naturally. I wouldn’t be happy either. Gosh damn, I worked hard so I could finally had a chance to get ahead financially, and I only get to keep 45% of that overflow. Why? So we can afford another surprise election? Problem 1: What he said and meant. The best, most honest thing he could have said was: “…and that pissed me off.” Or “It made me sad.” Or “It made me resent my nation.” Here’s what he said: “So when you tax though my thoughts, my neuronal firings, my personal history, I can't imagine a higher form of existential rape,” — Gad Saad, JRE 1827 @ 37 minutes. No! You ruined the whole show, man. Now I can’t take anything else you say tonight seriously. I thought you were a writer, an academic. How could an academic use language so irresponsibly? Two egregious problems here: 1. Think of any other working man’s (or woman’s) sacrifice: it ranks below being an author, apparently. He’s implying that someone risking his life and/or permanently damaging his body to earn money is not being ‘existentially raped’ to the same degree he is. 2. The words don't fit at all regardless. Existential rape? Really? So if someone cuts off my face, wears it like a mask, then gets intimate with my wife, what am I supposed to call it, hmm? The second highest form of existential rape? What if I’m murdered, is that not a significant form of existential rape, or at least somewhere below being taxed for your book's gross? Disclaimer: He did not seem to be attempting hyperbole, and even if he was… Problem 2: This happens all the time with society in general. A middle-upper class person starts doing something wrong, and lower class people like me ape it because we just don’t know better. Does it mean I’m going to call having to wash dishes a form of existential rape? Maybe. Will my peers do so? Absolutely. [Ed. Note I do it too, but I just don’t notice probably.] Trickle Case 1: My coworker is about to criticize the way I’ve set something up. Fine. You know what’s not fine? Opening with: “I’m not trying to attack you or anything, but..” Gah, no! You’ve ruined my whole day, compadre. What’s he supposed to say if I start hitting him with the nearest blunt object? That I’m attacking him? “Well, tell Territory to be nicer with his evaluation.” But that doesn’t mean anything anymore. Or is physically striking someone the new criticism? You could say deride, or bully, or insult, or disparage, or some other word. Just don’t say attack when the situation doesn’t call for it. I don’t know. You know who also doesn’t know? Probably Gad Saad. Trickle Case 2: “I had stop sign ADD as a young man.” No! Gosh damn it, that’s called habitually running stop signs. Or simply driving dangerously. Trickle Case 3: “This is a Toxic noun culture or work environment.” So lots of heavy metals? Cytotoxic drugs? Asbestos? No. It means hostile apparently. Just say hostile, or mean, or antagonistic. In summary: Experiencing Gad Saad’s evaluation of taxation is the most spiritually lethal form of mind-molestation that a man could ever encounter. This radioactive, hypersonic missile, slipping hazard culture is seeping down into the minds of people like me and orally maiming us. Given his role as a respected educator, author, and NORAD defence system, he should be embarrassed by his choice of words. Source: JRE Ep. 1816
Warning: Twitter drama. I normally zip right past these sorts of things, but this stuck with me like when a popcorn husk gets stuck between your gums and your teeth, and you've got to keep on working at it but it just doesn't come out. I eat a lot of popcorn... anyway look at this. Spoiler: Warning: woman in swimsuit View attachment 23264 In case the picture doesn't work, it's the Yumi Nu Picture and Jordan Peterson's "Sorry, not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that." Twitter comment regarding it. Preamble: It's okay to have an opinion. It's also okay to have a bad take. It's okay to say a woman isn't beautiful. As far as anything insulting goes, it's hardly the worst thing someone can say. I'm not worried about the model's feelings. She's a model, she can get over it. None of this is the end of the world. There are a lot of women (and men—it goes right to our guts) who cannot wear 240lbs well. Yumi isn't one of those women, and while is obese according to BMI, this is just one of the fringe cases of BMI of which there are many. Sure she could stand to lose 10-15lbs and be closer to an ideal weight, but since I have a y chromosome, I'm the authority here: she's beautiful. Case closed. Meat, potatoes, map, territory: This isn't about what he said. This is about what he saw. It's where the real failure lies. He may as well have been looking at a picture of the words "plus-sized model" wearing a bikini. He didn't look at her, not only that, he managed to not look at her in two different ways. 1. Male, hetero: Nice face, nice curves, nice skin. Again, I'm an expert on the male gaze, so this one's not even up for debate. You blind, Jordy? "But Territory, it's a matter of taste," you say, bringing a centerfold of Sigourney in as Exhibit B. Okay, then... 2. Clinical psychiatrist: Jordan Peterson should not only have a male understanding of female beauty, but a sociological one. He should be able to whip out the calipers, check that hip-to-waist ratio, then he would measure her face for symmetry (but with a dash of asymmetry) that generally accounts for look-at-ability. Maybe he'd hold a paint swatch up to her skin to confirm a healthy glow. Then he would say "hmm, yes, she is theoretically beautiful according to the average male distribution of visual preference I suppose." View attachment 23266 He didn't do any of those things. He got caught on the map, blinded by the map, stuck on the words "plus-sized model," and is intellectually worse off for it. Again, not the end of the world. I think it's important to point this out, because it will be obfuscated by different prevailing narratives that will instead try to fault the male gaze in general. My point, sum: the male gaze was never a factor in his evaluation in the first place.
