Impulses of cruelty and of kindness

[Alexander III]

This may sound strange, but I wanted to create a thread to hear opinions on this topic.

Do you all experience random and sudden impulses of cruelty and kindness in equal measure? Do you always act upon them or do you restrain your impulse?

For example one night, I saw a homeless man and had a sudden and overwhelming desire to be cruel. I went home and got some monopoly money, and went about picadilly distributing the false money to the homeless I saw. Seeing their faces when they realized what I had given them gave me an immense satisfaction. That night I went home perfectly happy and slept like a baby.
In the same week, after having won roughly 300 pounds in the casino, I went to buy some early morning celebratory cigarettes. Outside the tobacconist I saw a homeless man sleeping. I was overcome with a sudden and overwhelming desire. I woke him up and gave him all the money I had won. Seeing his face, and taking the cigarette he offered me I had an immense satisfaction and I left happy.

In both cases these two acts seemed to burst from the same source and in both cases when I acted upon the desire the resultant happiness was near identical.

Does the same happen as well to you guys? Why do you think that the same sudden desire for cruelty and kindness, two desires at the opposite end of the spectrum produce the same effect and are born in the near same manner?

[cafolini]

This may sound strange, but I wanted to create a thread to hear opinions on this topic.

Do you all experience random and sudden impulses of cruelty and kindness in equal measure? Do you always act upon them or do you restrain your impulse?

For example one night, I saw a homeless man and had a sudden and overwhelming desire to be cruel. I went home and got some monopoly money, and went about picadilly distributing the false money to the homeless I saw. Seeing their faces when they realized what I had given them gave me an immense satisfaction. That night I went home perfectly happy and slept like a baby.
In the same week, after having won roughly 300 pounds I went to buy some early morning celebratory cigarettes. Outside the tobacconist I saw a homeless man sleeping. I was overcome with a sudden and overwhelming desire. I woke him up and gave him all the money I had won at the casino. Seeing his face, and taking the cigarette he offered me I had an immense satisfaction and I left happy.

In both cases these two acts seemed to burst from the same source and in both cases when I acted upon the desire the resultant happiness was near identical.

Does the same happen as well to you guys? Why do you think that the same sudden desire for cruelty and kindness, two desires at the opposite end of the spectrum produce the same effect and are born in the near same manner?

This is probably true with children. Considerations as to what is cruelty require moral judgment which may or may no be present. So, yes it happens or has happened to anyone.

[Buh4Bee]

Sounds like the title of a book.

I can be cruel and impulsive, but only when I have an ax to grind. My motivation to be cruel may stem from revenge/getting even, or defending a less fortunate soul. My nature is to be kind, so I don't describe that as an impulse as much as a way of being (if that makes any sense).

[Delta40]

I have thoughts about people who I don't like where I play out a scenario in my mind but it is usually one that equates with justice for me and doesn't involve cruelty as I perceive cruelty for the sake of inflicting it upon innocent people.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've never been impulsively cruel, or had any desire to be cruel. I don't understand that side. However, I have had impulses to be kind and gracious. And I also have times that I just don't care.

[JuniperWoolf]

Does the same happen as well to you guys?

It happens to me. I tortured the hell out of my brother when we were kids (the poor young helpless pigeon). He was afriad of the dark, so I often locked him into dark rooms. I'd let him watch the most disturbing movies and then crawl into his bedroom after dark and grab him from under the bed or reach my hand out from his closet. I force my cruel impulses down now that I'm an adult, but they're still there (the strange bursts of kindness are there too, and you're right - they do feel like they originate from the same source).

I've been told that it's the same way with everyone and that all people have cruel thoughts, but you can never really know someone else's head. The only thing that you can do is observe their behaviour, so all I can tell you is that I once learned about a study in which people were given the ability to "anonymously" (they didn't know that they were being filmed) pour hot sauce into the beverages of a soon-to-occur party, and almost EVERYONE chose to load the drinks with hot sauce. Males, females, people of all colors and religious backgrounds, they all loved the idea of burning the mouthes of strangers.

Cruelty is just funny (to an extent) and now that we're not children we have to find acceptable ways to sublimate our nature that won't get us arrested (or, because with adulthood comes morality, tear at our conscience). That's why the most sucessful comedians aren't the ones that joke about airline peanuts. The best comedians are the people who saw the joy in stepping on the toes of others and delivered that joy to us in a brilliant manner, people like George Carlin and Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Morally, we know that hurting people is wrong, but delivering a swift burn feels pretty damn good.

[qimissung]

That is interesting. Honestly, at this point in time, if I got the chance to do that to my principal, I would at least consider it.

Other than that, I rarely want to hurt people. I want to be kind, and I want others to treat me the same, or leave me alone.

Now when I was a kid I would occasionally have those impulses. I found them unsettling, and they made me feel kind of sick.

Having said that, I can still be inconsiderate, thoughtless, or impatient, but I do try to empathetic as often as I can. (Except for Republicans-still struggling with that one :D)

[osho]

In fact I always have impulses popping up and surging inside me and I know they are powerful and at times sway me. Impulses out of kindness, benevolence are constructive emotions and at the same time there are perilous impulses that leads to the downfall

[Paulclem]

I have to say that on a cruety scale of 1 to 10, your examples are at the prankish end of 1-2. Kiddies being cruel/ prankish to their brothers and sisters is part of the job description and prepares them for the cut and thrust of school were you encounter the cruelty of bullying - 3-4.

[Annamariah]

I often feel like I'd like to hit annoying people or say nasty things to them, but I don't act on those impulses, because deep down I know it would be wrong and I'd feel guilty and ashamed if I did. So even though I think it would feel good to do those things, I know in the end the good feeling would only last for a moment and then I'd feel really bad afterwards.

When it comes to kindness, I'm not sure if one can talk about "impulses". If I see someone in need and I know I can easily help, I'll just do it, it's like an automatical reaction (also known as common courtesy?). So if someone drops something, I'll automatically help them collect their things. Once I overheard a girl talking to her cell phone and telling her friend she didn't have enough money for a bus ticket, so I went to her and gave her a few coins. Or if I see someone looking lost, I might ask them if they need help finding their way (or in some situations, being a Finn, I might just look easily approachable so that they can make the first move, because we respect each other's privacy).

[tonywalt]

That is interesting. Honestly, at this point in time, if I got the chance to do that to my principal, I would at least consider it.



Other than that, I rarely want to hurt people. I want to be kind, and I want others to treat me the same, or leave me alone.

Now when I was a kid I would occasionally have those impulses. I found them unsettling, and they made me feel kind of sick.

Having said that, I can still be inconsiderate, thoughtless, or impatient, but I do try to empathetic as often as I can. (Except for Republicans-still struggling with that one :D)


I thought schools were kinder and gentler now, my principal was mean.

Careful on the last comment you might catch fire...uh, just kidding, your safe.

[Scheherazade]

I believe the impulses will always be there... Giving a good bop to someone who is obviously talking rubbish... Or tripping an annoying six years old running around at the cafe while his or her parents just sit down and watch...

*muses*

I digress... The important question is not whether we have such urges or impulses but what we do with them. I do believe as humanbeings are born selfish and mean and bad and cruel (love the concept of ID); however, in theory, morality teaches not to give in such impulses. So, we have the choice, which is where we can make a difference.

Alexander ~ I cannot help but wonder whether you are modelling yourself after Dorian Gray!

:D

[Emil Miller]

Alexander ~ I cannot help but wonder whether you are modelling yourself after Dorian Gray! :D

Perhaps that's why he hasn't posted anything in Your Favourite Picture thread.

[Alexander III]

To many people are telling me that I remind them of Dorian Gray - even one of my lecturers, during the middle of a lecture stopped, looked at me and casually pointed out to the class and myself that my manner reminded him of Dorian Gray. It was an awkward lecture.

But as to the topic, if both kindness and crulety arise from a similar impulse, why is it that we should restrain the crulety and encorage the kindness, why not the other way round - or at least everything should be restrained or everything should be acted upon, that makes more sense.

As Blake said - Sooner murder an infant in it's craddle than nurse unacted desire

To be honest I agree, each time we restrain a desire we forfeit a part of our life and instead we acquiesce to mere existance. Surley considering our mortality every moment should be spent trying to maximize sensation rather than restraining it. For if the definition of death is possesing no sensation surley the epitome of life is a constant and raptourous overflow of sensation.

