Manifesting Money
Some guidance on manifesting money, from Steve Pavlina. CLICKhttp://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2010/11/how-to-manifest-money/ THIS LINK TO READ IT
"If you want to manifest money, but you believe that money is its own power source, then deep down you’re giving money the power to say no to you. If money has power, then it can refuse to show up."
"If you want to manifest money, but you believe that money is its own power source, then deep down you’re giving money the power to say no to you. If money has power, then it can refuse to show up."
Narcissism Revealed
Basically, an adult Narcissist is just a person who grew up but did not go through what others go through as far as learning how to interact with others, and why. Either for external or internal reasons, or both, a person with Narcissism did not learn WHY it is better for everyone if we behave a certain way, or do certain things, or have AWARENESS. They may never even have been shown or taught that there is Life outside their personal realm at all.
We have all known children who did not treat others with respect, or manners; who wanted what they wanted, no matter what, and would throw a fit if they didn't get it. Children who did not say "thank you" when given gifts, and who did not say "Please" when asking for something, or who didn't even ask at all, as if others were paid help.
Many of us forget that the reason we learned these lessons is because we were TAUGHT, purposely, and usually by more than by just one parent.
All of the people around us teach us by example, constantly.
If we are surrounded by negative, controlling, pessimistic, scarcity minded, narcissistic or abusive people, then that is the mindset we learn to have, even if we fight it. Even if we can see it while we're growing up, it still makes a huge mark on the way we see the world; it forges lenses for us to see our selves, our lives, and our worlds through. If no one teaches us how or why to NOT be Narcissistic, then there's a good chance we will become that way too, and not even know why, or that we are.
Basically Narcissism can be seen as a kind of internalized childishness, a lack of awareness that one did not go through certain growth and learning stages. Like a permanent 6th or 7th grader who has not learned about humility yet, who seeks all the rewards of adulthood without understanding anything about adulthood. It's really more like a disability, and renders the sufferer very much alone inside, without knowing why.
We have all known children who did not treat others with respect, or manners; who wanted what they wanted, no matter what, and would throw a fit if they didn't get it. Children who did not say "thank you" when given gifts, and who did not say "Please" when asking for something, or who didn't even ask at all, as if others were paid help.
Many of us forget that the reason we learned these lessons is because we were TAUGHT, purposely, and usually by more than by just one parent.
All of the people around us teach us by example, constantly.
If we are surrounded by negative, controlling, pessimistic, scarcity minded, narcissistic or abusive people, then that is the mindset we learn to have, even if we fight it. Even if we can see it while we're growing up, it still makes a huge mark on the way we see the world; it forges lenses for us to see our selves, our lives, and our worlds through. If no one teaches us how or why to NOT be Narcissistic, then there's a good chance we will become that way too, and not even know why, or that we are.
Basically Narcissism can be seen as a kind of internalized childishness, a lack of awareness that one did not go through certain growth and learning stages. Like a permanent 6th or 7th grader who has not learned about humility yet, who seeks all the rewards of adulthood without understanding anything about adulthood. It's really more like a disability, and renders the sufferer very much alone inside, without knowing why.
Stupid Blogs About Psychology
sOn behalf of human behavior/psychology nerds who post and discuss the subject:
Think of it as collecting rocks, and talking about it.
Geologists are interested in what's already there, they're not creating anything new in order to have something to study.
Exactly the same as people who observe and study human behavior and psychology. Discussing what exists right in front of us does not "create trouble", except for people who have a vested, personal interest in keeping it hidden.
Why would someone NOT want someone else to study and discuss human behavior? Why do they want it to be hidden, mysterious, undercover? Why would they take something that we all experience every day as a personal attack? To someone who studies humans, that's akin to pretending the weather is "sunny and clear" every day, because they can't stand talking about the rain.
People who don't collect rocks often don't get why anyone would enjoy that, but they don't get all freaked out when a Rock Collector posts and discusses their subject of interest. Even if they have arrogance issues and think that rock hounding and being a geologist means a person is "weird", they still don't take it personally, usually, as if geologists are doing something "wrong" to them by studying rocks. (There's rocks in their yard, what about them?)
