Naturally Human

Altruism, empathy, compassion, fairness, and even small self-sacrifice for others do not appear to be simply natural human traits, but rather enlightened understanding  and learning of what it really takes to maintain the mental, physical, and emotional health of people in a relationship, family, group and community. The more 'enlightened' individuals seen in a particular group, the better the quality of life is apparent for all members, and the less understanding and 'enlightenment', the less success the members of the group will find in various areas of life. Human beings tend to sink to the lowest common denominator, not float to the highest. We are heavier than air, water, and understanding, not lighter. We're dense, and that's our greatest weakness.

OCD and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)

Why Certain People Get Targeted More Than Others

Why are there more abuse and bully victims of one sex than the other, one class or the other, one body type or another, or one ancestry, skin or hair color than another in a given area?

If a target's physical body and appearance matches local prejudices, then the odds are much greater that they will be targeted in the first place, and that the targeting will keep going as long as the person remains in the local area. Because people who target others ONLY STOP if they think they'll receive CONSEQUENCES for it from OTHERS.
(Because people who target others are immature, for the most part; they only do things or don't do things based on reward and consequence.)

This can be witnessed clearly in regions where certain prejudices such as white against black are now considered immoral, but other prejudices such as anti-white or anti-female go unchecked, and therefore there is no fear of consequences for behaving with such prejudice and immaturity.
For example, a local Firefighter's organization may be making sure that there is no racial bias in the entry process, but sex and height bias is still present, because no one is giving out social consequences for it. So now all races are represented in the Firefighter's organization, and everyone feels like they're being "morally correct", but the fact that all of the races of humans there are taller males is completely ignored, and everyone pretends they don't notice. If and when someone points it out, it will be either denied or rationalized, (something like "these are simply the people who passed the entry test, there's no bias going on") but there will be no fact-checking or real, objective review of the entry process or  surrounding factors. There will be no objective investigation into local biases, or into the possibility of a "hostile environment" that keeps certain people from even trying to take the entry tests.
There will be no objectivity, period. Because no one FEARS CONSEQUENCES for their prejudices.

Fantasy Life: "Good People" and "Bad People"

The rejection of another person's reality is a symptom of being used to living in fantasy about one's own life.
If a person needs to believe certain things about their life, themselves, and others in order to feel like a valuable person, then those beliefs and the stories that they are built upon can not be challenged.
A common fantasy that many people share is that they are one of the people who are above reproach, and are higher in 'natural status' than others around them. This allows them to believe that they are naturally more logical, more grounded, more responsible, and more emotionally stable than certain others whom they have designated as lower status than themselves. This allows them to believe that they are entitled to privilege, care, love, understanding, sympathy, resources OVER others. It also encourages them to believe they are entitled to have authority over those who are not included in their elite "good person" group.

This common fantasy is usually shared with one or more people in the person's life, and in fact they have likely actually adapted the fantasy from others who already live in it.
One of the behaviors that is nearly always visible when this fantasy is present is the labeling of others in negative ways. Projected "bad character" is placed on others in a blanket way, and projected "good character" is placed on themselves, and those within the shared fantasy.
Labels that categorize others in a blanket way as "bad people" such as "unstable", "loser", "emotional", "hostile", "lazy", "slut", "whackjob", "right-fighter", "naive", "self-centered", "stuck-up", etc are simply methods of ignoring and covering up events and details of reality, and casting the person in a bad light. If a person is upset about something that happened to them, then categorizing them as a "nutjob" is a way to have an excuse to ignore and invalidate them. This comes in very handy when a person is upset about something that someone else did TO them; the offender's actions get minimized, twisted completely, or even deleted, they never have to account for what they did, and as an added benefit, they even get to look like the "victim" of the other person, instead of the reality of it being the other way around.
Labels that categorize themselves and others who share their fantasy as "good people" such as "compassionate", "helpful", "hard worker", "responsible", "smart", "sweet", "generous", "down to earth", are also ways of clothing a person in a blanket judgment to keep the fantasy alive, and to keep their transgressions and not so nice motives hidden. If a person is labeled as "good people", then any sins they commit that are SEEN will be automatically painted as innocent mistakes, or unintentional, or because of stress.

People who live in and with this common fantasy can be heard using descriptive terms about other people frequently, INSTEAD of reviewing actual events in order to understand what really happened. They don't WANT to hear what happened, they don't WANT to talk about details, and they don't WANT to know all sides or points of view. They are ONLY concerned with keeping their fantasy alive of who is in the "good person/entitled person" group and who is not, which means reality is not welcome, because it would destroy the fantasy.
The importance of keeping the fantasy going and keeping one's self in the "good person" group can actually mean the difference between having access to resources, care, and normal living, and being ostracized from the person's family and community, because these fantasies are usually originated and carried by others who actually hold real control, power, and resources. When the fantasy is SHARED, then others are also invested in it, so when someone does NOT perpetuate the fantasy and begins to actually LOOK at real events, they are an immediate THREAT. They will often be quickly rallied against and ejected from the group with prejudice. If a person stands up FOR a person who has been treated unfairly or badly by those in the "good person" group, they will usually be quickly rallied against and rejected, and RE-CATEGORIZED and RE-LABELED in the "bad person" group.
When a person does anything at all, real or IMAGINARY, that leads to them being ejected from the "good person/entitled person" group, they will then be re-categorized as NOT "one of the good/entitled people", and therefore will be blocked from resources, denied care, sympathy, and support, will be denied recognition and credit for anything they do, and will be blocked, sabotaged, countered, and invalidated at every turn. Nothing they say from that day forward will be heard or taken seriously by anyone in the "good person/entitled person" group.
The fantasy is actually a shared consensus that is kept alive BY these changes in "membership". If there is no one to reject, then there's no more fantasy, and the pain of reality starts to creep in. Those who live in this fantasy may not KNOW that there is another way to live that doesn't cause so much drama and harm to people, but it's also possible that they do know, and don't care, because the fantasy seems to work better for them than real life.

What Can I Possibly Do To Help An Abuse Victim?

Those who know someone who has been through trauma and abuse sometimes feel like they can't do anything to help, so they do nothing, they avoid and act coldly toward the person. What they can do that actually would be helpful is to understand that one of the things that can happen to a person is isolation. It can be because they are too overwhelmed, too fatigued, or too stressed to reach out to others, or they often don't realize time has gone by because of their fatigue; they may have ended up with fear of going outside or fear of other people (either fear of attack, fear of slander, or fear of having to deal with cold human cruelty and domination behaviors, anxiety about suppressing their own anger when yet another person acts disrespectfully or abusively),
or they may have actually been conditioned (brainwashed) to isolate themselves from others by a Controller/abuser.
Conditioning a target to disconnect from other people that they would normally be connected to is a very common abuser behavior that targets (no matter how intelligent or physically strong) are rarely aware of, and the effects can last for years, especially if no one around them understands the effects and trauma of manipulative abuse, whether it was from childhood or during adulthood, or both.
So if you think of yourself as a "compassionate person" and you're not suffering from the effects of trauma yourself, try reading up on what happens to strong, good, intelligent human beings when they go through trauma. You can do a lot of good in the world if you simply have a decent grasp on what happens, what people go through, what the effects are, and how to behave toward a person who has dealt with trauma (and how NOT to.)
That person could easily be you someday, and hopefully it won't, but if that day did come, you would find out how rare and how precious it is to find a person who actually grasps it at all, who treats you with respect, and who you can simply communicate with in a genuine way.

Natural Authority, Entitlement

Those who grow up being taught that certain people have some kind of natural right to have CONTROL over other adults will often try to become such a person (a "boss" person). They were likely taught that it's actually a real thing, that certain people have a natural right and entitlement to be the "boss" over other people. Since they think it's true, they of course would rather be in the position of "boss" than "subordinate", because "subordinates" have to live their lives UNDER a "boss", and don't have personal freedom or access to resources.
IF one believes that there really are natural "bosses" who get to have control over other human beings, then it stands to reason that they are going to want to have that position if they CAN, and in their minds, it would be a matter of quality of life and survival.
Unless they come to realize through experience and maturity that all adults are equal in natural "status", that no one has a "natural right" to have control and power over others, and that no one was born as an "automatic subordinate" to anyone else, they will of course continue to try to be a "Boss" person. Because there are only two choices in their mind: "Boss" or "Subordinate". They don't know any differently.