[Scheherazade]

To many people are telling me that I remind them of Dorian Gray - even one of my lecturers, during the middle of a lecture stopped, looked at me and casually pointed out to the class and myself that my manner reminded him of Dorian Gray. It was an awkward lecture.

I did not say you reminded me of Dorian Gray but asked whether you were modelling yourself after him.

Anyhow, your reply makes me believe that you are. Not that it matters.

[Alexander III]

I did not say you reminded me of Dorian Gray but asked whether you were modelling yourself after him.

Anyhow, your reply makes me believe that you are. Not that it matters.

In truth I mostly model myself Onegin and Pechorin - they are charcters whom I love and more importantly admire.

Dorian Gray I like but he is to childish and petulant and thoughtless to admire.

[LadyLuck]

I can't say I ever have strong urges towards either polar degree of kindness or cruelty. I'm a generally kind individual, and I have very strong tendencies to give generously to the people I meet. I love it when I can see that I've made someone's day a little better, and sometimes all it takes is a smile or a kind word. I typically try to keep my world at a happy medium, and I'm just grateful that the same goodness normally comes back to me.

[YW1990]

Do you all experience random and sudden impulses of cruelty and kindness in equal measure? Do you always act upon them or do you restrain your impulse?

In both cases these two acts seemed to burst from the same source and in both cases when I acted upon the desire the resultant happiness was near identical.

Does the same happen as well to you guys? Why do you think that the same sudden desire for cruelty and kindness, two desires at the opposite end of the spectrum produce the same effect and are born in the near same manner?

This sort of brings me to a thought that i recently made about emotions in general. Undoubtedly, all emotions are different from each other. It isn't the same to feel angry to calm, happy to sad. They are all indubitably different. I'm making a figurative claim here not an intellectual one backed up by logical reasoning or objectivity when i say this, but In my belief, all emotions are the same when you reach the very apex of it.

When you are at the edge of happiness, sadness, Anger etc you are seized by the same things. Possession, Heightened Indifference to reality, forgetting of quotidian banalities. You transcend beyond these emotional labels to a realm where all intensity ultimately leads.
You stating that both these outbursts of cruelty and kindness came from the same source does not have exact links to my claim above, but does have some sort of connection to it.

[JuniperWoolf]

^There's a psychotic amount of research on emotion. They've done a not bad job of mapping (http://www.affective-science.org/pubs/1995/FeldmanJPSP1995.pdf) emotion based on a two dimentional scale of arousal and valence (whether the emotion feels "good" or "bad").


Or tripping an annoying six years old running around at the cafe while his or her parents just sit down and watch...

:smilielol5: Man that would be awesome.

[Vonny]

I believe the impulses will always be there... Giving a good bop to someone who is obviously talking rubbish... Or tripping an annoying six years old running around at the cafe while his or her parents just sit down and watch...

*muses*

I digress... The important question is not whether we have such urges or impulses but what we do with them. I do believe as humanbeings are born selfish and mean and bad and cruel (love the concept of ID); however, in theory, morality teaches not to give in such impulses. So, we have the choice, which is where we can make a difference.

Alexander ~ I cannot help but wonder whether you are modelling yourself after Dorian Gray!

:D


I disagree with most of this. I don't believe that most people are born selfish, cruel, etc. Some, yes, but not most.


There are many children who can't bear to see another being hurt, from the earliest age that they can distinguish that the other being feels pain or sadness, and it has nothing to do with teachings of morality. Empathy is inborn in many people. It may not be evident in an infant, but it still inborn.


You might want to trip an unruly 6 year-old, in thinking it would teach the child to behave and a thump would do it good, but not if it would really hurt the child.


I only feel a desire to hurt someone if they are trampling me or someone else.

[JuniperWoolf]

There are many children who can't bear to see another being hurt, from the earliest age that they can distinguish that the other being feels pain or sadness, and it has nothing to do with teachings of morality. Empathy is inborn in many people. It may not be evident in an infant, but it still inborn.

See, the problem is, there's no evidence to support any of these claims.

[Vonny]

See, the problem is, there's no evidence to support any of these claims.

I never said that there was.

[Scheherazade]

I disagree with most of this. I don't believe that most people are born selfish, cruel, etc. Some, yes, but not most. Please feel free to disagree but also take the time to have a look at theories of ID, ego and superego in psychology as my suggestion was not based on what my brother did when he was seven or eight but what I remember from the education and psychology courses I took at university extensively (I should also add a disclaimer here that because I took these courses over a four-year period, I do not claim to be a mini-psychologist or to know all there is to know about psychology).

Most of us are taught and learn from very early on what is acceptable behaviour and other desirable traits -as they are defined in our societies (yes, they might change from one culture to the other). For example, mercy, kindness and generousity are often rewarded, which makes them develop in us.

For clarification, I did not claim that tripping the 6-year-old would teach him a lesson or do him any good... On the contrary, I claimed that this "cruel" act might make me feel good even if for a short while but that I did not give in the temptation... Well, not very often at least.

[Vonny]

Please feel free to disagree but also take the time to have a look at theories of ID, ego and superego in psychology as my suggestion was not based on what my brother did when he was seven or eight but what I remember from the education and psychology courses I took at university extensively (I should also add a disclaimer here that because I took these courses over a four-year period, I do not claim to be a mini-psychologist or to know all there is to know about psychology).

Most of us are taught and learn from very early on what is acceptable behaviour and other desirable traits -as they are defined in our societies (yes, they might change from one culture to the other). For example, mercy, kindness and generousity are often rewarded, which makes them develop in us.

For clarification, I did not claim that tripping the 6-year-old would teach him a lesson or do him any good... On the contrary, I claimed that this "cruel" act might make me feel good even if for a short while but that I did not give in the temptation... Well, not very often at least.


I think a lot of the psychology we've all been taught is bogus, and has displaced common sense for too many people.

[Scheherazade]

I think a lot of the psychology we've all been taught is bogus, and has displaced common sense for too many people.I cannot wait to hear your insight into why psychology taught is "bogus" and how it displaced common sense for too many people. Do you not recognise psychology as a science?

Are you implying that I am one of those people whose "common sense" has been "displaced" because I took some psychology and find certain theories valid and acceptable?

I think this is also a good point in the discussion for you to share how much psychology you studied, where and when...

[ftil]

I think a lot of the psychology we've all been taught is bogus, and has displaced common sense for too many people.

I agree. Since Freud, the theories have been changing like weather. :lol: However, there are a few that promotes growth.

[Vonny]

I agree. Since Freud, the theories have been changing like weather. :lol: However, there are a few that promotes growth.

I believe you ftil. I just try to employ my own brain with all this stuff. Otherwise you end up with another religion, walking by faith and not by sight.

And no matter if it's psychology, bible or whatever, I select what I like and discard the rest.


I don't like this idea: impulses of cruelty and kindness. It's like my mother. In one moment she will tell me that I'm good to her, and she appreciates all I do for her, and even that she wouldn't be alive now if it weren't for me. Then in the next moment, soon as I'm not doing every single thing exactly her way, she will say to me in a quivering, tortured voice, "I wish that you loved me, (boo! hoo!) You'll never know how it hurts me that you don't love me, (sob sob)"


Are you implying that I am one of those people whose "common sense" has been "displaced" because I took some psychology courses and find some certain theories valid and acceptable?

I think this is also a good point in the discussion for you to share how much psychology you studied, where and when...

Scher, I teach the psychologists a few things. And my comments aren't directed at any person; it was a comment about society.

[Delta40]

I don't think anyone is implying that your common sense has been displaced as much I wouldn't expect my opinion to bear less relevance than someone who completed a degree in psychology.

[YesNo]

I agree with Vonny. I don't think people are born selfish or cruel.

I don't think cruelty and kindness come from the same source. Cruelty comes from delusion and kindness comes from awareness.

[Scheherazade]

Scher, I teach the psychologists a few things.I have no doubt, Vonny.
I don't think people are born selfish or cruel. Ever tried to explain a two-year old s/he could have a glass of juice as soon as you have finished reading your page?

Or watch them "sharing" toys with other toddlers?

[ftil]

I believe you ftil. I just try to employ my own brain with all this stuff. Otherwise you end up with another religion, walking by faith and not by sight.