All human interaction dynamics fall under relationship-based interaction, so anything people write or discuss about human behavior and conditioning can always be seen as relationship-based. The how's and why's, and where it comes from, that's what we study; some humans do certain things more, some less, but all are affected in one way or another.
People who study this subject are often misunderstood by those around them who don't share their focus of interest, and because the subject is HUMAN behavior, lots of people can't understand that it's not personally about THEM specifically, or about the PERSON who is discussing or posting specifically.
Lots of things will apply to anyone reading the post, AND to the person posting, because of the fact that they are HUMANS, and the subject is human behavior and psychology.
If it helps to understand, think of it as studying Canine behavior and psychology, instead of it being "personal". People who own dogs, love dogs, hate dogs or work with dogs will take anything about dogs more personally than people who don't have any personal interest in dogs, and will feel emotional reaction about posts regarding dogs. Those who don't pay attention to dogs don't even know who Cesar Millan IS, but people who do have an emotional reaction to him, and about him.
OR, just ignore it altogether. No one says you have to be interested in the same things as anyone else. AND no one says that anyone has to stop their OWN interests just because you don't like them.
Think of it as collecting rocks, and talking about it.
Geologists are interested in what's already there, they're not creating anything new in order to have something to study.
Exactly the same as people who observe and study human behavior and psychology. Discussing what exists right in front of us does not "create trouble", except for people who have a vested, personal interest in keeping it hidden.
Why would someone NOT want someone else to study and discuss human behavior? Why do they want it to be hidden, mysterious, undercover? Why would they take something that we all experience every day as a personal attack? To someone who studies humans, that's akin to pretending the weather is "sunny and clear" every day, because they can't stand talking about the rain.
People who don't collect rocks often don't get why anyone would enjoy that, but they don't get all freaked out when a Rock Collector posts and discusses their subject of interest. Even if they have arrogance issues and think that rock hounding and being a geologist means a person is "weird", they still don't take it personally, usually, as if geologists are doing something "wrong" to them by studying rocks. (There's rocks in their yard, what about them?)
All human interaction dynamics fall under relationship-based interaction, so anything people write or discuss about human behavior and conditioning can always be seen as relationship-based. The how's and why's, and where it comes from, that's what we study; some humans do certain things more, some less, but all are affected in one way or another.
People who study this subject are often misunderstood by those around them who don't share their focus of interest, and because the subject is HUMAN behavior, lots of people can't understand that it's not personally about THEM specifically, or about the PERSON who is discussing or posting specifically.
Lots of things will apply to anyone reading the post, AND to the person posting, because of the fact that they are HUMANS, and the subject is human behavior and psychology.
If it helps to understand, think of it as studying Canine behavior and psychology, instead of it being "personal". People who own dogs, love dogs, hate dogs or work with dogs will take anything about dogs more personally than people who don't have any personal interest in dogs, and will feel emotional reaction about posts regarding dogs. Those who don't pay attention to dogs don't even know who Cesar Millan IS, but people who do have an emotional reaction to him, and about him.
OR, just ignore it altogether. No one says you have to be interested in the same things as anyone else. AND no one says that anyone has to stop their OWN interests just because you don't like them.
Writers
Writers write. Don't assume you know what they
think about what they write, or about themselves, or about anything at
all. Unless you enjoy finding out that your assumptions were wrong. Just
read it, or don't; either way, it's not going to stop them from
writing, anymore than their judgment of your breath is going to stop you
from breathing.
Peace
"Peace" is not when others let us get away with anything and everything we do and say to them no matter how rude, irresponsible, or inconsiderate, and not defend their boundaries, or express their emotions. It can only be achieved when we consciously don't do those things in the first place, and take responsibility for the times we slip. It can only be achieved with continual open, clear, and highly respectful communication. It can only be achieved when 'Peace' is the true objective.
In other words, if all in the household seek peace to be given to them by another, but do not make it their focus to give peace, then peace will fail. But if all in the household seek to GIVE peace to each and all of the others, then it will succeed.