It is worth noting that those who believe either consciously or subconsciously that "Boss Entitlement" is real will project this onto others as well. So they will assume that another person is either a "Boss" or a "Subordinate", and they will interpret the person's actions as either "trying to be a Boss", or "submitting to authority". In other words they see all people in either a Control/Authority role, OR a Subordinate/Follower role. And they will interpret other people's actions, behaviors, and expressions INSIDE of those parameters. (So if they think a person "should be" a "subordinate", but the person is not ACTING like a "subordinate" is "supposed to act", then they will interpret all of their actions as rebellion or insolence. If they think a person "should be" a "boss", but the person is not ACTING controlling and domineering towards others, then they will interpret their actions and behavior as weak and submissive. They simply are not ABLE to see others, or themselves, as human beings OUTSIDE of these authority/subordinate, leader/follower parameters. )

Biased Point Of View

"Biased Point Of View" is what humans do when they/we talk about a subject  as if the whole world is the same sex, or race, age, etc. as themselves.
It can be found in quite a lot of forms, forums and venues, from creative prose to poetry, to songwriting, to unfortunately journalism, education, and instructional material that's supposed to be non-biased. It can even be found in many religious writings (including the Bible, the Quran, and many other religious or anti-religious materials), also in medical and psychiatric papers, and also in various science studies and reports.
When biased point of view is seen in creative writing and other creative projects, then it can be taken into consideration as part of the expression of the producer of the creative work. It should be pointed out during study, for example "Leaves of Grass" by W. Whitman; while much of it could be taken as gender-neutral, there are points that show that Whitman is writing in "male-only" and "male-favored" point of view, not from a "human" inclusive point of view. A very large amount of poetry and other creative writings are written in specifically biased point of view, which excludes or sometimes demeans and attempts to invalidate the point of view of others.
A song by the rock band Led Zeppelin, for example, states in the lyrics, "The soul of a woman was created below", which does not require further explaining. There are thousands, if not millions, of examples throughout human creative writing and other projects that expose the producers' exclusive and biased point of view. Refusing to recognize this fact seems very strange and agenda-based; there is no legitimate reason to deny that it exists.

There are more male-biased examples throughout human history mostly because more males than females have been permitted to create and publish their original work over the centuries. One will find the same holds true in relation to race and ancestry; those who are permitted or encouraged to create original work and have it published and preserved are the ones whose point of view will be seen, of course.
There is also an element of a higher objectivity in point of view in females because girls are often actually instructed to empathize with boys, while boys are often not instructed to empathize with girls. Also, being the mother of both daughters and sons, mothers in general tend to have more interest and empathy in both male and female offspring's real point of view than fathers in general, and are therefore more likely to have the ability to see the world from more than their own personal point of view.

When biased point of view is seen in Journalism, educational material, textbooks, instructional material, and religious writings, then the issue of agenda-based influence and conditioning is introduced.
Journalists who report from male point of view, female point of view, racial point of view, class point of view, and POLITICAL point of view are not doing "real" journalism, they are projecting their own personal bias onto whatever they're covering.

Educational material is agenda-based when there is a political, religious, anti-religious, sexist, or racist slant to the content, which means someone is trying to control the way students feel, think, and see the world and themselves.

A carpentry teacher can teach all of the students how to make a napkin holder, OR that teacher can IMPLY that only certain students would be good at it, or would understand how to use the tools and work with wood. One is actually objective teaching, and the other is subjective, biased, and agenda-based.

The story of the Little Red Hen was used by a first grade teacher to influence political agenda on the students. The story is straightforward, about putting in work and help toward something, and then getting to benefit from it (Little Red Hen is going to bake bread, but no one will help her do any of the tasks needed such as harvesting wheat or kneading the dough, so she does it all herself and then keeps it for herself and her family, without giving to those who refused to help when she asked them, which is a healthy and "normal" action.)
The aforementioned first grade teacher told the story to the students, but then skewed the meaning and asked the students questions such as "Why do you think the Little Red Hen was so selfish?" This is agenda-based "teaching", the story was not written that way, the teacher purposely twisted the meaning to match his/her political beliefs, and then "taught" the students in such manner.

Many religious writings are written in only one gender's or one race's point of view, due to the sex or race of the writer and producer of the piece. Those who are not familiar with objective "human" point of view, or perceiving the world outside of their own sex, race, or class, often express themselves and report stories in speech and writing in a biased point of view. So everything is from a male, TO a male, or from a female, TO a female, or from a certain racial ancestry TO another member of the same ancestry. It is often simply taught as  religious instruction WITHOUT recognizing that the content is completely biased because of the producer's personal point of view. Some writings we can see in the Bible, for example, are obviously personal instructions or advice to a son from a father, (specific, real people), but very few people seem to recognize this, or understand that it does NOT imply that the male point of view is "more righteous" than the female, or "wiser", or "higher" in wisdom on some esoteric level. They are simply the writings from a male, in male point of view, addressing his son, because he had a real son.

The less able a person is to perceive the world objectively, in the point of view outside one's own, the more likely he or she is to express themselves or convey instruction IN the person's OWN biased personal point of view, TO others who are similar to them physically.

Seeing this in action right now is very simple and easy: Turn on any Major League Sports show and listen to the reporters or announcers, and turn on most media "news" networks in the US. Listen to most modern stand-up comedians, there are few who can do comedy outside of their personal biases and prejudices. Flip through comic books, listen to song lyrics. Watch practically any sit-com, some are more obvious than others (The Big Bang Theory is an obvious one). Read blogs online. Thousands of movies.
In fact, bias in the media, politics, creative projects and journalism may be at an all-time HIGH, in spite of the "information age" we supposedly live in.

To be sure, a person is not automatically biased because of their sex or race; there are and have always been both males and females, and people from any ancestry who are capable of relatively objective point of view. It helps when one sees one's self as a "Human being" first, who happens to have a certain background and be of one sex or the other.

Taking Things Personally

Taking everything personally is one of the issues that those with certain disorders including Narcissism have. They tend to project this onto others as well, including their children.
Children who grow up in families where Narcissism and/or Codependence is present are often confused about how to define "personal" or "non-personal".
So if Susan is angry about something that happened at school, when she comes home she tries to express that anger in a healthy way (talking about it in relatively polite language, not directed at those she is speaking to). However, someone in the home interprets her anger as being directed at THEM, and so instead of listening to Susan or respecting her emotions, they try to shut her down, and tell her she's "wrong" or "bad". They imply that she's overreacting, or that she must have done something to cause it. They also may talk about Susan being an "angry, hostile person", or even being "unstable", instead of treating her with basic respect.
This changes the entire situation from non-personal to personal; the behavior of the other person at Susan's school is now somehow SUSAN'S responsibility, and her anger about it is something she should feel guilty or ashamed about. So now, instead of the person's behavior being NOT about Susan (which it isn't, in reality), it's turned into being ALL about Susan, and she is being blamed and shamed for having and expressing emotion about it. So now, Susan feels self-conscious about her normal, healthy emotions, and feels responsible for someone else treating her poorly.
The reason for this invalidation and blame toward Susan has nothing to do with Susan herself, or for anything she's done. Susan did not come in the house slamming doors or breaking things, she did not attack anyone verbally or physically, she didn't kick the dog, she did not get drunk and drive her car, she didn't do anything at all that would actually be "hostile" or "aggressive behavior". She simply verbally expressed her natural, normal anger about something real that happened to her, and tried to tell the story about the event, of course in an "angry tone", because that's how humans express emotions.
Whatever we feel influences the tone and flow of our speech in some way, and that includes everyone except sociopaths. Some sound "more expressive" and others less so, but it's healthy and normal to have a "tone", and also a volume change, that expresses our feelings.
It is NOT the same as "raging", "exploding", or 'displaying aggression and hostility".
They can't discern other people's expressions of emotions because they see everything as being about them, and affecting them directly. Anything and anyone that is in their world is "personal".
They make terrible caregivers because they include every patient and client in their personal circle, and take everything others do and say as a personal engagement with THEM. So for example, if they were a nurse in a hospital, they would take it personally and become annoyed or angry if a patient in a psych. ward "gives them an attitude" (because they have a certain disorder, trauma, are sad, are upset about something, or are severely depressed), or if an injury patient in great pain kept calling them, or a patient was not responding as expected to treatment, or if they had to clean someone. As parents, when their child is upset, they take it personally and as a blow to their ego and their "serenity", so they will discipline/admonish the child for expressing their feelings (no matter what the emotion is, even fear or pain). If the child doesn't like certain food, they take it as a personal insult, or as the child rebelling against them. Anytime the child resists, disagrees, or displays emotion, they take it as a personal insult and "rebellion" against them. Anytime the child displays autonomy or initiative, or doesn't fully comply or submit to them will be taken as an insult, as aggression, and as "rebellion" against them. Anytime the child displays affection or admiration for others, they will again take it as an insult and rebellion against them, and they may resent both the child and the other person.
If a person expressing anger or any other emotion is someone they see as being "lower status" than themselves, they feel entitled to "admonish" or "punish" them for their healthy emotional expressions.
If a person expressing an emotion is someone they see as "higher status" than themselves, they may still take it personally, but will most likely "allow" the person to express themselves, and even take pride in being "understanding" of the person.
Micro-judging others, trying to control others with shame, trying to cast shame for anything and everything others do, say, and express are common in such families and groups. In order to stay out of the target range of the micro-judging and shaming, certain members "go along to get along", and will follow along with gossip, slander, ostracism and cruelty, eschewing fairness, compassion, respect, or justice, and will deny it to kingdom come, defending themselves and others who are doing it.
Blame will always be cast on the person who is the target of the gossip, shaming, ostracism, or abuse.
(If pressed for a reason why a person is being treated poorly and rejected, there will be given all kinds of character assassinating descriptions, like "he's self-centered" or "she's lazy" or "he's unappreciative" or "she's a slut" or "he takes advantage", but no real events will be given, because usually there aren't any; if events are given, they will often either be very petty but exaggerated to be serious (like "she didn't go to the dinner") or they will be from years ago (when he was 17 he showed up drunk) or it will be something that no one else gets judged negatively about (she got divorced!) or it will be blame for something that someone else actually did. The person who is targeted is usually actually a victim of someone else's abuse, and has been scapegoated in order to "make it go away". The person may be a victim of some other trauma or injury, and their symptoms and recovery were too annoying to deal with for others in the group. Sometimes the person is just a target of someone's resentment or envy, or refuses to comply with the control, ego, and egg-shell walking around others in the group.)