And no matter if it's psychology, bible or whatever, I select what I like and discard the rest.


Absolutely. After all, there is deep wisdom in words of Goethe, “If you trust yourself, you will be happy”

[Delta40]

I have no doubt, Vonny.Ever tried to explain a two-year old s/he could have a glass of juice as soon as you have finished reading your page?

Or watch them "sharing" toys with other toddlers?

Calling a child selfish or cruel is ridiculous unless the parent takes the credit for it just as they take the credit when the child is kind. I really think its about labels and how we interpret the behaviour of children. We can classify their non-awareness for others feelings as selfish and cruel but I don't believe such terms are inherent and are loosely used, especially by the parents whose child just got whacked with a plastic toy by another child!

Children are socialized by the parent, taught awareness and they (most) develop a moral conscience.

[Vonny]

I have no doubt, Vonny.Ever tried to explain a two-year old s/he could have a glass of juice as soon as you have finished reading your page?

Or watch them "sharing" toys with other toddlers?

Kids need to be taught there's no question. These little kids don't understand that they're hurting someone else, if they are. But this kind of selfishness is different from cruel. Wanting a toy for oneself is different from torturing an animal or torturing another kid, because they get a thrill from seeing someone hurt.

I don't believe that we're taught not to enjoy hurting someone else.

[Scheherazade]

I don't believe that we're taught not to enjoy hurting someone else. There was no mention of enjoyment at all; only the fact that young children fail to concern themselves with others' needs (selfishness) or downfall (result of possible cruelty) because they put the satisfaction of their own needs and desires above others.

What we are taught is not to give in to our desires and needs all the time because of its possible negative effects on others involved.

Please do not pass your interpretations as my words.
Calling a child selfish or cruel is ridiculous unless the parent takes the credit for it just as they take the credit when the child is kind.It is not ridiculous at all. Unless the selfish tendencies are "dealt with" the child grows into a selfish adult. As you suggest below:

Children are socialized by the parent, taught awareness and they (most) develop a moral conscience.What's more, when faced a crisis or stipped off our "civil" obligations, we are very likely to go back to our selfish and cruel tendencies as it happens with deindividualisation.

Our civil manners is nothing but a fine veneer covering our selfish self. Read Lord of the Flies?

However, I do not wish to derail Alexander's thread. Might start another thread on the topic.

[cafolini]

I agree with Vonny. I don't think people are born selfish or cruel.

I don't think cruelty and kindness come from the same source. Cruelty comes from delusion and kindness comes from awareness.

And delusion comes from not being born? And awareness is as instant as mashed potatos for the well born? Y'are funny today.

[Alexander III]

I have no doubt, Vonny.Ever tried to explain a two-year old s/he could have a glass of juice as soon as you have finished reading your page?

Or watch them "sharing" toys with other toddlers?

Actualy when my mother said to me " let me finish the page and I will pour you a glass of juices" I would wait and let her finish, as I knew that If I didnt I would get the slap.

When I was little me and my childhood friends who were the children of my parents friends were always perfectly behaved when in the presence of adults. Our parents would use the "slap" and be sterne in such things.

One time were were having sunday brunch at the ritz, and a woman remarked to my mum what a wonderfull child I was, I sat and conversed with the adults and I behaved perfectly well. My mother assured her it had nothing to do with me, the only reason I was not running around screaming and flinging food in the air like so many children you see in restaurants or cafees, is because I was raised with discipline.

If I ever become a parent, I shall use the "slap" and give them discipline - because even though now it is unaceptable to hit children, I know it is silly to raise children without some hitting.

I remember myself as a child. I was a little **** in the most literal sense. I would push and push with my noughtiness, my parents would ground me and take away tv priviliges and try and make me feel guilty, but I knew I could get around that so I kept pushing, I would only stop when the "slap" came.

So yes, the problem is not the children. it's the parents.

If a child won't let you finish a page before you pour him his juice he simply needs some discipline and a slap or two.

I mean lets face it the more direct parenting system has been around for near all human history and the children always came out fine. WHy change everything in the last fifty years?

[Vonny]

Our civil manners is nothing but a fine veneer covering our selfish self. Read Lord of the Flies?

I haven't read that, but I think it's full of horrific cruelty. Not all children are like that. Personally, I was never taught not to hurt something else. I was taught the opposite, in terms of physical torture, by my father anyway.

The only way I could have learned empathy was from watching my brother cry over a dead hamster. But where did he learn that?


There was no mention of enjoyment at all; only the fact that young children fail to concern themselves with others'

If you look at the OP, it does seem that enjoyment derived from hurting someone is mentioned or implied.


Please do not pass your interpretations as my words.

If I did that I apologize. I don't know what I did, I'll have to go back and carefully study what I wrote.

To clarify, you aren't in bold, so you are a fellow member of the forum now, right?



Edit: I agree Alexander. All of us children were perfectly behaved in front of adults or in public. But after my father left when I was six years-old, two of my brothers tortured me constantly, because my mother thought it was fine.

But yes, kids need discipline, and I agree about the spanking. Often I think even a sociopath can be trained not to hurt others, even if they don't understand why.

[Scheherazade]

Actualy when my mother said to me " let me finish the page and I will pour you a glass of juices" I would wait and let her finish, as I knew that If I didnt I would get the slap.Until the moment you learnt that you had to wait (or else got the slap), you must have displayed some kind of "selfishness" and persistence; otherwise, your parent would not have slapped you in the first place, which made you learn that your selfish demand might lead to getting slapped.

So yes, the problem is not the children. it's the parents. No idea what this means in relation to this discussion... And I am not sure I want to get into how to discipline children as it seems like you already have got some set ideas, which are very different from mine.


If a child won't let you finish a page before you pour him his juice he simply needs some discipline and a slap or two.Just for clarification, we are talking about a toddler, who is not able to understand and appreciate a logical explanation such as "as soon as I finish this page".
If you look at the OP, it does seem that enjoyment derived from hurting someone is mentioned or implied. The OP does not strike me as a toddler either.


To clarify, you aren't in bold, so you are a fellow member of the forum now, right?:svengo:
But yes, kids need discipline, and I agree about the spanking. Often I think even a sociopath can be trained not to hurt others, even if they don't understand why. First slapping and now spanking. You are suggesting by physically hurting someone we can "train" them not to hurt others.

On that note, I am out of this discussion.

[Vonny]

The OP does not strike me as a toddler either.

The OP asked if we have impulses of cruelty or kindness.

Speaking for myself, I've never had any impulses for cruelty, as far back as I can remember. My earliest memories are of feeling destroyed when a hamster died.



Until the moment you learnt that you had to wait (or else got the slap), you must have displayed some kind of "selfishness" and persistence; otherwise, your parent would not have slapped you in the first place, which made you learn that your selfish demand might lead to getting slapped.


Those tendencies were present but he feels that the slap trained him well. A little spanking is good thing.

[LadyLuck]

Ever tried to explain a two-year old s/he could have a glass of juice as soon as you have finished reading your page?

Or watch them "sharing" toys with other toddlers?
:lol:This just means they have a healthy sense of possession... Not that I'll argue over them being cruel. Ever have a five year old kick you in the knee because someone else made them mad?

[Vonny]

Ever have a five year old kick you in the knee because someone else made them mad?

I think there are 5 year-olds who commit murder nowadays, probably if the parents won't give them more money for their cell phone.


It's funny that today a little spanking is the most horrific thing we can imagine. :svengo:

[JuniperWoolf]

I never said that there was.

But you did state it as fact, which is basically lying.


I agree. Since Freud, the theories have been changing like weather. :lol: However, there are a few that promotes growth.

So has every other science. It's stupid to assume that an area of study won't change, that's what's supposed to happen as we gain information.

[Emil Miller]

I mean lets face it the more direct parenting system has been around for near all human history and the children always came out fine. WHy change everything in the last fifty years?

Because for the last fifty years the lunatics have been running the asylum.

[Vonny]

But you did state it as fact, which is basically lying.



So has every other science. It's stupid to assume that an area of study won't change, that's what's supposed to happen as we gain information.

"is basically lying"... "it's stupid"...


OP: Impulses of cruelty and kindness



First slapping and now spanking. You are suggesting by physically hurting someone we can "train" them not to hurt others.