In other words, if all in the household seek peace to be given to them by another, but do not make it their focus to give peace, then peace will fail. But if all in the household seek to GIVE peace to each and all of the others, then it will succeed.
Self Confidence and Insecurity In Relationships
The difference between having good boundaries and weak boundaries; between being self-confident and insecure; between being independent and codependent, can look like this:
Your friend or acquaintance makes plans with you for Saturday afternoon, to go to lunch. Saturday comes, and they are nowhere to be found. They message you later and say "I'm sorry I forgot, and I had to work." They do the same thing on Tuesday, and send you a similar message.
Do you: try to figure out why they don't like you; try to be more
interesting or cooler so they'll like you better; come up with revenge
tactics; decide they are a bad person; "unfriend" them on Facebook to
retaliate; try to get others to turn on them with creative gossip~
OR
Do you: simply make a mental note that for some reason unknown to you, that this person is currently having a hard time keeping appointments, and that if you want to remain in a friendship with them, you now know that relying on this person will not be part of the relationship? (Which for most people means the friendship can not become very deep, which is fine and normal).
OR
Do you: simply make a mental note that for some reason unknown to you, that this person is currently having a hard time keeping appointments, and that if you want to remain in a friendship with them, you now know that relying on this person will not be part of the relationship? (Which for most people means the friendship can not become very deep, which is fine and normal).
Belief Overrides Logic; Sex Bias
An underlying main cause of gender bias in modern culture is from a false belief: That males are resource providers, and females are resource takers.
The human brain learns what to believe from surrounding humans first and foremost, not from objective reality. If Dad believes that cutting the grass every Thursday is the "right way" to do it, then the child will believe that too, until he or she realizes otherwise, if he or she ever does. If Mom says there are rabid wolves in the woods at the end of the street, the child will believe that too, until he or she figures out otherwise, but may always remain fearful of those woods, and of wolves. The beliefs of those around us about things great and small are internalized in the child as "the way things are". Also, a child who refutes the beliefs of those around him or her will often receive consequences, as if the child is misbehaving; the child can then become confused between reality and belief, and begins to doubt his or her own perception. The child is taught that no matter what they really see, they should dismiss it and go by whatever those around him or her says is "real".
So when the perception of a child's family is "Men bring home what we need to survive,", and "Women use the resources that the Men bring home", that is what the child will internalize as "The way things are". Even if Mom or Grandmom has a full time job or career, and even if Mom or Grandmom actually makes more money, the beliefs of surrounding family members and of local society usually overrides the objective reality. Therefore no matter what is REALLY going on, the underlying belief is that "Men provide resources and therefore are more valuable, and therefore require first access to all resources, and preferential treatment, and extra support", and "Women need the resources that men provide, and they do not gather the resources for themselves, and they do not provide resources for anyone else, so they do not contribute anything from outside; they do not go out into the world and bring home resources. They only use them up." Also, within this same belief pattern is "Men are providers of resources, and therefore have knowledge and skill about procuring and maintaining what we need to survive", and "Women are receivers of these resources, and do not possess knowledge or skill about resource gaining and survival". Of course this belief pattern is far from reality, and lumps all female persons into one group and all male persons into another, but the human brain does that.
The human brain catalogues, categorizes and generalizes what it perceives in an effort to simplify and streamline perception, i.e. make it easier to understand the world and survive in it. Unfortunately the downside of this process is stereotyping, conditioning, assuming, and prejudice. It is in fact difficult for us to think in a truly conscious manner, as a species, and we frequently see others through our subconscious conditioned beliefs, not as individual persons. We like to see others as part of a group instead of as individuals, even though we want others to see us as an individual. We have a difficult time watching our own behavior, so we tend to see and treat others unfairly, according to the category and group our brain has put them in.