This was going to be a comment but it kept going and going, so it gets its own blog post. Groundwork: I want to be clear that I'm not hatin' on @Xoic or the video's creator. I think ideas are good, period. People should have more ideas and think more in general, and both Xoic and the creator are very smart people who have lots of ideas. That said, I wholly disagree with the video. The video in question: . Good for context. Problem 1: You cannot take Jesus out of the Church. Sorry Jehova's, but there is no virginal scripture. The essayist suggests people not learn from organized religion, but mysticism/spirituality derived from source texts. It's a Martin Luther appeal. However, books like the various bibles and koran have only proliferated and lasted generations due to organization. The best that essayist can say is for people not to look to recent organized religion. Problem 2: Paraphrase: "Meaning requires religion, and lack of meaning makes people abuse substances and seek shallow pleasures, therefore a lack of religion is an illness to the individual." That's a hard beg. "Meaning requires religion" is the lynch pin of the entire argument, and it's scrawny. Meaning can be something as universal as trying to improve health. Health is a real thing; you don't have to adopt any religion to recognize it and there is nothing supernatural about it. Meaning requires only requires its observation and a personal sense of agency. That will involve philosophy, yes, but certainly does not require the religion aspect of philosophy. Matter matters, we perceive matter, and we already have emotions (short and long-term) hard-coded into us to know what materials and matters mean to us. My thoughts: Humanity into its nihilistic adolescent stage. It isn't just religion people don't believe in anymore, everything else has been torn to shreds. We're taught to dismiss a good chunk of our history, our ancestors, our parents, our nations, to accuse entire sexes of transgression—of course it's hard to find meaning! Everything is bad, unworthy. The only thing that is sacred anymore is groups (they are liquid, you can retroactively join and remove members), which is why everyone tries to join one kind of category or other. Jesus is the training wheels. He's perfect and he's dead. Dead people stay perfect. You strive to be like Jesus and perfect, but of course never attain it. The human psyche has to learn that a person's failings don't limit his successes, that you can strive strictly for someone's positive qualities. Humanity has to outgrow Jesus (and the other analogues) and find ironclad meaning by accepting the imperfection of self and heroes while still working to reduce said imperfection. True strength comes not when your idol can't be torn down, but when you have the constitution to independently maintain a drive for good even when your best idol has been rightfully torn down. Humanity isn't there yet. It needs to learn. If this is offensive to anyone please note that I accept your offence as fully justified. I also have no credentials or authority. I might not even have an education, and am merely a random person soapboxing that has no effect on anything.
I’m avoiding studying as if it were bubonic. This led me to playing a computer role playing game called The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind all morning. Your avatar arrives on a hostile island. Everyone hates him. He jogs at 1km/hr and is bad at everything. A single rat could defeat him in a duel, he can’t even use a mortar and pestle properly (how do you do that wrong?), and he will break ten(!) smith hammers before being able to work out a single dent in his armour. At the end he’s fulfilled an ancient prophecy and saved the land from immortal danger. That’s all par course for role playing games. Here’s what’s odd, these little messages that you don’t see elsewhere: You know that prophecy I mentioned? It’s a self fulfilling one; you are told the parameters and you’re only the ‘chosen one’ if you succeed, if you do the work and tear yourself away from that captive mirror. Work will free you. The mirrors in our houses and our pockets aren’t the cause. Anything that presents a superficial reflection will substitute—the daffodils will always be there. Get away from them. Stop looking.
He doesn't practice clinical psychiatry anymore. His near-death scare combined with age has tipped him over that knife's edge, the one he walked between philosophical and literal interpretation of the bible, the one he walked between passionate practical discourse and stirring platitudes. His weakness made him susceptible to the constant, eroding mirror that burdens a 'Youtube personality.' The fans hold it up and angle it just right to burn the distinct features right off their target's face. He's just a cartoon now, a Flanders of his old self. View attachment 23077 Credit: not me. What does he talk about now, other than platitudes? Politics. Lots of politics. And that's fine. It's okay. It's also low-value, disposable content. Anyone can talk about politics. See: Thanksgiving. He at least hasn't fully dropped the 3rd dimension like Shapiro or worse, Crowder. View attachment 23078 Even without the benzodisasterpenes, he was at the end of philosophy. But that's not how it works. You don't just stop philosophy. You've built up a tolerance over the years, and a dependence. The ideas need to be wilder, more abstract, more compelling. You pull in all the other ones, at least the ones that fit the new model. They get contorted into your interpretations, sliced out of context, jammed in to a model that serves you and the other chicken-chokers. Somewhere along the line your mind realizes that you actually make the rules. An expertise in comprehension becomes and expertise in manipulation, and there is no way in the world you would let yourself know that. View attachment 23076 "There was a small increase in the octopus' serotonin after three days of exposure to Beyond Good and Evil, but day four onwards actually saw a net decrease." Criticism aside, I think he's a great person. Smart, compassionate, articulate, and most importantly hard-working. He can maintain velocity for now, as there is always another social study to cite and his charisma is still quite prevalent, but he would be wiser to dip out of view once he's finished selling another book or two. Leave while the room is full and all that.