There is a little pain in life, and this is for the child's benefit. It doesn't need to be painful really, but the child understands it. It does work. You can train a dog not to bite if you start when its a puppy and bite its ear a little when it bites you. That's the way they are trained within the pack, wolves and such.

[ftil]

But you did state it as fact, which is basically lying.



So has every other science. It's stupid to assume that an area of study won't change, that's what's supposed to happen as we gain information.




Hm…even if psychological theories have been changing with a speed of light? Have you thought why this is happening? Do humans change with the same speed? Or the answer is very different.

BTW, it is not wise to make any assumptions. :D

[YesNo]

And delusion comes from not being born? And awareness is as instant as mashed potatos for the well born? Y'are funny today.
No, the delusion is learned after birth.

I've noticed some posts about what one should do, as a parent, if one is reading a page and your 2-year-old child asks you to stop and give him or her a glass of juice. Should you ask the child to wait until you finish your page or should you stop and give the child the juice, picking up the page where you left off later?

I know what I've done in the past, regretting my decisions oftentimes. My children are now all teenagers so I no longer have the opportunity these sorts of tests offer, but there are always tests. However, I'll just ask a couple of questions:

Which choice on your part teaches your child by example selflessness?

Which choice offers you a chance to practice patience and selflessness?

[JuniperWoolf]

Absolutely. After all, there is deep wisdom in words of Goethe, “If you trust yourself, you will be happy”

So you think that you can just assume what's true and what's untrue (based on ignorance, tradition, convenience and personal prejudices, which everyone has and so everyone is prone to distort reality without the proof of nice emotionless statistics) without any research at all?


Hm…even if psychological theories have been changing with a speed of light?

Hyperbole alert.

[ftil]

So you think that you can just assume which social trends are true and which are fallacies based on ignorance and personal prejudice without doing any social research at all? Word to the wise: that kind of thinking has never gone well.

Not that it matters what anyone who hasn't done actual studies in psychology thinks of psychology based on what they've seen in films. It doesn't technically matter what the laymen thinks of any study for that mattter - dissing biology doesn't make it any less of a science to serious students and professionals. Psychology is accepted as a science by all universities already (by people who have actually learned about the area of study which they're judging).



Hm….you are making assumptions…that I make assumptions.LOL! I don’t make assumptions. I study and ask questions. If you study all major theories and study in depth, you should have many, many questions. But if you don't.....
I will not comment that. :lol:

[LadyLuck]

It's funny that today a little spanking is the most horrific thing we can imagine. :svengo:

I can actually count on one hand the number of times my children, combined, have been spanked in the past year. Every single one of them were for infractions that would have led to bodily harm through direct disobedience. Overall, it just isn't effective. How can you teach a child to not be cruel by inflicting pain:confused:? I'm not saying that kids should be allowed to run wild, mine certainly don't, but there are many more effective things that do not create a greater frequency of the exact kind of behavior I wish to discourage. It's all about knowing your own children and what manipulation works for them. The same things don't work for each of mine, but very rarely is there any need for violence. If I wish for them to not hit one another, it makes no sense to prove my point by hitting them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, I find it hard to believe that one or the other is fully correct. I think it's a combination of both.

[LadyLuck]

I think you're full of ****. Or maybe it's more of a hope.

When it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, I find it hard to believe that one or the other is fully correct. I think it's a combination of both.

I have to agree that it's both. We may have a certain tendency to behave a certain way, but it is the way we are raised, the values we are taught, that help to determine the person whom we grow to be. If nurture or nature accounted for everything, then how would you account for the 7 year old who thinks it enjoyable to nail live squirrels to a tree and skin them while they squirm when their parents are normal middle-class individuals who go to church every Sunday and love openly and freely.

[Vonny]

I can actually count on one hand the number of times my children, combined, have been spanked in the past year. Every single one of them were for infractions that would have led to bodily harm through direct disobedience. Overall, it just isn't effective. How can you teach a child to not be cruel by inflicting pain:confused:? I'm not saying that kids should be allowed to run wild, mine certainly don't, but there are many more effective things that do not create a greater frequency of the exact kind of behavior I wish to discourage. It's all about knowing your own children and what manipulation works for them. The same things don't work for each of mine, but very rarely is there any need for violence. If I wish for them to not hit one another, it makes no sense to prove my point by hitting them.

You could be right. Setting a good example for kids is by far the most important thing. I was never spanked and I turned out wonderful. :blush2: I learned from my brothers' example. And look how Mutatis turned out without getting a spanking, lol! Well, we won't go there! :wink5:

[JuniperWoolf]

Hm….you are making assumptions…that I make assumptions.

No, I'm saying that the idea of "trusting yourself" on human psychology and behaviour without actually getting statistics involved is the equivelant of making a blind assumption. You can't come to a valid decision without incorporating the law of large numbers because the people that you happen to meet in daily life don't accurately represent the public at large.


I will not comment that. :lol:

That is the most irritating smiley in the world. I don't even want to quote it because doing so would reproduce it.

[LadyLuck]

You could be right. Setting a good example for kids is by far the most important thing. I was never spanked and I turned out wonderful. :blush2: I learned from my brothers' example. And look how Mutatis turned out without getting a spanking, lol! Well, we won't go there! :wink5:

A spanking certainly isn't going to mold a child into something they're not just as limitless kindness does not possess that ability either. We are taught by the people around us, our parents, our teachers, our extended families, and even by the behavior modeled on the television. All of these mold us into the people we are far more than the punishments we receive as children.

I look at my generation and in so many ways I would characterize them as selfish, irresponsible, and unkind to any unless it offers benefit to them. I can't say that an entire generation of parents did a horrible job, and I definitely can not say an entire generation was born bad. I can say that I grew up being taught to ignore hard work and practicality. I was taught that things like iPads and Nintendo systems were entitlements not privileges, and that a good job was my right rather than something that I must work to attain and keep. This was offset by my parents teachings, and overall I turned out fine, but then I look at the kids whose parents didn't teach them the value of hard work. They are the same ones who feel they shouldn't have to pay debts and think life is entirely unfair that they can't live a upper middle class lifestyle on minimum wage.

[ftil]

No, I'm saying that the idea of "trusting yourself" on human psychology and behaviour without actually getting statistics involved is the equivelant of making a blind assumption. You can't come to a valid decision without incorporating the law of large numbers because the people that you happen to meet in daily life don't accurately represent the public at large.


Hm……do you really think that I ignore research? On what basis you have made that assumptions? You don’t know me at all so how you can make assumptions?
Secondly, I was talking about major theories. Can you explain how numbers and statistic relate to humanistic, cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, or Interpersonal theory, for example? We can look at researches that evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches of therapy but it is not what I was talking about. We are talking about two different things, aren’t we? Before you make another comment that I can’t come with a valid answer, please, read carefully and take your time to understand what I wrote.



That is the most irritating smiley in the world. I don't even want to quote it because doing so would reproduce it.

Hey, this is my favorite one. We need to laugh more. :wink5: This smiley :lol: is better than :D

[JuniperWoolf]

Hm……do you really think that I ignore research? On what basis you have made that assumptions?

Based on your derision of psychology as a science when all that science psychology is is the application of statistics to human behaviour out of which we derive a conclusion and then which others try to disprove (and if they can the hypothesis is scrapped). That's what science psychology is, pure and simple. You demonstrated your ignorance of the scientific method here:


I agree. Since Freud, the theories have been changing like weather. :lol: However, there are a few that promotes growth.

And then your further explination of your position which informs us that in order to understand human psychology you simply have to "trust yourself," ie. your own impressions, which you demonstrated here:


Absolutely. After all, there is deep wisdom in words of Goethe, “If you trust yourself, you will be happy”

...


Secondly, I was talking about major theories. Can you explain how numbers and statistic relate to humanistic, cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, or Interpersonal theory, for example?