The more families and individuals within a community who are affected by Narcissism or Codependence there are, the more this "taking things personally", "status-mongering", "micro-judging", "self-righteousness", "clique behavior", "domination displays", "envy-based retaliation" and "blame/responsibility evasion" is evident in the local community on all levels, and the effect can be exponential. One person and family affects another, which affects another, and so on.

Secret to the Secret

The Secret to the Secret is within the feeling of safety, sanctuary, confidence, gratitude, and enjoyment ~:)

Fear is a block, anxiety is a block, worry is a block, frustration, resentment, envy, shame, and hostility are blocks to manifestation.
Guilt is not shame, and is not a block, but shame can result if one does not take accountability for something that one feels guilt about.
Being accountable for one's actions and behaviors clear many of the blocks, along with gratitude; gratitude fuels the process of manifestation. So does appreciation of life force around us, (including bugs, spiders, reptiles, and humans, as well as plants and cute and cuddly animals; life force is life force, it's energy), and appreciation for the amazing beauty and abundance that surrounds us.

Controllers and abusers cause these feelings in others which prevents them from manifesting, achieving, and gaining.We cause ourselves these feelings as well, but usually because we've experienced fear and anxiety in the past.

A loop gets created in a person's mind and therefore life: One is worried about survival, whether it's physical or otherwise, therefore one puts more energy into worrying and anxiety, or fear, and one does not stay in the feeling of safety, confidence, and enjoyment. One's contemporaries are also in worry, anxiety and fear, and are therefore also not in the feeling of safety, confidence and enjoyment.

Being in this loop means a person may be doing things to calm or escape his or her worry, anxiety, and frustration, instead of doing things and being in the "place" where one would feel good, safe, and happy. When we are in the place of feeling safe, feeling clean (physically and conscience-wise), and feeling enjoyment for what we are doing, we are much more able to achieve one's little or big intentions, with or without manifestation.

 We can achieve this combination of rather pleasant, calm, and warm feelings, or rather remember, (almost all of us have felt this at several points throughout our lives) without the use of substances; in fact, since the "high" from a substance is always temporary, is from an external source, and does not actually cause the full impact of what we're looking for, it's more of a hindrance than a help. Also, substance use is usually accompanied by feelings that block and inhibit what we're looking for. So in achieving and remembering these feelings, we are much more likely to find them if we are "sober". We can find this "place" with any number of methods, but some of the easier ones are laughter (without malice or dark sarcasm), certain very soothing, mentally stimulating, and emotionally or spiritually uplifting music and songs, playing fun games with people whom we like and can trust, eating excellent food either by ourselves or with others, again whom we like and can really trust, things that help us get our minds out of worrying, and focused on the good thing that we are doing. We may want or need to mentally understand our anxiety issues, and what the root cause of our unsafe feelings is, and then teach ourselves how to feel safe.

When we are in the company of others who are also feeling safe, clean, and enjoying what they're doing, we are connected with their positive frequency and resonance, and the energy expands and increases. It does actually make a difference whose company we are keeping, whether it's personal or at work, and it makes a difference for others as well when they are keeping our company. There is no need to make drama about rejecting or shaming others, especially since that would inhibit the feelings we're looking for, it's simply good to remember what "RESONANCE" is, and how it applies to being in the company of others and in them being in our company (are we contributing to the atmosphere, or dampening it, and are they contributing or dampening? Remember it's not about shame or blame, both of those will dampen the energy, whether we apply them to ourselves or someone else.)

The Secret to the Secret is within the feeling of safety, sanctuary, confidence, gratitude, and enjoyment ~:)

Hard To Change

It's much easier to grow and change if we remove shame and blame from the places where they don't belong, and put them where they do belong. Learning the difference is half the battle.

Envy Is Based On Identity

Envy, resentment, and domination are all about identity, and desiring control over another person and things the person has or seems to have.
The person who wants their identity to be "Look How Tough I Am" is not going to feel resentment, challenge, or envy toward a person who doesn't look "tough" to them. He or she WILL most likely envy and resent someone who appears confident or "tough", and who they think OTHER people might see as "tough". They will also often look for signs that someone else "thinks they're tough", and try to "knock them off their high horse" (whether the person actually "thinks they're tough" or NOT is irrelevant; it's not about the other person, it's about themselves.)
It is the same with anything else one identifies one's self AS; for example the person who wants to be seen as "very good looking" is going to notice and focus on another person whom they think is good-looking, not because the other person is a "bad person", but because their "good looks" threatens the envious person's identity/ego.
If a person does NOT identify themselves AS something such as "Tougher than...", "Stronger than...", "Better Looking than...", "Smarter than...", "More Experienced than...", "More Knowledgeable than...", "More Responsible than...", "More Accomplished than....", then they will not feel CHALLENGED, resentful, spiteful, or envious toward others for apparent personal attributes, and in fact may not even NOTICE such attributes about another person.
The person who wants to be seen as "Tough" is the one who won't get counseling for past trauma or current problems because the identity of "Tough" has been used as a shield against further bullying and trauma, and they're afraid to put it down. And since they feel that they NEED this identity to protect themselves from attackers or from humiliation, and also to receive positive treatment from others, they will often feel threatened and challenged by a person who seems equally or more "Tough" naturally. This identity is a coping and survival tool in their minds, so there is a fear of being compared to another person and found to be LESS "tough". They may act out, puffing themselves up, retaliating, "acting tough", making a show of behavioral displays such as noises, facial expressions, body language, slamming things (doors, footsteps, equipment), vocal tones, words, and loudness, gestures, whatever they've seen and heard others use, or whatever seems to "work" on others (or has in the past).
If a display doesn't seem to work on someone, they may even become resentful or angry about THAT.
~~If they weren't using "Tough" as an identity, they would not be focused on whether others are "tough" or not, or who's "tougher" than whom. It wouldn't be in their normal thought process, just like a person who was raised in the Amazon doesn't think about SNOW when the sky turns grey.
A person who wants to be seen as "Good Looking" is also usually trying to "put on" an identity for similar reasons as the "Tough One". To protect themselves from humiliation and attack, and to receive positive treatment from others. So if someone else is around who might be seen by others as equally or MORE "Good Looking", then they feel immediately threatened, because they fear the positive attention they're getting might go to the OTHER person instead. Of course this would only happen if the others around them were narcissistic and non-trustworthy anyway, however that IS the very environment that usually compels a person to develop such identity issues as survival mechanisms.
A person who wants to be identified as "Feminine" or "Masculine" will feel resentful and threatened by anyone who appears to be more feminine or masculine than them; a person who wants to be seen as the "Best Dog Trainer" will feel threatened by someone who dogs seem to respond to; a person who wants to be seen as "Very Responsible" will be threatened by a person who appears very responsible; a person who wants to be seen as "Naturally Very Gifted" in something will feel threatened by someone who appears to be naturally gifted in similar things, etc., etc. Again, this is usually CAUSED by an atmosphere where the person was not valued as a person, and not given accurate or positive feedback about their own true natural abilities or accomplishments.
Adults who pit children and others against each other for their own insecurity, agenda and ego purposes often create such atmospheres very quickly. For example when a young girl realizes that the men in her family or at school are paying much more positive attention to females whom they find physically attractive can easily develop appearance-identity issues, as will the young boy in a similar environment.
When people, especially adults, frequently give positive attention to certain children and adults because of SUPERFICIAL, petty, and favoritism reasons, and dismiss and IGNORE children and adults who don't seem to "measure up" to these petty requirements (such as looks, gender, popularity, body size, ancestry, etc.), it is NOTICED and felt by nearly all of the youth in the area, and identity coping mechanisms are often quickly developed. So for a concrete example: the teachers all treat Jeffrey the basketball star like they very much like and respect him, even though his behavior toward other kids is arrogant and mean, his grades suffer, and he "parties"; but they treat Joseph the boy who gets decent grades and is an excellent artist, who treats others very well, and who takes care of his autistic cousin like he's invisible. They treat Sharon the girl who's been on the Honor Roll since first grade, who rescues animals, and who volunteers at the Nursing Home like she's less worthy than both Jeffery AND Joseph.
All three of them are witness to the disparity in the way the adults are treating them, and all three of them are affected negatively, because the feedback from the adults is NOT accurate; it's NOT about WHO THE KIDS ARE and what they DO, it's about the egos and comfort of the adults. Hence, the atmosphere is ripe for all three of them to develop identity issues.
Adding more volatility to that same atmosphere such as adults displaying histrionic behaviors such as shaming, rage, jealousy, envy, adults gossiping, adults acting abusively, adults using substances, adults displaying domination behavior, adults doing criminal behaviors, adults displaying overt sexism and/or racism, adults displaying baseless "rebellion" to "be cool", and the cauldron fills and churns, creating a swamp that threatens to drown a young person's real, original "Self", so they desperately seek some kind of "SHELL" to wear to protect themselves and emotionally (or literally) survive.