For example, a woman who has received a certified education as an auto mechanic will be regarded as an "anomaly" by most people, even a "freak" by some, even by members of her own family (regardless of how cruel and malicious toward her this is). She is, in fact, an anomaly, not because she was able to learn to be an auto mechanic, but because she did something outside of the belief pattern of those around her. Her brother who received the same certification is seen as just another male who chose automechanics as a profession, and no one doubts his ability to carry out his job. At home, family members treat Sister as a typical female who happens to know a little bit about automechanics, who may or may not have a future in the field, and Brother as an Expert AutoTechnician and provider. Sister is still expected to have clean hands and face and perform all tasks that women are expected to perform in the home, even after a long day of work, and Brother, who has the same job, is given respect for his dirty hands (shows he worked) and is frequently consulted for his expertise. He is not expected to do domestic tasks for the family, and the reason is because he has worked long hours. When he does contribute by performing extra tasks around the house, he is rewarded with praise for going above and beyond, while Sister is punished for NOT performing extra tasks on a regular basis, regardless of how much she worked. Her work is literally seen as "extra curricular", like a hobby, an unnecessary elective that does not really benefit anyone. She is only treated as a contributing member of the household when she performs "woman tasks", and only if her performance of those tasks meets the standards of the rest of the family. His work is seen as important for the family's survival, and for the future survival of his future wife and children, and as contributing to the community at large.
It is important to understand that neither brother nor sister set this belief system up; they didn't invent it. Neither did Dad or Mom. They are simply living inside the walls of a belief system that has been passed down, passed over, and absorbed during the childhoods of all the people in the family and/or society. If no one teaches their children any differently, then the belief system conditioning will remain, generation after generation.
It is also important to understand that children of both sexes are taught the same belief patterns; if a group's belief is that men can't cook, then both the girl children and the boy children are taught that men can't cook. Then, the girls may or may not be taught to cook as they grow up, but the boys will be shown that even if they want to learn, they will be refused instruction, and that they would not be able to learn how anyway. The denial of instruction makes the stereotype come true. And the girls in that system are being fed the same belief, that there is no reason to think a boy would be able to cook, or learn how to cook; it is a woman's "natural" ability, and boys don't inherit it.
The point of the above example is that no matter what people are ACTUALLY doing, the subconscious belief pattern is how they are seen, and how they are treated.
The stereotype that Men are providers of resources and Women are users of men's provided resources is obviously false. But the subconscious stamp of that belief, learned as children, can remain stubbornly throughout our lives, just like any other false belief about the world around us.
On an author's note of observation, if one wants to find out what beliefs are internalized within their family system, just asking questions can reveal quite a lot. For example, "Aunt Maggie, what do you think of woman truck drivers?" Or "Dad, what do you think of stay-at-home fathers?" When a person has internalized beliefs about gender roles and value, they will have stronger opinions about who should be doing what, and they will have a list of reasons "why". It's a fascinating experiment if one can stay calm and nondefensive when listening to others talk about gender roles, expectations, and values. If you are a female asking the questions, it may be very difficult to remain non-defensive when a family member or friend reveals that they think less of women than of men, or that they have been judging you all along on how much you conform to their expectations of gender roles. And of course vice versa if you are a man asking the questions. But in order to get their real answers, you have to remain "unsurprised", and non-defensive, just listen. Difficult, but very revealing. You can of course find out a lot about why a person has been treating your opposite-sex sibling or other family members with prejudice and criticism for years, if that's the case, by listening objectively. (Then you will be in a position to help them deal with it better, you can more effectively have their back.)
Thanks for reading,
Marianne Black
The human brain learns what to believe from surrounding humans first and foremost, not from objective reality. If Dad believes that cutting the grass every Thursday is the "right way" to do it, then the child will believe that too, until he or she realizes otherwise, if he or she ever does. If Mom says there are rabid wolves in the woods at the end of the street, the child will believe that too, until he or she figures out otherwise, but may always remain fearful of those woods, and of wolves. The beliefs of those around us about things great and small are internalized in the child as "the way things are". Also, a child who refutes the beliefs of those around him or her will often receive consequences, as if the child is misbehaving; the child can then become confused between reality and belief, and begins to doubt his or her own perception. The child is taught that no matter what they really see, they should dismiss it and go by whatever those around him or her says is "real".