Yep, but you should really know this already. You're asking me to describe the scientific method, which you should have learned in grade ten(ish) and which everyone who has ever taken a science course is supposed to know. It's boring, but here you go:

All scientific theories are based on statistics and observation. I've taken part in psychology research, and since that directly pertains to this discussion I'll explain the scientific method in that context. First they have an idea (ex. "hey, I wonder if impatience makes people prone to violence), then they examine a large number of people (usually they pass out a boring little questionnaire that you fill out and then hand in to the scientist's research assistant, but sometimes they trick you with a mock scenario and then observe your reaction), then they compile every person's results to get an average, then they come to a conclusion based on that average (and that conclusion would be what you keep referring to as a "theory"). A large number of people must be tested in order for the results to be representative of the general public (that is "the law of large numbers"). You then share your results via publication, and other scientists try to find holes in your research and disprove the conclusions that you drew because that's the best way to ensure that a study is valid (by having your peers try their hardest and yet still fail to prove that it's in-valid). That is the scientific method, and it is the process for ALL sciences, including psychology. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).

Only after a hypothesis has survived the rigorous process of scrutiny and testing that it will undergo in the scientific community does it become valid enough to be referred to as a "theory." With further scrutiny, it may become a "law," but that's very rare.

So there's that.

*****

You seem to think that theories are pulled out of the air and then remain untested. For you to have no idea how "humanistic, cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, or Interpersonal theory" relate to statistics and for you to think that psychology should have remained the same since Freud strongly implies that you have no idea what you're talking about.

"Science is just a succession of better and better approximations."

Also, the idea that science is a religion because it's taken seriously is a silly idea by people who only see the vehemence and insistance of people who strongly support various theories (or the scientific method in general), and they then compare that apparent certainty with the certainty of the blind devotees of religious ghosts. They ignore EVERYTHING ELSE about science except the feeling of it, the tone. You're not expected to try your hardest to disprove your religion, are you? If you're a scientist, then it's your job to shoot down theories that you think are illogical. Does that sound like religion? No, it's the exact opposite.

[ftil]

I can actually count on one hand the number of times my children, combined, have been spanked in the past year. Every single one of them were for infractions that would have led to bodily harm through direct disobedience. Overall, it just isn't effective. How can you teach a child to not be cruel by inflicting pain:confused:? I'm not saying that kids should be allowed to run wild, mine certainly don't, but there are many more effective things that do not create a greater frequency of the exact kind of behavior I wish to discourage. It's all about knowing your own children and what manipulation works for them. The same things don't work for each of mine, but very rarely is there any need for violence. If I wish for them to not hit one another, it makes no sense to prove my point by hitting them.

I agree that we don’t need to spank a child to teach him or her what is right or wrong. But when a parent is stressed-out, he or she is more prone to react and spank, for example. The problem is when parents would use spanking as only means to discipline children. It is wrong as it affects and damages child’s self esteem. But children need to learn that there are consequences if they choose to behave in a certain way. I wouldn’t use manipulation with children, either. We don’t want to raise children who become manipulative adults. :wink5: From my experience, validating and acknowledging feelings of my son has made huge difference. Sometimes, I have encouraged my son to express his anger………begging him not to throw pillows at sculptures. When he released anger, he was crying and I could hold him and comfort him, then we could talk. We want to teach children about feelings and how to express them, particularly boys as our culture teaches them otherwise.

[LadyLuck]

I agree that we don’t need to spank a child to teach him or her what is right or wrong. But when a parent is stressed-out, he or she is more prone to react and spank, for example. The problem is when parents would use spanking as only means to discipline children. It is wrong as it affects and damages child’s self esteem. But children need to learn that there are consequences if they choose to behave in a certain way. I wouldn’t use manipulation with children, either. We don’t want to raise children who become manipulative adults. :wink5: From my experience, validating and acknowledging feelings of my son has made huge difference. Sometimes, I have encouraged my son to express his anger………begging him not to throw pillows at sculptures. When he released anger, he was crying and I could hold him and comfort him, then we could talk. We want to teach children about feelings and how to express them, particularly boys as our culture teaches them otherwise.
I think manipulation was the wrong word to use. I guess I think of it more as knowing my children, their triggers, etc and managing them in such away that they're exposed to them in small amounts to learn to deal with them properly. Often simply explaining the consequences of their actions has the most dramatic affect. My oldest loves to explode and tell me how I hate him when it is time to do his reading homework (the irony that I love books and literature and that reading to him is a fate worse than death isn't lost on me ;)). I've actually talked him through how me caring about him doing his homework and learning the things he needs to in school is a sign that I love him, not an act of hate. That and letting him read a chapter in a college level economics book and try to take one of the tests was enough to convince him that there is more he needs to learn about reading :D

[ftil]

Based on your derision of psychology as a science when all that science psychology is is the application of statistics to human behaviour out of which we derive a conclusion and then which others try to disprove (and if they can the hypothesis is scrapped). That's what science psychology is, pure and simple. You demonstrated your ignorance of the scientific method here:

Ignorance, eh? :biggrinjester:

Firstly, I said that theories have been changing like weather. As I said earlier we have five perspective on human nature and behavior. Within those perspective we have many different theories. Let’s start from Berne and TA, then Gestalt, followed by the expansion of many theories. Lowen and Bioenergetics, followed by Bodynamic and Hokomi. Then we had Self theory, Feminist Therapy such as Relational Therapy, Grass Roots, or Liberal approach. Then we have to look at Family therapy for example Bowen Family System theory or Structural Family therapy to name a few. Then we have Cognitive-Behavior therapy such as Beck’s Cognitive-Behaviour therapy, Stress-Inoculation Therapy. We have Humanistic –Experiential therapy such as Client Centered Therapy of Carl Rogers or Existential therapy. We have Behavior Therapy that involves two techniques of extinction and implosive therapy and flooding. We can’t forget about Psychodynamic Therapy, Trauma therapy or Expressive therapies. But there are more than that.

Do you really think that those theorists applied statistics to human behavior to develop theory? I am wondering how Carl Rogers could applied statistics to develop Client Centered Therapy approach, for example? :biggrinjester: Can you see now that we are talking about two different things? I may reiterate that you need to read carefully to understand what others think rather then jumping to quick conclusions. But if you are more interested to hear yourself rather than understanding others....be my guest. :banana:


I think manipulation was the wrong word to use. I guess I think of it more as knowing my children, their triggers, etc and managing them in such away that they're exposed to them in small amounts to learn to deal with them properly. Often simply explaining the consequences of their actions has the most dramatic affect. My oldest loves to explode and tell me how I hate him when it is time to do his reading homework (the irony that I love books and literature and that reading to him is a fate worse than death isn't lost on me ;)). I've actually talked him through how me caring about him doing his homework and learning the things he needs to in school is a sign that I love him, not an act of hate. That and letting him read a chapter in a college level economics book and try to take one of the tests was enough to convince him that there is more he needs to learn about reading :D


I hear you. I agree that explaining the consequences has a dramatic effect. Child also feels that he or she has a choice and it is very empowering. Children have own logic when they explain our behaviors. lol I remember my son saying how he hated me. I had to use all my will not to laugh since he was serious and full of feelings. But then he was terrified since I was calm and said nothing. I needed to reassure him that I also felt hatred towards my parents, sometimes. Oh, our darlings. :wink5:

[JuniperWoolf]

Firstly, I said that theories have been changing like weather.

*facepalm* One more time: that's SUPPOSED to happen.


As I said earlier we have five perspective on human nature and behavior. Within those perspective we have many different theories. Let’s start from Berne and TA, then Gestalt, followed by the expansion of many theories. Lowen and Bioenergetics, followed by Bodynamic and Hokomi. Then we had Self theory, Feminist Therapy such as Relational Therapy, Grass Roots, or Liberal approach. Then we have to look at Family therapy for example Bowen Family System theory or Structural Family therapy to name a few. Then we have Cognitive-Behavior therapy such as Beck’s Cognitive-Behaviour therapy, Stress-Inoculation Therapy. We have Humanistic –Experiential therapy such as Client Centered Therapy of Carl Rogers or Existential therapy. We have Behavior Therapy that involves two techniques of extinction and implosive therapy and flooding. We can’t forget about Psychodynamic Therapy, Trauma therapy or Expressive therapies. But there are more than that..

...Did you just google "psychology theories list" or something? Almost everything that you just listed are THERAPY methods. Femminist theory is a philosophy that just happens to have the word "theory" in the name. Bioenergetics is a field. I don't know what "Bodynamic and Hokomi" is. In a word: wtf? What do you even think psychology is? Not EVERYTHING is a "theory," that word does have it's own definition. This is a totally pointless conversation, and it's starting to hurt my braincells.