Judging Me, Judging You

Many humans attach meaning to anything about others, and the less mature a person is, the more they believe that they're CORRECT. So each person thinks that your hair means a certain thing about you. your clothing means a certain thing about you, your car, your height, your sex, your face, your makeup or lack thereof, your facial expression, etc. Even more importantly, they judge YOU on how your speech and manner makes THEM FEEL, and tend to attribute ALL of the way you "make them feel" on YOU, not themselves. (In other words, if they find you attractive and you acknowledge them or are nice to them, they'll say you're a "great guy!" If they find you attractive and you don't give them enough positive attention because you didn't hear them or you were working, they might say you're "stuck up", or perhaps that you're a "very hard worker", depending on the individual. If you're smaller than they are, they will assess everything you do and say in a different way than if you're bigger than they are. If they find you attractive and you're a woman, they tend to crank up the volume on their "judgment" dial to "High", so they attribute much more meaning, negative or positive, to anything you say and do. If they see you as very unattractive (to them), they tend to do the same.)
If and when a person learns a little bit about you personally, then they tend to believe their own assessments about you based on your interests, job, financial status, your apparent ancestry, your Facebook posts, the people you are Facebook friends with, your partner, and your political affiliation or lack thereof.
Then, they will attribute even more meaning to the way your actions "make them feel", so if you bring them cookies or send a card, they tend to see you as a wonderful person, no matter what you're really like. If you don't go out of your way to "make them feel special" or give them extra attention, depending on the maturity level of the individual, they may tend to judge you as "self-centered" and "uncaring", regardless of anything real about you, your life, or your real actions, experiences, and personality.
The less mature the person is, the more they will treat you according to the way they have assessed you in their imagination.
(Very few will bother to spend any time or effort actually finding out real information about you, your life, your past, or your real personality, and even those who do can't make an accurate picture; it's not possible for them to gather all of the data about you that exists, or process it accurately, nor you them. There will always be huge missing chunks of data no matter who is doing the information gathering, and there is no objectively reliable source to gather it FROM in the first place, so the exercise of gathering information about a human being cannot result in hard scientific data.)

Other Women

Don't confuse women your husband gawks at and sexualizes with women who engage and encourage his behavior. One is not the same as the other, they are two very different things. No woman is responsible for a man's behavior, or another woman's behavior, and no person has to allow another person to treat them so disrespectfully, whether she is the woman being stared at and sexualized, or the woman being betrayed.

A betraying husband, whether he's cheating, disrespectful, or abusive, is in breach of contract. Marriage is a real contract, and if there are problems between the contractees, then counseling and resolution becomes a priority, just like any other real contract. If one of the two refuses to seek for resolution within the relationship, then they are again in breach. There has never been a contract where both parties were not required to be present and accountable when seeking resolution to issues between them.
For some reason few human beings seem mature or aware enough to grasp what marriage is and take it seriously, and they end up in all kinds of legal mess with their children paying for it. A responsible person enters in a contract with full awareness of what they're voluntarily agreeing to, and what is expected of both parties.

And remember all of the same for and about yourself. You are bound under the same contract as your husband. There are not two versions of the contract, one for him and one for you, there is only one.

Nice Guys Finish Last, But Not Always

"Women share more stories about others, not so much themselves, than men do. Their stories that are about themselves will more often include other people or animals. Women also share information and observations that originated from others, not themselves, more often than men.

The reasons are more social, and less biological.
Both women and men are more prone to willingly accept and listen to first person stories from most men (about themselves), accept the story at face value (don't doubt the story), and don't judge men nearly as much or as easily about whether this is a self-centered behavior. When a woman does this, (even if she were to tell the same story in the same way to the same people), she will often be given social signals that convey disinterest, annoyance, and even the implication of personal rejection.

Both women and men are also more prone to willingly accept and listen to information and advice from men than from women, regardless of the person's actual experience or knowledge.

Both women and men are also more prone to accept condescension and disrespectful speech, tone, and behavior from men, and even make excuses for them.

Both women and men are more prone to expect very different, extremely pleasant, sweet, and accommodating social displays from women, and will much more quickly and severely judge a woman negatively for the absence of this behavior.

Both women and men are more prone to judge men negatively for positive, sunny, gender-neutral or effeminate mannerisms and behavior.

Both women and men will dole out negative social consequences when a woman or a man does not comply with whatever gender-social-behavior they as a group feel comfortable with.

Both women and men will tailor those expected social behaviors even further for each individual, according to superficial physical traits of each person.

It is negative social consequences, along with certain positive reinforcement (but fewer positives than negatives) that trains younger children to comply with gender roles and behavior, and also to comply with whatever "status position" the group has chosen for the individual, which is based on superficial traits, not on the person's actual capabilities, intelligence, or motivations and intentions (as much as we would like to believe that's what it's about). (It's why "nice girls and boys finish last" is such a common lament.)

Sometimes a person who has been accepted, or has the potential to be accepted as a higher status person because of possessing certain superficial traits is also actually knowledgeable, wise, creative and capable. They can become what people would call a "Good Leader" because they can flourish, grow, and be themselves within a Leadership position. This rare occurrence in human groups can facilitate wonderful change, because the people in the group will not rebel against every move the person makes, and dismiss and counter everything the person says, since they've already accepted the person as a "leader". It is good and rare for human groups to have a Leader whom they both accept AND who is actually well-intentioned, humble, and capable, with healthy vision. The fact that humans (both men and women) follow more often than lead is simply biological, so a genuinely "good" leader can make a very big impact just with their presence and example, just like a "bad" leader would make a very big negative impact.
One is more like sunshine and rainwater on a field of wild flowers, the other is like a meteor landing in that same field.

M.M.Black 2013

Insecurity And Judging Others

Only the insecure seek excuses to judge another as inferior. It's not enlightened wisdom, it's just common sense. People who are truly confident don't think about whether someone has something they don't, or does not have something they have; or if they're stronger or weaker; more or less capable; with or without a title, degree, or position; with or without money; attractive or not attractive. They're not thinking about it, because their mind is focused on being supportive to the people around them and helping each other have a more pleasant day, and on what they're actually doing, what they're actually talking about, what they're working on, what they're learning, and what their goals are.

Advice And Information

Do keep in mind the fable of the blind men and the elephant (click the link) when seeking advice and information about ANYTHING.

No one human being has all of the information, or all of the correct information, and that includes ourselves. So WE can't even know who knows the correct information and who doesn't; our own judgement is only human as well. Even if we think a person is a brilliant expert, it doesn't mean they are, they might be WAY OFF. They might just SEEM like they know what they're doing, or what they're talking about. They might indeed have a "good handle" on the subject, but they won't have ALL of the information about it; the information does not begin and end with that person, even if they are an "expert".
Another person might be much more knowledgeable or capable, but because of our own personal biases and flawed judgment, we dismiss them, ignore them, or simply don't notice them, so we don't give them a listen at all.
And even still, we might not have actually been hearing from ANYONE who knows what they're talking about, OR, we might be hearing different points of view that are ALL VALID, but different from one another.