I have been accused, on multiple occasions, of having Aliens versus Predator disease. Okay, that’s a mouthful. Let’s call it AVPD instead. View attachment 23073 "Why are you avoiding me?" There are problems. Some aren’t so obvious. 1. We don’t consistently respect disease. The accusations have not come from a health professional, but their seriousness invokes the need for one to treat it. Anyone can tell you if you’ve just lost a limb—it’s actually quite patronizing. Consider, however, your best friend diagnosing you with cystic firbrosis because you’re constipated. He can’t help you, though. He’s not qualified to provide medical therapy, as it would require years of training and professional competence. So why did he start talking in the first place? The best thing he can say to you is: “Woah bra, you should go see a qualified professional about that symptom(s).” Specificity isn’t very useful. Or is it? And for whom? 2. We lob diagnoses at each other not due to ability, but Inability. Eugene the bank clerk isn’t saying you have AVPD because he knows so much about it, he’s making the diagnosis because your behaviour has fallen out of what he can parse as socially normal, his own personal bell curve. See the problem? Yes, he’s not claiming he’s as qualified as a professional, but he is claiming he’s qualified on the full breadth of social interaction. At least Mr. GP might refer you to a specialist when he’s stumped. Eugene isn’t making that diagnosis for your sake, his making it for his own. There is no WAY that you just don't like predators, and don't want to spend any more time with them. "Everybody should be themselves, unless it makes me uncomfortable, then it's not themselves, it's a disorder," says Eugene. View attachment 23074 "The initial tests came back negative, so your symptoms must be from Jesus-no-likey-you disease. You need to see a pastor." 3. Oh shit, what’s stopping me from doing it to myself? Well, ideally your friends. But they’re going to encourage or inspire it so long as it keeps things lubricated. Now, this doesn't mean you or them are wrong all of the time, but it certainly should be criticized more than it is.
...or "You don't even have to read between the lines anymore." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/instagram-avatars-meta-facebook Sure, Buzzfeed writers definitely don't represent their generations (and this one quite clearly has a Zuck-positive agenda), but I can't ignore how illustrative this is. From the Author: "My experience with online avatars started in elementary school, when I used my profiles for online games like Millsberry and My Scene to determine if I really hated wearing pink or just wanted to subvert gendered expectations. In college, my little brunette Bitmoji one day magically became blonde, and weeks later I did too (though it involved a lot more chemicals and money). Even now, I hop onto the website Picrew when I would rather look at a cartoon version of myself with perfect makeup clutching an iced coffee than scroll through a thousand imperfect selfies that don’t reflect how I want people to see me." Questions lurk. 1. Only selfies. Why is no one else taking pictures of her? 2. How can, out of thousands of pictures, not so much as one of them represent her? 3. Note the word usage: "...when I would rather look at..." turns into "...imperfect selfies that don't reflect how I want people to see me." Her, other people, or both? She goes on: "Justin Hochberg, CEO and cofounder of Virtual Brand Group, told me that the self-expression allowed by digital avatars can be 'life-changing.' 'It’s terribly unfortunate that people cringe at the thought of allowing people to be who they are and not who you expect them to be,' he said. 'I think that says more about how they feel about themselves.'" This is satirical, truly. You could be reading this and thinking, "So what? Avatars aren't a big deal. It's harmless fun." You are correct. The harm has already been done decades past.
Just be confident. Intuition vs abstraction. He never had to do his homework, or worse he did and then forgot. He's either A: skilled at the discipline and a bad teacher, or B: So ignorant w/respect to the discipline that he's actually an obliviously poor actor. Confidence comes with skill, but association gets it all back-fronted in people's heads. It's possibly good advice for a con man, but even then the bulk his confidence comes from understanding how to find and exploit marks. Solution: Use repetition, exposure, and knowledge to increase capability, which will be followed by confidence. Related: Just be yourself Same problem. "Yourself" is constantly changing to adapt socially. "Yourself" as a teenager did not meet the standards that you and everyone else expect, that's why we change/mature with age. Regardless of age, "yourself" could be a serial butt-slapper. Don't be that. When someone says to just be yourself that means his ego has retro-established that he was always as functional as he is now. It's great for him, but useless for you. Solution: focus more on the people around you than yourself. Be receptive, but maintain boundaries and assertiveness where appropriate. Bonus: while the confidence line is oft applied to most subjects, it's definitely best to stop listening if someone tells you to just be yourself when behind the wheel.