Out of everything that you mentioned, the only ones that could maybe be described as "theories" in some sense are Transactional Analysis and Gestalt, and I'm pretty sure that you just stumbled onto those by mistake.

Please at least learn what the scientific method is before you try to discuss science.


Do you really think that those theorists applied statistics to human behavior to develop theory?

The ones that are actually theories, yeah. There's a ton. The rest of what you mentioned, being therapy methods, have a lot of accumulated information either supporting or dubunking them. Bah! I'm almost certain that you have NEVER taken a science class.


I am wondering how Carl Roger could applied statistics to develop Client Centered Therapy approach, for example? :biggrinjester:

1. That's not a theory.
2. His name is Carl Rogers.
3. Here you go (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Rogers/therapy.htm).


Can you see now that we are talking about two different things?

No, you just don't know what you're talking about. This is tedious.


I may reiterate that you need to read carefully to understand what others think rather then jumping to quick conclusions.:

And I reiterate that you don't know what science is.


But if you are more interested to hear yourself rather than understanding others....be my guest. :banana:

You're the one who is trying debunk a method of understanding which has taken thousands of years and thousands of minds to develop without taking the time to even learn what it is you're discussing, and you're also the one insisting that psychology isn't based on research. Who's more interested in hearing themselves talk than trying to understand, again?

I'm done, this is lame.

[ftil]

Did you just google "psychology theories list" or something?

No my dear, I studied them. I don’t like to be engaged in discussion about the subject I know a little.
I am glad that you are done. :banana:

Well, maybe you should contemplate upon the words of Socrates, " Virtue is knowledge, I know that I know nothing".

[JuniperWoolf]

No my dear, I studied them.


Suuuure you did. :rolleyes:

[ftil]

Let this tread to go back on track. :biggrinjester:


http://www.bestdogfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/f99a6_funny-dog-pictures-fold-dog-couch-directions.jpg

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic or inflammatory posts will be removed without further reminder.

~

[MarkBastable]

" Virtue is knowledge, I know that I know nothing".


Nice of you to be so upfront about it.

[ftil]

Nice of you to be so upfront about it.

Don't you think that there is deep wisdom in his words?

[MarkBastable]

Don't you think that there is deep wisdom in his words?

Not really, unless one believes that there is so much to know that the difference between knowing something and knowing nothing is so small as to be practically insignificant. In which case, we need a verb other than 'know' to represent the state of knowing anything at all, however tiny the amount.

[OrphanPip]

To be honest I never really feel the impulse to do really cruel things, maybe small acts of pettiness occasionally. At most say something cruel to a person. Although, as a teenager I was quite the aggressive bully and I probably made more than a few people's lives a bit miserable for a few years. When I played defence in hockey there was that small tinge of satisfaction in crushing someone up against the boards too.

However, I've found from the age 16 on that I have very little aggression left in me, though I know I have a tendency not to back down from a fight, which can sometimes end badly.

As to the question of psychology as science. It's problematic because there is a school of philosophy called psychoanalysis, and it is not scientific. It owes a lot to Freud, Jung, and Lacan. There is a scientific discipline of psychology that has arisen in the last 50-60 years that owes a lot to Freud as well, but probably more so to the American experimental psychologists like James. Especially with the rise of neuroscience the material theory of mind that dominates psychology has brought it definitely into the camp of science. Though it straddles the line with the social sciences and there is a great deal of uncertainty in the methodology.

[ftil]

Not really, unless one believes that there is so much to know that the difference between knowing something and knowing nothing is so small as to be practically insignificant. In which case, we need a verb other than 'know' to represent the state of knowing anything at all, however tiny the amount.

Hm……years ago, on a philosophy course, I was curious as everybody else why Socrates said that. After all, he was one of the greatest philosophers. He wasn’t just ordinary John.
We didn’t like the answer our professor gave us as he said, “if you do understand the depth of his words, you may be ready to study philosophy” :ihih:

[MarkBastable]

Hm……years ago, on a philosophy course, I was curious as everybody else why Socrates said that. After all, he was one of the greatest philosophers. He wasn’t just ordinary John.
We didn’t like the answer our professor gave us as he said, “if you do understand the depth of his words, you may be ready to study philosophy” :ihih:

Yeah - I know what you mean. Like me, you've noticed that most philosophy professors are smug, patronising holes.

Not that I blame them. If you're a plumber, it's in your interest to tell people that plumbing is a really difficult thing that requires years of etcetera. If you're a priest, you're obviously going to make out that this priesting business is a tough gig that's much more difficult than it might at first appear. And if you're a philosopher, you're going to tell students that even the simplest and most clearly fallacious uttterance is in fact an elegant and complex mystery that can be unravelled only by those who have studied for years to gain the necessary insight.

[Vonny]

To be honest I never really feel the impulse to do really cruel things, maybe small acts of pettiness occasionally. At most say something cruel to a person. Although, as a teenager I was quite the aggressive bully and I probably made more than a few people's lives a bit miserable for a few years. When I played defence in hockey there was that small tinge of satisfaction in crushing someone up against the boards too.

However, I've found from the age 16 on that I have very little aggression left in me, though I know I have a tendency not to back down from a fight, which can sometimes end badly.

As to the question of psychology as science. It's problematic because there is a school of philosophy called psychoanalysis, and it is not scientific. It owes a lot to Freud, Jung, and Lacan. There is a scientific discipline of psychology that has arisen in the last 50-60 years that owes a lot to Freud as well, but probably more so to the American experimental psychologists like James. Especially with the rise of neuroscience the material theory of mind that dominates psychology has brought it definitely into the camp of science. Though it straddles the line with the social sciences and there is a great deal of uncertainty in the methodology.


This intelligent post seems to be stuck in the middle of off-topic debris, so I'll pull it out.

There may be some difference in having a cruel impulse towards someone who we perceive as an equal and wanting to be cruel to something that we perceive as weak or damaged.

A difference I see in people is, there are people who are filled with frustration or pain, and they take this out on other people. Teenagers are often this way. I have a brother like this. Because he was abused, he can have a short temper and snap. The object of his anger is someone he perceives as equal to himself.

On the hockey field, there's a difference between aggression in a game, (which is inherent to an extent in trying to win) and consequently "crushing someone against the boards" - and enjoying kicking someone's head with a desire to give them a concussion and as severe permanent brain damage possible.

And if a child abuses a younger sibling it could be that they perceive the younger child has been favored, or has manipulated, or has done something to deserve it.


Then there are people who coolly and calmly, with some premeditation, torture small animals - or who persecute another innocent person who they perceive as weaker than themselves with the intention of causing real emotional distress. And there's sado-masochistic sex, etc., which to me, is just scarily sick and twisted. These impulses are a different category in my mind.

[ftil]

Yeah - I know what you mean. Like me, you've noticed that most philosophy professors are smug, patronising holes.

Not that I blame them. If you're a plumber, it's in your interest to tell people that plumbing is a really difficult thing that requires years of etcetera. If you're a priest, you're obviously going to make out that this priesting business is a tough gig that's much more difficult than it might at first appear. And if you're a philosopher, you're going to tell students that even the simplest and most clearly fallacious uttterance is in fact an elegant and complex mystery that can be unravelled only by those who have studied for years to gain the necessary insight.

We were delighted to have a new professor on a second semester. But the second one was much worse. He didn’t even bother to answer our questions.

Perhaps, Socrates was right as he said, “By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.” :brow:

Cruelty may have a deeper meaning.

[Jack of Hearts]

Not that I blame them. If you're a plumber, it's in your interest to tell people that plumbing is a really difficult thing that requires years of etcetera. If you're a priest, you're obviously going to make out that this priesting business is a tough gig that's much more difficult than it might at first appear. And if you're a philosopher, you're going to tell students that even the simplest and most clearly fallacious uttterance is in fact an elegant and complex mystery that can be unravelled only by those who have studied for years to gain the necessary insight.

This was funny. It's like that old saying- when all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Well when all you are is a plumber every decently flushing toilet looks like the Sistine Chapel.

But seriously. Socrates' statement is not just a buddhist coan. There's more context to it than that.

Sorry if offtopic. Reading the second page of this thread, this reader cannot tell what it's about.







J

[Alexander III]

This intelligent post seems to be stuck in the middle of off-topic debris, so I'll pull it out.