How do we tell what's "good advice" and what's not, or who's giving it?

We can't really, but it's a conundrum only when we are looking for someone else to follow, instead of neutral information and data.

If I want to find out what the best new car within my budget is on today's market, (or find the very best recipe for Angel Food Cake, or decide on a career path, buy a house, learn about psychology, learn about carpentry, go to college, find a job, learn about the law, learn about dog and cat breeds, get parenting advice, get relationship advice, become "enlightened", learn about a religion, learn about my rights, learn about my government, learn about other cultures, fix my car), I'm going to need to gather information, not look for someone to follow and believe.
It's perfectly natural and there's nothing wrong with "following someone else's lead", or being mentored by a person, or apprenticing with a person. But that's not the same as assuming someone possesses all the information about a given topic or subject, or that they are always accurate, and that I don't need to look to other sources.  And there's no blame or judgment needed if someone's information or knowledge isn't "perfect"; if I'm not fixated on "following" a person, then I'm not going to assume that everything they say is the gospel truth, therefore I won't blame or judge them if something they said wasn't complete, or wasn't exactly accurate, or I didn't understand it because of the way they explained it. Again, there is no one alive who's not a mere human, so there's no logical reason to assume that one person is going to know everything about any subject, or to be totally accurate; no one is more of a "god" than me or you.

There ARE, of course, those who purposely give misinformation in order to misdirect or gaslight others, but again, if I'm not assuming they're some kind of super-guru, and I'm going to get information from other sources as well, then I'm already protecting myself from people who do that. Also, if I listen to the points of view of others and not just CERTAIN people, then I'm protecting myself even more. I don't need to buy into anyone else's beliefs or information, I'm simply gathering data and information from different sources that I will then go through myself, without being led this and that way by my own biases about who said what.

So, if I want to find out what the best new car within my budget is on today's market, I will need to learn more about car engines in general myself, so I understand what I'm looking at and hearing. I'm going to need to learn more about the manufacturers themselves, from several sources. I'll need to actually go and look at all different cars, makes and models, read all I can find about them, and make sure I understand what I'm reading before I make a decision.

I can ask people I know, but I'm not going to just believe certain people and dismiss others; I am going to listen to each of them, and remember that they are ALL ALSO just humans with flawed judgment; none of them have ZERO information, and none of them have ALL of the information. The mechanic I ask might not actually know much about the cars on the current market, and he or she might also be "advising" me based on THEIR preferences, and their ASSUMPTIONS about ME, not what I'm actually looking for, or what I need. They also might be giving me lots of accurate information, but I can't know that, because I'M not actually an "expert" myself.
Then the person who looks to me like they would know nothing about cars might actually have the most information, and the most accurate information, so if I don't ask her or him, or if I dismiss what they say because of my own judgment issues, then I'm just making my SELF miss out on helpful information.

It may seem like a fast, logical, and easy way to get good information and advice by judging who to believe and then getting information from them, and dismissing information from others. But that's really just trying to take a shortcut when a shortcut is the last thing you want to take when seeking advice and information.

Also, when we do that, we are more likely to only accept advice and information that we AGREE WITH, and FROM those we already LIKE, admire, or "look up" to. So if we didn't already think of it or it didn't seem "right" to us, we often just leave it behind; we don't consider that it might be information we could learn from.

We are most likely to find the best advice and information for ourselves by listening to as many points of view as we can find, and finding the most information about the subject that we can find. We can also learn about the subject HANDS ON, and in observational point of view, instead of just believing what other people say about it.
As we learn more and more information, we can put ourselves to the action of putting all of that information together, seeing what makes objective sense to the best of our ability at the time, and observing for ourselves what seems to work and what doesn't. We can also leave room and flexibility for changes and additional information that we haven't learned yet.

When we FOLLOW PEOPLE, we are limited by THEIR limits.
When we LISTEN to people without following them, or dismissing them; when we know that information is neutral, no one "owns" it; and when we find out information on our own as well, with our own hands and our own eyes and ears, we can make many more informed decisions and plans for ourselves.    



There is some kind of hilarious habit in the Northeast where if a person disagrees with another person, they seem to think that they now have some kind of "moral high-ground". So then, whomever's Point of View gets proven "correct" (not necessarily with actual evidence)~ they are the "WINNER", and therefore Morally and/or Intellectually Superior to the other person.

And then everyone (I guess) is supposed to then respect the "winner" more than the other person.... even if the only reason they "won" was because the other person got tired of dealing with a bully and walked away.
Which of course leads to people using this kind of thing to bully others, gain false respect (which translates to real money and control), and ALSO leads to people being afraid to speak, question things,  express themselves, or disagree.
Everything is about "proving superiority", "displaying superior expertise", "deserving more respect than another", or "gaining moral high-ground" instead of neutral information exchange or just getting things done.
Everything seems to have emotion, projection, and ego attached to it. 

Some kind of throw-back to when Puritans settled here?
Or is it from another culture? Or a result of something else?
I wonder how many other cultures are steeped in this habit.

I don't think it's only in the USA, or the Northeast, but it's definitely a "thing" here. It must be prevalent in other areas because a lot of politicians use this successfully to gain a following. Pretty funny to watch.  I saw less of it in the South where I used to live, although it did show itself.

Life Lessons We Should All Already Know

Remember these life lessons:

~Only certain people are capable, knowledgeable, wise, and deserve respect.
~We learn how to recognize them by sight, sound, and feeling when we are very young, through the example of those around us.
~Anyone who does not seem like one of those people is not worthy of automatic respect. They have to prove it to us by the standards we set.
~Some people can't ever prove that they deserve real respect, because they just can't, they're just not good enough, period.
~People who we know don't deserve automatic respect also don't deserve civil behavior or polite manners. We don't have to listen to anything they say, and it's okay to feel superior to them. We don't need to treat them with good manners or courtesy, whether they're a stranger, a friend, a family member, or a coworker.
~If we're not sure if someone deserves respect or not, and we're not sure if we like them or not, we should find out what their job is, their college degrees are, and listen to what other people say about them. If they don't have an important title or degree, or if someone tells us bad things about them, then it's okay to treat them with disrespect, especially if everyone else does.
~Integrity, civility, politeness, honesty, respect, and good manners are only for people who we think deserve it, and who our friends tell us deserve it.
~Only people who are jealous of us don't like us.
~Only people we like deserve our sympathy, and only people we agree with deserve our respect.
~We can tell everything about what a person is like by the way they look and the way they make us feel.
~The only people who are wise are already famous or have important jobs.
~Almost all people with important jobs and degrees earned them completely on their own with no real help from anyone else, and anyone who does not have an important job or degree is just lazy, crazy, or not as intelligent.
~The way we feel about someone else always represents the way that person really is.
~All people we respect and like are trustworthy, honest, and righteous.
~Rumors and stereotypes are based in fact and reality, unless they're about ourselves or someone we like.

~Learn how to detect b.s. and manipulation from farther away, and learn how to see the bigger picture from farther away as well. Learn the difference between "the forest" and "the trees", and what a "bird's eye view" really looks like, from higher up.

~Learn what sarcasm and irony looks and sounds like. 

~Don't be so hard on yourself or on others or take yourself or another so seriously; there are no humans who are more powerful than most of the other creatures on this Earth. Without a weapon, some kind of shield and shelter, and without any clothing, even the largest human is not much more powerful than a baby lamb against most other creatures, and no human can survive without the same basics that any other human must have. There has never been a human who did not need to be cared for by another, for quite some time, in order to survive. There has never been a human who survived infancy who was not influenced by other humans.

~When we take ourselves more seriously than we take others, we're in ego, not reality. When we make lords and gods out of other humans, and try to make still other humans into peasants and morons, we're still in ego. If we're in ego, we're not in reality.

Bias Is...

"Bias is like when I can't stand it when one person posts quotes or writings on their FB page, but I think another person is wise and cool when they do the exact same thing.

It's like the way I might "love" all the music, artwork, or poetry of one person, after I know what they look like, their race, and their sex, but I'll criticize or dismiss any creative things that another person does. 

When I assume that everything one person says and does is because they're "emotional and reactive", and everything another person says and does is because they're "logical and purposeful".

It's like when one relative "snaps" at people and everyone says "oh they're just in a bad mood because they had a bad day", but another relative says something in a snappy way and everyone says "oh here we go again!"

It's like when I assume that one person would be good at something or knowledgeable about something, and I assume another person wouldn't know anything about it.