So when the perception of a child's family is "Men bring home what we need to survive,", and "Women use the resources that the Men bring home", that is what the child will internalize as "The way things are". Even if Mom or Grandmom has a full time job or career, and even if Mom or Grandmom actually makes more money, the beliefs of surrounding family members and of local society usually overrides the objective reality. Therefore no matter what is REALLY going on, the underlying belief is that "Men provide resources and therefore are more valuable, and therefore require first access to all resources, and preferential treatment, and extra support", and "Women need the resources that men provide, and they do not gather the resources for themselves, and they do not provide resources for anyone else, so they do not contribute anything from outside; they do not go out into the world and bring home resources. They only use them up." Also, within this same belief pattern is "Men are providers of resources, and therefore have knowledge and skill about procuring and maintaining what we need to survive", and "Women are receivers of these resources, and do not possess knowledge or skill about resource gaining and survival". Of course this belief pattern is far from reality, and lumps all female persons into one group and all male persons into another, but the human brain does that.
The human brain catalogues, categorizes and generalizes what it perceives in an effort to simplify and streamline perception, i.e. make it easier to understand the world and survive in it. Unfortunately the downside of this process is stereotyping, conditioning, assuming, and prejudice. It is in fact difficult for us to think in a truly conscious manner, as a species, and we frequently see others through our subconscious conditioned beliefs, not as individual persons. We like to see others as part of a group instead of as individuals, even though we want others to see us as an individual. We have a difficult time watching our own behavior, so we tend to see and treat others unfairly, according to the category and group our brain has put them in.
For example, a woman who has received a certified education as an auto mechanic will be regarded as an "anomaly" by most people, even a "freak" by some, even by members of her own family (regardless of how cruel and malicious toward her this is). She is, in fact, an anomaly, not because she was able to learn to be an auto mechanic, but because she did something outside of the belief pattern of those around her. Her brother who received the same certification is seen as just another male who chose automechanics as a profession, and no one doubts his ability to carry out his job. At home, family members treat Sister as a typical female who happens to know a little bit about automechanics, who may or may not have a future in the field, and Brother as an Expert AutoTechnician and provider. Sister is still expected to have clean hands and face and perform all tasks that women are expected to perform in the home, even after a long day of work, and Brother, who has the same job, is given respect for his dirty hands (shows he worked) and is frequently consulted for his expertise. He is not expected to do domestic tasks for the family, and the reason is because he has worked long hours. When he does contribute by performing extra tasks around the house, he is rewarded with praise for going above and beyond, while Sister is punished for NOT performing extra tasks on a regular basis, regardless of how much she worked. Her work is literally seen as "extra curricular", like a hobby, an unnecessary elective that does not really benefit anyone. She is only treated as a contributing member of the household when she performs "woman tasks", and only if her performance of those tasks meets the standards of the rest of the family. His work is seen as important for the family's survival, and for the future survival of his future wife and children, and as contributing to the community at large.
It is important to understand that neither brother nor sister set this belief system up; they didn't invent it. Neither did Dad or Mom. They are simply living inside the walls of a belief system that has been passed down, passed over, and absorbed during the childhoods of all the people in the family and/or society. If no one teaches their children any differently, then the belief system conditioning will remain, generation after generation.
It is also important to understand that children of both sexes are taught the same belief patterns; if a group's belief is that men can't cook, then both the girl children and the boy children are taught that men can't cook. Then, the girls may or may not be taught to cook as they grow up, but the boys will be shown that even if they want to learn, they will be refused instruction, and that they would not be able to learn how anyway. The denial of instruction makes the stereotype come true. And the girls in that system are being fed the same belief, that there is no reason to think a boy would be able to cook, or learn how to cook; it is a woman's "natural" ability, and boys don't inherit it.
The point of the above example is that no matter what people are ACTUALLY doing, the subconscious belief pattern is how they are seen, and how they are treated.
The stereotype that Men are providers of resources and Women are users of men's provided resources is obviously false. But the subconscious stamp of that belief, learned as children, can remain stubbornly throughout our lives, just like any other false belief about the world around us.