There may be some difference in having a cruel impulse towards someone who we perceive as an equal and wanting to be cruel to something that we perceive as weak or damaged.

A difference I see in people is, there are people who are filled with frustration or pain, and they take this out on other people. Teenagers are often this way. I have a brother like this. Because he was abused, he can have a short temper and snap. The object of his anger is someone he perceives as equal to himself.

On the hockey field, there's a difference between aggression in a game, (which is inherent to an extent in trying to win) and consequently "crushing someone against the boards" - and enjoying kicking someone's head with a desire to give them a concussion and as severe permanent brain damage possible.

And if a child abuses a younger sibling it could be that they perceive the younger child has been favored, or has manipulated, or has done something to deserve it.


Then there are people who coolly and calmly, with some premeditation, torture small animals - or who persecute another innocent person who they perceive as weaker than themselves with the intention of causing real emotional distress. And there's sado-masochistic sex, etc., which to me, is just scarily sick and twisted. These impulses are a different category in my mind.

You are right there are people who cools and calmly and premediativly torture animals and do sadistic things - but I was talking more about passionate impulses. And yet are the two so different.

2 Years ago, a guy I had never meet before slept with my girl friend whom I dearly loved. Naturaly I searched for him and found him. When I found him not only had he slep with my girlfriend and dmaged my honor gravley but he was insolant and arogant about it. We fought. At first he had the upper hand, but soon trough wild passion I overcame him and beat him to the floor. AT this point I was not thinking and passion was dominating my every move. I grabed a woden plank and began beating him with it vigorously. The noise of the wood slamming against his rib cage and head gave me an orgasmic pleasure untill I reached a point of what can be called almost sexual maddened frenzy. Fortunatly my friends draged me away before I killed him. had they not been there I would have killed him.

In truth is there much difference between this and a premeditated murder ?

[ftil]

But seriously. Socrates' statement is not just a buddhist cone. There's more context to it than that.


I agree. Socrates is definitely one of my favorite philosophers. He was a wise man.
“True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.”
~Socrates~

Aristotle’s words more fit into this topic. :wink5:
"Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy."

[MarkBastable]

I agree. Socrates is definitely one of my favorite philosophers. He was a wise man.
“True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.”
~Socrates~




Ah, 'little'. Completely different proposition to 'nothing'.

[ftil]

Ah, 'little'. Completely different proposition to 'nothing'.

Okay. How about another quote. :wink5:

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
~Socrates~

[MarkBastable]

Okay. How about another quote. :wink5:

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
~Socrates~

He's starting to irritate me now. These constant unprompted references to how little he knows sound to me like needy attempts to provoke his fellows to tell him otherwise. Smacks of profound insecurity with a sprinkling of narcissism. He really ought to get some kind of professional help.

[Vonny]

You are right there are people who cools and calmly and premediativly torture animals and do sadistic things - but I was talking more about passionate impulses. And yet are the two so different.

2 Years ago, a guy I had never meet before slept with my girl friend whom I dearly loved. Naturaly I searched for him and found him. When I found him not only had he slep with my girlfriend and dmaged my honor gravley but he was insolant and arogant about it. We fought. At first he had the upper hand, but soon trough wild passion I overcame him and beat him to the floor. AT this point I was not thinking and passion was dominating my every move. I grabed a woden plank and began beating him with it vigorously. The noise of the wood slamming against his rib cage and head gave me an orgasmic pleasure untill I reached a point of what can be called almost sexual maddened frenzy. Fortunatly my friends draged me away before I killed him. had they not been there I would have killed him.

In truth is there much difference between this and a premeditated murder ?


I read somewhere on the forum that the reason an orgasm is so pleasurable is because it is part of bringing a new life into the world.

And to my mind, if you are taking out someone, out of the world (who damaged your honor and then was insolent and arrogant about it) who the world would be improved without, then it seems natural to feel that kind of pleasure in the act. ...This is how my brother is with road rage, when there's someone who's a menace to the road. And it's possible he has murdered people he's seen abusing dogs - I wouldn't know unless he was caught, and in those instances he would likely premeditate to avoid being caught. He's a Dog Batman.

[ftil]

He's starting to irritate me now. These constant unprompted references to how little he knows sound to me like needy attempts to provoke his fellows to tell him otherwise. Smacks of profound insecurity with a sprinkling of narcissism. He really ought to get some kind of professional help.

I am not going to quote him. :wink5: But they were lucky… Freud was not among them, yet.

Let’s go back to cruelty.

All cruelty springs from weakness.
~Lucius Annaeus Seneca~

[OrphanPip]

On the hockey field, there's a difference between aggression in a game, (which is inherent to an extent in trying to win) and consequently "crushing someone against the boards" - and enjoying kicking someone's head with a desire to give them a concussion and as severe permanent brain damage possible.


Well kicking someone in the head with the intent to hurt them is a bit different. Checking someone in hockey is part of the game, there are rules to how it must be done so that there is lower risk of hurting people. There is a bit of joy in that controlled expression of aggression though.

I've never hurt anyone to any serious degree, no one has been put in the hospital by me.

[Vonny]

Well kicking someone in the head with the intent to hurt them is a bit different. Checking someone in hockey is part of the game, there are rules to how it must be done so that there is lower risk of hurting people. There is a bit of joy in that controlled expression of aggression though.

I've never hurt anyone to any serious degree, no one has been put in the hospital by me.

Yeah, I know this last sentence is true. I agree with what you say. There's nothing wrong with that controlled expression, in fact that's probably healthy.

And then regarding those dog abusers, I think my brother feels that if he could eliminate one or two of those from the earth that his life had amounted to something. He would be proud of his achievement in life, even more so than if he had designed a new video game or something. And if the law moved in on him, he'd shoot himself and probably go out with an orgasm.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've never hurt anyone to any serious degree, no one has been put in the hospital by me.

Once I accidently broke a girl's jaw in kickboxing, and I've hurt a lot of people to the point where they'd likely feel it for weeks (and have myself been hurt by them, which goes with the territory). I'd say that at first, you feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever because you're pumped, the guilt only comes after you've calmed down. People who are fighting behind a bar or something almost never stop until they're pulled apart because they don't get into fights very often and they get taken up in the rush.

So, the weird thing is, in order to know that you should force yourself to stop hitting someone once they hit the ground, it's better if you've already been in a few fights and you're used to it.


And there's sado-masochistic sex, etc., which to me, is just scarily sick and twisted.

I know a chick who's a sexual sadist and she's pretty normal outside of that (I think she's a fashion student or something). She found a boyfriend who's a masochist, and they get on pretty well. I think we'd be shocked if we knew how many "normal" people were into whips and chains.

[Vonny]

Once I accidently broke a girl's jaw in kickboxing, and I've hurt a lot of people to the point where they'd likely feel it for weeks (and have myself been hurt by them, which goes with the territory). I'd say that at first, you feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever because you're pumped, the guilt only comes after you've calmed down. People who are fighting behind a bar or something almost never stop until they're pulled apart because they don't get into fights very often and they get taken up in the rush.

So, the weird thing is, in order to know that you should force yourself to stop hitting someone once they hit the ground, it's better if you've already been in a few fights and you're used to it.



I know a chick who's a sexual sadist and she's pretty normal outside of that (I think she's a fashion student or something). She found a boyfriend who's a masochist, and they get on pretty well. I think we'd be shocked if we knew how many "normal" people were into whips and chains.

It could be that for some people whips and chains are a "controlled expression" as Pip described aggression in hockey. However, in sex there are no rules for fair play, and I'm sure actual torture is a frequently component.

On the forum I recently discovered that a gorgeous blonde champion kick-boxing nymphomaniac with an abiding love for dark French literature is a man's ideal fantasy: a gorgeous girl who could kick his butt while reciting verses from the Fleurs du Mal.:eek2::drool5::lol:

What happens I think, is that many women want a man, but not for the normal traditional reasons (i.e. a loving relationship) but for ego driven purposes. So instead of trying to attract a man by relating to them as human beings, they try to "catch" one, and they do this by being sexually alluring. They figure out typical male fantasies and they mold themselves into an expression of that.

In truth, what many women subconsciously want is more a normal male/female love relationship, but they don't realize it. They've been too brainwashed by modern propaganda and taught to fear it - as dooming them to suppression.