It's like when everything one person says and does is witty and funny, but I project " they're just trying to get attention" onto another person.

It's like when I assume that one person couldn't learn or be capable of doing something, but I assume that another person could.

When I don't want to hear original thoughts, observations, or creative works from one person, but I take everything someone else says or does seriously. (If they put their own thoughts into quotes, I might take it seriously, but if they don't, I dismiss it.)

When I don't "like" a person without getting to know them, but I do "like" another person, without getting to know them, either.

Bias is not about the other people, or what they are, who they are, or what they're doing. It's from inside of US.

Rationalization Of Bias

"Bias" saturates modern culture so much that most people don't even know they're looking right at it, or doing it themselves. It seems that there used to be more general awareness and knowledge of what it is, and what it looks and sounds like. But media, politics, and corrupt business practice, education, and government has so thoroughly flooded human's perception for so long now that many people believe that their biases are representative of reality; they don't seem to know the difference anymore between bias, opinion,, speculation, and evidence.

It used to be common knowledge that there was racial bias in employment, government, academia and religion, and age and sex bias as well. People who did it would defend themselves, but most of them knew they were doing it and wouldn't try to rationalize it or pretend it was something else. Now, a huge number of people live life through their biases and don't know that they're doing it, and don't seem to care; they seem to believe their opinions and feelings represent objective reality.

If they deny a job to an overweight Asian man, they won't admit that they didn't hire him because of his race or weight, even to their friends, they'll swear up and down that there was a "real" reason, they'll rationalize it to the hilt, even though his application or resume was the best one. If someone sees the applications and points it out, the employer will keep on defending their "reason", finding all kinds of excuses. Same thing with hiring young people, older people, female people, or whoever they deny.

People do the same thing in most other situations, groups and arenas as well. He didn't deny the short Italian guy the drummer position because he was short or Italian, he turned him down because he just didn't have the "chops"... They didn't block the small Irish woman from taking the firefighter test, there weren't any open spots to fill! (so why waste her time...) (strange how they didn't let her know when there was an open position the following week, but there's a reason for that, too) There was no fix in the talent contest, they really DID like the guy who sang off-key the best! (So what if he's one of the judge's in-laws!) They didn't create a hostile environment for the Indian girl in auto mechanics class, she was just overly sensitive, and didn't really fit in with the other students... (It was her fault, really...) The professor didn't fail the Iranian boy's essay for any other reason than the poor prose and lack of originality! No, really...

When the elementary school teacher turns out to be a man, how many modern parents make up stories about why he picked his profession? When the plumbing company sends a female plumber to a customer's house, how many people pick apart the work she did when she leaves (or while she's trying to do it)? When the blond woman shows up at a "black" church, how many members or clergy treat her with the same Christian welcome they would if a dark-skinned woman showed up? When a person shows up to a rock band audition looking very well-groomed as if they just came from a Wall Street business meeting, what's the odds of them getting accepted, unless they are extremely skilled? When a person shows up to a job interview without the "look" (or color, or gender) that the hiring person has a picture of in their head, what are the chances of them getting the job? What will be the excuse? They didn't smile enough? They didn't shake hands right? They smiled too much, they were too nice~~~ they didn't seem like they could emotionally HANDLE the job...

Since no one seems to know the difference between Bias and reality, both those with bias and targets of bias seem to have no idea what they're looking at, or when it IS happening, and when it's NOT.

"Rationalization of Bias" is the new "Denial"; everyone's doing it, it's the fashion, jump on board!

Driving Wedges

"Orbiting" around another person and attaching one's self to another person whom one admires or wants to be associated with is a common trait of codependency. This WITH Narcissism or certain other disorders can mean that the person wants to be the other person's NUMBER ONE "fan", or "buddy", or groupie, which means they ENVY anyone close to the person. ESPECIALLY their romantic partner, their child, or close platonic friend.
In less severe, more common cases, the codependent person will do things like loosely gossip about their fixation's partner, child, or close friends. They might claim ownership of "understanding" their fixation MORE THAN other people, They may feel that there is a special connection between them, and the other person just doesn't know it yet (that one is pretty common in healthy humans too, especially youths). But they don't usually make a serious impact, or try to make one. They are probably somewhat aware that they have a bit of a fixation, and that those in relationships with the person deserve their basic respect.

In more severe cases, those orbiting the person will try to drive wedges between their fixation and their close relationships. Their goal is to separate their fixation from the other people close to them in their lives, so THEY can be the person (or people) closest to the "admired" person.

Methods and tactics vary, from subtle enticing, such as invitations, business opportunities, tickets to shows or games that DO NOT include the partner/child/close friend (the way people entice a pet with a treat), to snubbing and disdain toward the fixation's significant others/friend, to outright slander and rumor spreading about the fixation's partner/child/friend.
Tactics such as getting the fixation person to "party", drink or do drugs with them are common, especially when the person has slowed down or stopped. Also, flirtation and attempts at seduction are quite common to establish "ownership" over the person. Even setting their fixation up with SOMEONE ELSE, other than their partner, is a known tactic. The goal is not for that new coupling to work out, it's just to get the original pair to break up.

All of these tactics are attempts to break the bond between the person they are fixated on and their significant others/close friend. Then, the codependent Narcissist will feel that they have full access to the person without anyone else "in the way".

Judgment Filters

If you have a grudge, envy, or superiority issues toward a person, you're quite certainly judging everything they do and say through a skewed, extra -negative filter.

If you like, admire, or are attracted toward a person, you're most likely judging what they say and do through a skewed, extra-positive filter.

Are You A Good Person or A Bad Person

Placing "value judgment" on everything and everyone can be a sign of a personality disorder, a mental illness, OR it can actually be a LEARNED behavior either from family members, community, or the culture itself. The behavior is used in place of healthy bonding, and is used as a tool of control and manipulation. It is ALSO used as a way to get attention from others, especially in the midst of a dysfunctional group (the only way to get even a small bit of attention is to act a certain way, go along with certain others, or make a big deal out of things one talks about).
Commonly, communities and groups that are heavy with Value Judgers do not produce a lot of success for individuals; only certain individuals may achieve certain levels of success, but others are not supported or encouraged, and therefore the entire group/community does not flourish but often actually withers and becomes more and more chaotic, corrupt, or "depressed", over time.

"Value judgers" are fixated on trying to find "moral high ground", and will use anything at all for this purpose, including things that are actually completely neutral and CAN'T indicate the "moral character" of a person. They will also commonly twist reality to make it appear a certain way so they can place the Value judgment that they want to place on a certain person.

Judging another as "bad" every time the person does not fulfill the judger's wishes or expectations, or when the person does not allow the Judger to insult or control them, is very common. Judging another as "good" when a person flatters them, goes along with them, or gives them gifts is also very common. 

"Value judgers" will judge children, the elderly, and anyone else in the same way as they place value judgments on their peers. Many will even include animals. Children do this as a normal developmental stage: The "bad" lion hurt the "good" antelope", but adults who have not outgrown this immature perception of the world (or who have not been guided otherwise) may remain in this stage throughout their lifetimes.

They will judge others and themselves on the most neutral things imaginable, such as the tires on their truck; what time a person goes to bed or gets up in the morning or how much they sleep; their hair cut and hair color; their shoes; their accent, their skin color; their gender; their body art or lack thereof; their bank account (big or small). The flowers in their garden. The car they drive, the job they have, their academic standing, the age they were when they had a child; the child's other parent; the classes they take in school, whether they do sports or not; whether they do music or not; what kind of sports or music.... the brand of jeans they're wearing (or if they don't wear jeans)... their pets, their jewelry, the color of their lipstick, their height and weight;
anything and everything is "fodder" for a Value Judger.

MISTAKES other people seem to have made, and even traumas they have experienced, recent or in the past, are also fodder for Value Judgers. They will try to make literally ANYTHING become "evidence" for their Value Judgments, about whether a person is "good" or "bad", "deserving" or "undeserving", "trustworthy" or "non-trustworthy", "included" or "excluded".
If one's group does this as a matter of daily living, and no one stops it or challenges it, then one would most likely believe that it's just as much a normal part of life as eating and sleeping.

Value Judgers believe that they can "fill in the blanks". Literally what this means is they believe that they KNOW what they DON'T KNOW. And they think one thing ALWAYS MEANS a certain OTHER thing, whatever that might be. They are also quite in the habit of hiding things about themselves that others might place a "negative Value Judgment" on, or being continually defensive of being judged. If one is always judging others, one assumes that others are always judging one's self.
*(Sociapathic Value Judgers often DO actually know that they don't know the "real story", but enjoy weaving fiction and getting others to believe them. Most Value Judgers, however, are just living in their imaginations and learned behavior, and don't realize it).