On an author's note of observation, if one wants to find out what beliefs are internalized within their family system, just asking questions can reveal quite a lot. For example, "Aunt Maggie, what do you think of woman truck drivers?" Or "Dad, what do you think of stay-at-home fathers?" When a person has internalized beliefs about gender roles and value, they will have stronger opinions about who should be doing what, and they will have a list of reasons "why". It's a fascinating experiment if one can stay calm and nondefensive when listening to others talk about gender roles, expectations, and values. If you are a female asking the questions, it may be very difficult to remain non-defensive when a family member or friend reveals that they think less of women than of men, or that they have been judging you all along on how much you conform to their expectations of gender roles. And of course vice versa if you are a man asking the questions. But in order to get their real answers, you have to remain "unsurprised", and non-defensive, just listen. Difficult, but very revealing. You can of course find out a lot about why a person has been treating your opposite-sex sibling or other family members with prejudice and criticism for years, if that's the case, by listening objectively. (Then you will be in a position to help them deal with it better, you can more effectively have their back.)
Thanks for reading,
Marianne Black
Dear Love
Dear Love.
I am writing you this letter because people confuse me.
They are too busy for you, and they are scared of you.
They refuse to show you within themselves.
Thanks for listening to me love. I needed to vent.
Love.
Massimo.
~ Massimo Rossetti
(copyright M.Rossetti 2012)
I am writing you this letter because people confuse me.
They are too busy for you, and they are scared of you.
They refuse to show you within themselves.
Thanks for listening to me love. I needed to vent.
Love.
Massimo.
~ Massimo Rossetti
(copyright M.Rossetti 2012)
 |
| See without judgment the information another is pointing to, be it regarding darkness or light. All of the pieces of a puzzle are needed to complete a picture. Judging one piece as less important than
another is senseless;
if some pieces are discarded, the puzzle is no longer complete, and the remaining pieces will not fit. Remember that some, when constructing a difficult puzzle, need to begin with the bright pieces and build from there. Some need to begin with the simplest place in the picture, and work out from that spot. Some must make sense of the dark places in order to begin to find where any other pieces go, and still others must start at the corners and the edges. No puzzle piece is less essential than another; some are harder to find, and some are harder to look at. Hold a new puzzle piece in your hand, turn it this way and that, see how it glints in the sunlight, and glows or fades in the moon shadow. The bearer of the information, of the puzzle piece, is simply a messenger, like all other messengers, no more or less important. It is only the bias of one’s ego that accepts or rejects a piece of information based on the bearer of the message; of the piece of the puzzle. ~M.Black |
Friendship
You know how you're supposed to take the "bad" with the "good" when you have a friendship? That's about personality stuff. What someone likes or doesn't like, whether they're shy or outgoing, if they like sushi and you hate it, if they love snakes and spiders and you can't stand them. If they like all kinds of music and you only like rock, or you only like rap, or you only like classical. If they would rather hike than bike, and you would rather bike than hike. It's NOT about how they treat you, or how you treat them. It is NOT a part of being a "friend" to accept ill and callous or self-centered treatment, and it's especially not being a friend if you expect another person to accept it from you.
What Are You Ashamed Of? Abuse And Control
One of the best weapons in the arsenal of a
controlling person is anything they can use to hold over your head. If
you tell them in confidence that you did something in your past that you
feel guilty about, that can be turned into a weapon to use against you.
"Having something on you", like blackmailers on TV, is a very easy way
to exert control. Because you don't want your private things to be spread
all over the place, even if you fear that only on a
subconscious level, you can easily fall prey to walking on eggshells
around them, making sure you don't upset them, because you are afraid of
what they'll do. Those with high morals and good conscience are the
easiest targets for a controller, because they truly feel remorse for
past mistakes, AND because the controller is not afraid of retaliation;
persons with high morals are loathe to hurt another person, even if they
are abusive.