I don't believe that many women have natural tendencies for cruelty and physical violence, or that this is natural to them. It's a way of rejecting the traditional version of woman, and they believe that aggression is the way to personal advancement. They can use men as part of their personal advancement as well, by getting power over them, and the effective way is to be more sexually exciting and deviant than any normal woman. Women have now been conditioned to enjoy this power which feeds their egos, and they feel they can control men and thrive in worldy terms.

Also as women cultivate this persona, and the incongruity of being aggressively male and also sexy, and worshiping materialism, and ego: their personal worth based on appearance and the ability to manipulate men and defeat other "weaker" women - they lose themselves, they lose their own direction and souls and humanity. They don't know how to love anymore, which really is a recipe for disaster as the next generation comes along and these women become mothers who are short on impulses for kindness, who can't be nurturing or set a normal example for their children. They can't discipline children in the best interest of the child, or attend to the child's true needs, because they're too wrapped up in their own.

And then I was thinking too, how it happens that often both parents are child abusers, sometimes in slightly different ways. One parent may be sadistic and the other primarily masochistic, while at the same time emotionally abusing children... And I figured out that it's sexual. The way these people come together and ultimately become parents, is because they are motivated sado-masochistically.

So yeah, I know a lot of "normal" women today are into whips and chains, and for the most part it's scarily sick and twisted.

[JuniperWoolf]

So you're saying that my mom put me into competative fighting sports when I was eight because I wanted to attract a man via non-traditional female aggression? Me, and the hundreds of other female fighters that I met between the ages of eight and twenty-one, were all there to attain dominance over men (even though we didn't even fight men competatively)? Whatever happened to simply having actual interests and a personality, like a human being? You focus on people's genitals too much. I've made like, five posts to which the only response you could think of was effectively "but, but, you have a vagina!"

...Also, do you really think I'm sexy?

[Vonny]

So you're saying that my mom put me into competative fighting sports when I was eight because I wanted to attract a man via non-traditional female aggression? Me, and the hundreds of other female fighters that I met between the ages of eight and twenty-one, were all there to attain dominance over men (even though we didn't even fight men competatively)? Whatever happened to simply having actual interests and a personality, like a human being? You focus on people's genitals too much.

...Also, do you really think I'm sexy?


Nothing I said was about you.

[JuniperWoolf]

Buuuuut, then why did you quote me talking about kickboxing, then mention another instance of female kickboxing, then spend the rest of your post pseudo-analyzing what you deem unacceptable female aggresion which leads to directionless women without souls or the ability to love who then somehow sexually exploit their children?

[MarkBastable]

Nothing I said was about you.

It must have been about somebody.

[Vonny]

Buuuuut, then why did you quote me talking about kickboxing, then mention another instance of female kickboxing, then spend the rest of your post pseudo-analyzing what you deem unacceptable female aggresion which leads to directionless women without souls or the ability to love who then somehow sexually exploit their children?

If there are any parallels they are coincidental.

The post was simply creative writing on my part.

[MarkBastable]

If there are any parallels they are coincidental.

The post was simply creative writing on my part.

What do you mean by 'creative' in this context? Do you mean that you don't think it's true, but just an exercise in playing with ideas? Or do you mean that you do think it's true, and you were figuring it out as you wrote it? Or something else?

[JuniperWoolf]

If there are any parallels they are coincidental.

The post was simply creative writing on my part.

*sigh* Fiiiine...

My first three questions are still valad. Still, I can't re-ask them until you answer Mark's question.

[Vonny]

It must have been about somebody.

It was about millions of people. They all think they are doing something very unique and new, just like the millions of people who all get ugly tattoos. But actually it's so pervasive that it's banal, really.


Sorry, anyone, if I hit a nerve. :brow: It wasn't intentional. :blush: :blush5:

[JuniperWoolf]

Sorry, anyone, if I hit a nerve.

You wish.

So Vonny, women who have interests and personalities outside of those that you deem "acceptably female," (which I assume means "exactly like Vonny"), they're all faking it in order to steal men from you? Even the eight year old girls? Anyone who was born female and who isn't passive, so that would include everyone who has ever been in a sport, or been in the army, or listened to metal, or been in government, or posessed outspoken qualities, or joined the police force, or been in a fight, et cetera? They're just so pre-occupied by their inabiltiy to form a "loving male-female relationship" (including the ones who are already married, or who are lesbians, or who are simply not thinking about that at all) that they allow their REAL, female self to die and then become soulless, inhuman creatures incapable of love?

If only we could all be so loving, passive and mentally stable as you.

I think that you're just insecure.

*edit* Oh yeah I forgot, we also DERIVE SEXUAL PLEASURE FROM ABUSING CHILDREN. When Schere sees this tomorrow, I think she'll have to give me credit for my restraint on this one.

[MarkBastable]

If there are any parallels they are coincidental.

So, a Female Person A mentions that they have done kick-boxing, and within hours Person B theorises on the psychosexual dysfunction implicit in females doing kick-boxing.

That's the kind of coincidence I'd like to be able to put money on.


[Sorry, anyone, if I hit a nerve. :brow: It wasn't intentional. :blush: :blush5:

I'd observe, purely coincidentally and creatively, that there are expressions of aggression that are not necessarily physical.

[Vonny]

What do you mean by 'creative' in this context? Do you mean that you don't think it's true, but just an exercise in playing with ideas? Or do you mean that you do think it's true, and you were figuring it out as you wrote it? Or something else?

I didn't notice this one. I think it's true. I did figure some of it out as I wrote it. And the violence in women, I didn't realize that was a male fantasy until a couple of days ago, so it allowed me to put more of my puzzle pieces together.

But it's all such a mistake. Girls or women should not be kicking in each other's faces. How horrible.

And people ought to just be able to love each other and relate to each other. It's not boring.



I'd observe, purely coincidentally and creatively, that there are expressions of aggression that are not necessarily physical.

Sometimes the truth hurts, but it doesn't stem from aggression.

[Emil Miller]

Judging by some of the posts on this thread, I think it should be retitled
'Impulses of spite and pettyness'.

[MarkBastable]

Judging by some of the posts on this thread, I think it should be retitled
'Impulses of spite and pettyness'.

'pettiness'

[Emil Miller]

'pettiness'

Yep that as well.

[JuniperWoolf]

But it's all such a mistake. Girls or women should not be kicking in each other's faces. How horrible.

So again, we should all be "exactly like Vonny."


Sometimes the truth hurts, but it doesn't stem from aggression.

"The truth hurts," along with the phrase "I don't mean to be mean, but..." is just another way of saying "I don't want to be perceived as a dick, but I do want to say this one really, really rude thing."

[Vonny]

Not all men are the same. You think about thinks in such a bizarre way.

Certainly not all men. There's one who loves me very much (and not my brother!) who is not at all that way.



So again, we should all be "exactly like Vonny."

I wouldn't go so far as to say this, but the man who loves me would say this, yes.



"The truth hurts," along with the phrase "I don't mean to be mean, but..." is just another way of saying "I don't want to be perceived as a dick, but I do want to say this one really, really rude thing."

Anyone who wants to see who the rude one was, (in case they don't already know all too well) it's all here in writing.

And everything I said, I believe in. That's why I said it.

[JuniperWoolf]

I wouldn't go so far as to say this, but the man who loves me would say this, yes.

I'm sure he's wonderful.

[Vonny]

I'm sure he's wonderful.

He really is!


we also somehow SEXUALLY EXPLOIT CHILDREN.

btw, I said nothing about the sexual exploitation of children. I was talking about the abuse of children, parents who are sadistic and masochistic. I've tried to figure out how it can be that both parents are horrendously abusive.

And I think people are attracted to each other because they share sado-masochistic sexual tendencies, and then they end up with children, whom they abuse in various ways.

(and I don't know who "we" is because I said nothing about you, if that's what your implying, and I have no idea what you do to your children.)

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread no longer serves its original purpose,

it will now be closed.

General Reminder

Please try to leave your passive aggressiveness at the door
when you are entering a Serious Discussions thread.

If you are not ready to have your opinions to be questions and challenged by others,
you might like to remain out of these discussions.

Also, please feel free to use the "Report Button"
if you believe someone has broken the Forum rules.

PS: "Hurting someone's feelings" is not a punishable offence according to our Rules, unfortunately.