So, the man across the street has a an older car that's dirty and has stuff in it~ what does  that MEAN... does it mean he's very busy with his work? That he's a lazy slob? That he's a drug addict? That he's an eccentric genius? That he's a "good person" or a "bad person"?
It means: None of the above, if one is attached to reality. There is zero evidence of any "reason" why his car is dirty and there's stuff in it. It just IS, and why is anyone focusing on it or making a big deal out of it at all?
Why~ because it gives them a rush, it makes them feel clever, it makes them feel bonded together when they talk about him, and it gives them a sense of security, power, and control.
Instead of actually being a "neighbor" to the man and talking TO him, and NOT making completely baseless assumptions about him that have nothing to do with reality, they sit on the couch and look out the window (or on the porch, or walk by in the road) and project their OWN SELVES onto him. The people around him are CHOOSING to do this, they aren't being MADE to do this by some "universal compulsion".
The more people who do this in the neighborhood, the more the neighborhood turns into a big soap opera.
This same thing happens within schools, at workplaces, out in the community, in organizations and clubs, and within families.

"This means he's a good person" and "This means he's a bad person". "That means she's a good person" and "That means she's a bad person". The CRITERIA that value-judgers use is not objective, it's subjective. They often have learned "what's good" and "what's bad"  from someone else under the guise of morality. True "morality" is OBJECTIVE, not subjective. In other words, the rules don't change according to who is doing the judging, or who is being JUDGED. True morality is ONLY about life being healthy, free,  and positive for every member of the group AND the group as a whole, NOT "only for certain members" of the group, but not others. Anything else is SUBJECTIVE; the "rules" are RE-WRITTEN by whoever is trying to control someone else, or trying to make themselves or someone else appear "Good".

An example we can see every day in this country is when a Police Officer who is a "value judger" pulls one person over but NOT another for speeding on a highway, based on the Officer's own personal biases. Even if the Officer is NOT "profiling" for who to pull over, he or she might be "profiling" for who to LET GO. So we see a full size Dodge Ram fly by us at 85 mph, and they don't get pulled over, but the little red Honda who was going 75 mph gets pulled over and ticketed. Not because the Officer has a thing against little red Hondas, but because he or she is biased FOR people who drive pick-up trucks. Someone has to get pulled over, but it's not going to be who the Officer has bias FOR. This particular officer sees a pick-up truck and thinks "Dad" or "Uncle", or "Brother" or "Self", and either doesn't pull the truck over because he/she fears either disapproval or actual hostility from the driver, or he/she is simply biased and WANTS them to "get away" with speeding.
*(Of COURSE not "all" Police Officers have bias and value judgment issues, there are many who have the ability to be objective and fair, who don't have racism, sexism or "class" issues, and who comprehend and uphold real integrity and what "Protect and Serve" really means, and I for one am very grateful for their strength of character and intelligence, especially in the situations they are in every day.)  

For another obvious and common example, if sexual behavior is "bad" when one person does it, then it's exactly the SAME "bad" when another person does it. If John is "sleeping around" and getting called a "Stud", but Gina is getting called a "Slut" for the exact same behavior, then there is ABSOLUTELY an epidemic of "value judgment" going on within the community. And if John and Gina are young people, then the origin of the habit of placing SUBJECTIVE "value judgment" on behaviors and people almost certainly lies on some or many of the adults in the area.

So, is the act of "sleeping around" a bad thing, a good thing, or a neutral thing? Is there something bad about it, and if so, WHAT?
Personally I can list about 5 serious consequences for it off the top of my head WITHOUT casting moral judgment on it one way or the other, and the fact is that they ALL would apply to both Gina AND John, quite equally. And those consequences would apply to any other human who engaged in the behavior, as well as those around them. The difference between the judgment toward Gina then toward John is literally the people doing the judging. From a scientific, physiological, psychological and community-health point of view, neither Gina NOR John "should be" sleeping around; the potential for consequences for themselves AND FOR others is very high, almost guaranteed. Placing different values on the behavior for John or for Gina is a glaring and obvious example of controlling and conditioning BOTH of them, AND an attempt to REWRITE REALITY on the part of the "judgers".

In a group that does not place "Value Judgments", fairness, integrity, neutrality, and a LACK OF UNNECESSARY DRAMA are the order of the day, on a regular basis. No one is trying to prove anything about themselves to others, mistakes are mistakes and not "FAILURES", accomplishments, achievements and ideas are simply recognized and supported, not exaggerated into something HUGE, for good or for ill; individuals get recognized, supported, and treated fairly by one another. Supporting other people is a part of daily life, not finding ways to "judge" others as "bad" or "undeserving", or finding excuses to put certain people up on a pedestal. Drama-free, progress and peace oriented.

Enlightenment Conundrum

The only ones who are actually interested in learning things from another's point of view, or continuing to learn things that they didn't know, and learning outside the box of their own personal biases, beliefs and conditioning, are those who ALREADY have humility in their hearts.

Humility is the most difficult thing to learn, and is required in order to learn.


Are You A Wise Elder, or An Enlightened Youth?

There has never been a generation born on Earth who did not believe they had much more figured out than their "ignorant elders", or believe they were superior in wisdom and capability to their "silly youngers". Do that math. The only resolution is humility plus awareness, which when combined equals maturity.

Incessant "Advice": Narcissistic Codependent

Codependents with Narcissism are the ones who are constantly forcing "advice" and "help" onto targets with no respect for the real person. They put themselves in the role of "Uber Responsible" and "The One Who Knows", and they put the target in the role of "The Unstable One" "Lazy" "Irresponsible" "Rebellious" and "Loser".
In their minds, everything they do and say is "right", and proves just HOW responsible they are, and that they should receive complete understanding and sympathy for any "mistakes" they make, health issues, or negative events, and nothing a target does is ever good enough, deserves compassion, deserves sympathy or help, or ever shows that they're NOT lazy, unstable, or irresponsible.
Nothing they do is ever seen as a something they should be accountable for, wrong, or sorry for. Basically everything the target does is seen as something they're not doing right, not doing well enough, or is a wrong choice or decision.

They usually have a "back up" circle of people who have similar mindsets, who feed into their image of being "Super Responsible", and who also feed into their projections onto the target. Their circle would consist of people who do the same things as they do; they will also have targets whom they label,  will see themselves as super-responsible and above reproach, and will most likely not see themselves as a person who could use some counseling.

They expect MORE "respect" and recognition for their person, resources, feelings, opinions, accomplishments, gestures, and wants than others, and they give LESS "respect" and recognition than others deserve, especially to targets. They will constantly talk about just how wonderful they are and how wonderful other people think they are, and just how terrible and what a burden their targets are.

They commonly like to imagine that they're "smarter" "bigger" and "stronger", and that targets are "dimmer" "little" and "weak". They exaggerate either their own intelligence or their own physical strength and size, or both, and they minimize and shrink the actual intelligence, strength, and size of others, especially targets. They commonly don't gauge any person within the realm of reality; they always see them as much bigger and stronger or much smaller and weaker than they really are, and treat them accordingly.
(This practice helps to brainwash the youth around them into believing themselves to be either much stronger, tougher, and capable, or much weaker, fragile, and incapable, than they actually are.)

They feel REBELLED AGAINST, ignored, and disrespected when a target does not take their advice, no matter what that advice was. But they will NOT take advice from that same person (because a superior always knows more than an inferior...) If a target dares to give THEM advice, or even shares information, they will take it as "disrespect" or as an "ignorant" talking about something they don't know about.

They feel that every little thing they do is proof that they're one of the "good people", one of the "better people", and everything the target does or doesn't do (in their minds) proves that they're NOT "as good", or one of those "inferior" people. So they feel entitled at all times to try to force their opinion, advice, observations, and invade the target's personal space and life.

They are all "one way" so they don't take in any ACTUAL information about the target as a person, they FILTER all information about the target (and themselves, and their circle) so they ONLY acknowledge anything that perpetuates their fantasy that they are super-responsible, deserving, and above, and the target is irresponsible, illogical, unstable, undeserving, and below them.

They have no desire to change because their mindset is a stage from childhood where they found an overall feeling of comfort and control, and they are not about to give that up.

Taking You Seriously, Red Flag

~If I am not one of the people you take seriously, why on earth would you think that you're one of the people I take seriously?