EVEN IF you didn't actually do anything that you
feel seriously remorseful about, they will still try this with things
they think you MIGHT feel bad about, or things they think you would not
want exposed, or things they make up in their own imagination, pure
fiction. If the controller is a habitual gossiper, they have probably
already told all of your secrets, and made up some more, just to keep
the attention of whoever is listening.
If you are not ashamed of anything you have done, or when you have LET GO of shame attached to things you have done, (guilt is not shame), then they will not be able to hold things over your head in order to make you do their bidding. Facing your guilt, remorse, and shame head on, and making amends to those you have hurt in an open and direct way. is the path to finding redemption and letting go of shame. Even if the recipient of your apology and amends does not accept, or is very angry, giving them the apology and attempting amends anyway is still the route to redemption. If that's not possible because the person is unavailable for any reason, or because they are dangerous, then the next best thing is to tell someone else what you did, and make amends in another way; but ONLY if the person is honestly unreachable or dangerous.
If you are not ashamed of anything you have done, or when you have LET GO of shame attached to things you have done, (guilt is not shame), then they will not be able to hold things over your head in order to make you do their bidding. Facing your guilt, remorse, and shame head on, and making amends to those you have hurt in an open and direct way. is the path to finding redemption and letting go of shame. Even if the recipient of your apology and amends does not accept, or is very angry, giving them the apology and attempting amends anyway is still the route to redemption. If that's not possible because the person is unavailable for any reason, or because they are dangerous, then the next best thing is to tell someone else what you did, and make amends in another way; but ONLY if the person is honestly unreachable or dangerous.
Remember that every single human on the Earth makes all kinds of
mistakes, and has all kind of "flaws" and "faults". If someone is
holding something over your head, or trying to use something you have
done or do to make you look bad, or treating you as if you are not as
"good" or as "worthy" and therefore don't deserve the same normal
courteous treatment as anyone else, they are a controller.
What Does A Narcissist Look Like?
The Narcissist is the "friend" who changes
plans on you constantly in order to accommodate their schedule,
regardless of yours, who desires the attention of anyone you are
interested in, who invites you to a party and then treats you like you
don't really belong, who's problems are always a crisis in need of your
help, no matter how small, but who treats your problems as if they are
due to your incompetence and are
petty, no matter how large;
The coworker who constantly tries to take credit for your work and make you look bad;
The doctor who rushes through your exam to get out of there to go play squash;
The landlord who demands timely rent payments but won't fix anything;
The roommate who treats you as if you are in their way when you're home, and your stuff is a nuisance, even though you pay half, or more than half the rent;
The wife who acts as if her family is better and more important than her husband's, who acts as if the sun rises and sets on her side of the family, but that his are just low-class peasants and don't deserve the time of day;
The clergy who act like they are "Holy" and you are not;
The atheist who believes that anyone who does not believe the same as they do is "stupid", and doesn't hesitate to tell them so;
The teacher who only helps his favored students and treats the rest as if they aren't able to learn, a waste of time;
The husband who is judgmental, self-important, and bossy toward his wife,who honestly feels that he is superior to her, and makes a habit of criticizing her, judging her, and ordering her around, but can't stand to be bothered with anything she wants, needs, or wants to talk about;
The sibling who believes they are a better human being and deserve to be favored;
The adult child who only keeps in contact to get money and stuff;
The boss who thinks of himself as a superior being who should be catered to and served, and his employees as inferior creatures who should put him before anyone else;
The employee who thinks they are far superior to their boss, and believes they would run the company much better, and deserves the position without going through promotions or school that everyone else would go through, and without just starting their own company;
The musician or artist who accepts your accolades for his or her work with or without a show of gratitude, but lets you know that your musicianship or artwork is not deserving of attention or respect, or even encouragement. Either with passive aggressive behavior, or with direct insult.
The parent who can't be bothered with their child's needs, and denies the child's wants, as if the child's existence is a burden;
The significant other who expects their animal-loving partner to give up his or her interests in animals, and not have any pets, because they don't like them;
The animal welfare worker who believes they have a gift with animals that you couldn't possibly have.
They aren't just politicians and cult leaders, they can be found anywhere there are humans.