Flags that happen so often in modern culture that most of us don't even realize it's going on:
They tell a story about themselves, you listen. They share their observations, you listen, making sounds and gestures of acknowledgment. They vent their frustrations, laments, ills, you listen. They tell the "story" about their morning, their ride to work, the conversation with their cat, their child, their mother, their neighbor, the mailman, you listen, nod, smile, and give feedback.
They talk, even if it's cutting into the time that something else is going on (work, meeting, dinner, going home, movie, school, someone else talking, break time, anything)
... YOU start to talk, and SUDDENLY it's "time to start work" or "time to go inside" or "time to listen to the speaker" or "listen to the show" or "pay attention" or "take this seriously".

There is ALWAYS time for them to tell THEIR stories (or certain other people), but there is amazingly NEVER time for you to tell YOUR stories.

This is so common in a dysfunctional culture because it is a "Hierarchy" display. Those who are not hierarchy and status-minded may not realize what's going on (for years). Whoever is a higher-status-monkey in the primate group gets to talk, and everyone listens to them when they talk, no matter what they're talking about or what they're saying, and whoever has been cast in a "lower status" position in the primate group gets ignored and dismissed, no matter what they're talking about or what they're saying. This practice actually serves to KEEP the monkey-hierarchy intact, because the only people who usually talk about the fact that the hierarchy exists, or that it's unfair, immature, and ridiculous, ARE those who have been put in "lower status" positions, so they get dismissed and even belittled when they speak AUTOMATICALLY. ~~~ If a person who has been designated as a "higher status" in the primate group starts pointing out the immaturity of the hierarchy, they will usually get attacked and will be targeted to be reassigned as "lower status" (so people will automatically stop listening to them speak.)

Narcissists are usually fixated on "hierarchy", and live their lives trying to be one of the "higher status" members within any group that they're part of. ("Higher status" does NOT necessarily mean "Leadership positions", although it can. It mostly means being seen as "one of the better people", one of the people that gets sympathy, positive attention, some form of group-consensus "respect". Higher Status means one gets sympathy instead of judgment and shame for transgressions or mistakes, it means that one gets listened to, praised, and remembered instead of ignored, criticized, and forgotten, it means that others in the group feel that they are "supposed to" give the person a certain amount of "respect" and be nice to them. It also means that one is allowed to display domination signals toward certain others, like ignoring them when they speak, treating them without respect, or talking about them behind their back, without consequence from other group members.)

Healthy Boundaries

What "Healthy Boundaries" are can be hard to describe in a literal sense. Some compare them to a fence around each person, others may call it a personal energy barrier, perhaps a membrane, or an invisible skin. However, since our personal boundary is invisible, it seems to be simpler to describe what we feel and look like when our boundary is healthy.
Having "healthy boundaries" means I can listen to someone else talk about their problems or their frustrations without assuming they are asking for my advice or help, or that they need it, or that I know anything that they don't already know.
If they have healthy boundaries, their motive behind telling me their problems or frustrations will not be to "compel" me or "guilt" me into giving them help or advice.
"Healthy boundaries" means I don't go in someone else's living space, bedroom, car, or any other space without their permission, and they don't go in any of mine without my permission. It means I knock on a closed door and wait for permission before entering, and I expect the same from others.
It means I expect my person, body, time, schedule, space, plans, intentions, and possessions to be fully respected, and that I treat others the same.
It means that I know the difference between my FEELINGS and my ACTIONS and behavior, and expect that others know the difference as well.
It means that I can and do listen to another person's point of view, beliefs, and experiences respectfully. And I expect the same from others.
It means that I can and do listen to others without feeling like they're trying to make me "follow" them, and without becoming indoctrinated if I agree with or like some of the things they say.
It means that I don't try to make others follow me, and I don't get upset if they don't follow or believe everything I say; and I'm not worried about hurting their feelings or angering them because I don't "follow" them.
It means that I CAN "Follow" someone else's Lead respectfully, without rebelling against them, trying to take over, or trying to challenge their "position", and I expect the same from others when it's my turn to lead.
It means I know the difference between "Leading" and "Dictating" or "Controlling", and I know the difference between "Following" and "Being Controlled or Dominated".
It means I don't take everything personally, or think everything that everyone says and does is about me. If there is a time that I suspect something IS personal or against me, I don't hesitate to find out in a respectful manner what's going on.
It means I look forward to meeting my own goals, and that I genuinely want others I know in my life to be happy, healthy, confident, and successful.  
I don't feel envious or superior to others. 
I know what "A rising tide lifts all ships" means.
It means I communicate at all times, honestly and directly as much as possible, with the intention of INFORMATION EXCHANGE, with real respect and courtesy. I don't only communicate respectfully toward CERTAIN people, and NOT toward OTHERS.
And I expect the same courtesy and respect toward myself from other people.
It means I don't "judge" others by my presumptions, by their appearance, by what others have said about them, by my prejudices and biases, by their reputation or titles, by their associates, nor even by their manner and speech. It takes much more than any of these superficial things to know anything worth knowing about another person, and a good deal of time. 
And I expect the same toward myself from others.
It means if I have not come to know a person over a good deal of time and have come to truly trust them to some degree, that I don't allow them "in", to have access to my person, my space, and my life.
And I expect the same from others.
It means using the same manners and respectful treatment toward every person, not using extra respectful manners toward one person and less respectful manners toward another. My manners and values come from ME, not from others; if I shake hands and show respect to the first man, I will do exactly the same toward his brother, toward his wife, his son, toward his daughter, and friend. 
And I expect the same toward myself and my associates from others.
It means I can handle it when someone does not agree with me, or doesn't want to do something that I want to do, or doesn't like the same things I like, or is busy doing something that doesn't include me.
It means I know the difference between someone who disagrees with me, and someone who COUNTERS or INSULTS me.
It means I am not afraid to actively observe whether it is myself being "needy", "demanding" or "controlling" toward another person, or the other person being "controlling" or disrespectful toward ME.
It means that I stand up for myself, or stand up for others who are being treated unfairly or with disrespect.
It means that I know and expect that I will be treated with disrespect by other people as a matter of course, and that I don't need to either allow it, or to fly into a rage.
It means that I care for myself, protect myself, believe in and trust myself, allow for all kinds of mistakes and misjudgments, forgive myself, cheer for myself, account for my actions, and love myself, and I also do these things for others in my life.
It means that I am aware of my own DIGNITY, and aware of the DIGNITY of other people, those I know personally and those I don't. 
And I know the difference between DIGNITY and ego, control, and arrogance.
It means I feel secure, and so do not feel the need to dominate others, dismiss or invalidate others, condescend to others, judge others, exclude others, slander others, hurt others, or try to control others.
When my boundaries are healthy, hope and self-esteem are present as a matter of daily regular life. Shame, guilt, anxiety, regret, anger or depression are occasional visitors, but they don't stay.
When my boundaries are healthy, "ego" does not take over, I don't feel like I need to prove myself to others, or show others that I'm good enough, tough enough, smart enough, or better than them. 
When my boundaries are healthy, I don't feel like I need a "posse" or a "clique" to "back me up", and I don't feel compelled to try to create factions or spread negativity about others.
When my boundaries are healthy, I don't need "us against them" to feel like I'm worthy or like I belong. I don't try to put other people or myself into groups and categories, and I don't waste my time or energy  judging others or seeking excuses to judge someone as "inferior" to myself.
When my boundaries are healthy, I am not stuck; I feel truly free to be who I am, express myself without hostility, aggression, or ego, free to learn and improve myself, and free to respect, encourage, and care about others.
"Boundaries" or "Our Personal Boundary" is much like the organ known as skin. We are born with it like we are born with skin. It is a barrier that when healthy is bouncy and semi-permeable, just like skin, but it's not visible to the eyes. Some compare it to what's known as the "Aura". When both our Boundary and our skin is healthy, we can feel things that bump into us, but most of those things don't cause serious injury or great pain; we can walk past and through various kinds of weather, terrain, people, animals, and even things and people that are unkind and unpleasant, and we can survive places and situations that are quite harsh.
When our boundary becomes weakened or injured, our ego tends to take over and do all kinds of things to "protect" us until our boundary heals again, much like we would go out of our way to protect a patch of skin that was injured from the outside world. Pricker bushes become like knives to unhealthy and raw skin, and immature words and behaviors become like serious attacks to weakened or injured boundaries. Healing from serious injury or illness is much slower and more painful with both weakened skin and weakened boundaries, so being serious about caring for them is of tantamount importance. 
Caring and healing our personal boundary or boundaries can be compared to healing other parts of our body, we need to learn, nourish, protect, and give it time and space. Skin won't heal by continually exposing it to harsh conditions, germs, burns, or injury, and the same is true with our personal boundary, which incorporates our mental, emotional, and spiritual health as well as our physical health.

Both our skin and our boundary need to heal so we can move about our world freely and confidently, and experience the pleasant feelings of hope, joy, and self-respect.