The coworker who constantly tries to take credit for your work and make you look bad;
The doctor who rushes through your exam to get out of there to go play squash;
The landlord who demands timely rent payments but won't fix anything;
The roommate who treats you as if you are in their way when you're home, and your stuff is a nuisance, even though you pay half, or more than half the rent;
The wife who acts as if her family is better and more important than her husband's, who acts as if the sun rises and sets on her side of the family, but that his are just low-class peasants and don't deserve the time of day;
The clergy who act like they are "Holy" and you are not;
The atheist who believes that anyone who does not believe the same as they do is "stupid", and doesn't hesitate to tell them so;
The teacher who only helps his favored students and treats the rest as if they aren't able to learn, a waste of time;
The husband who is judgmental, self-important, and bossy toward his wife,who honestly feels that he is superior to her, and makes a habit of criticizing her, judging her, and ordering her around, but can't stand to be bothered with anything she wants, needs, or wants to talk about;
The sibling who believes they are a better human being and deserve to be favored;
The adult child who only keeps in contact to get money and stuff;
The boss who thinks of himself as a superior being who should be catered to and served, and his employees as inferior creatures who should put him before anyone else;
The employee who thinks they are far superior to their boss, and believes they would run the company much better, and deserves the position without going through promotions or school that everyone else would go through, and without just starting their own company;
The musician or artist who accepts your accolades for his or her work with or without a show of gratitude, but lets you know that your musicianship or artwork is not deserving of attention or respect, or even encouragement. Either with passive aggressive behavior, or with direct insult.
The parent who can't be bothered with their child's needs, and denies the child's wants, as if the child's existence is a burden;
The significant other who expects their animal-loving partner to give up his or her interests in animals, and not have any pets, because they don't like them;
The animal welfare worker who believes they have a gift with animals that you couldn't possibly have.
They aren't just politicians and cult leaders, they can be found anywhere there are humans.
What about this?
What happens if you are walking along with your metal detector, and you find a meteorite about the size of a football, and it's filled with gold and platinum?
:)
:)
Meet Ron
Ron founded the Wisdom Journal, and is a wonderful author. His writing is clear and easy to read, without pontification. He clears the static away, something most of us can use some help with. Find him here:
/http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/having-too-many-goals-is-like-having-none/
/http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/having-too-many-goals-is-like-having-none/
Islam Christian Zion Sikh Hindu Rastafari Atheist Buddhism Wicca Druid Gaya Jainism Shinto Catholic Baptist Jehovah Scientology Zoroastrianism Voodoo Republican Democrat Marxism Creationism Darwinism Straight Gay Female Male Socialist
STOP judging behavior, yours, mine, or anyone else's, with the religious group, ethnic group, gender group, or political group you and they and I belong to in mind.
Actions are not excusable because of one's religion, or lack thereof.
Behavior is a choice.
Attacking others because they don't belong to one's own group is simply Chimpanzee behavior, nothing more. It can not be rationalized or explained away as if it is somehow logical.
Enemies are created by one's own brain, one's own desire to have them.
If you do something, anything, aggressive, hurtful, or hostile toward another being, you own that behavior. You did it. Just you. It is a choice.
Paying attention to how we act toward another before we act, taking responsibility for our actions and speech, and understanding that we CHOOSE our behavior as INDIVIDUALS is an absolute requirement to be called a SENTIENT being. If we do what the others around us do without discernment, if we fail to weigh the actions and behaviors of our groups, if we just do what others do and think what others think, if we make enemies of those who belong to other groups, or who we are envious of, we DO NOT FIT the definition of Sentience.
AWARENESS OF ONE'S OWN SELF, and of one's own actions, and the ability to separate one's self from others, and awareness of the consequences of one's own actions toward one's self and others.
The way a person behaves is that person's sole responsibility, REGARDLESS of the group he or she belongs to. You don't get a pass on the same behavior you would condemn in someone else, because you think your group is "entitled" to be "above" the other group. Your group is the exact same species as every other group.
If that person's actions cause harm and pain toward another human being, or if those actions restrict the freedom of another human being, or cause them emotional, financial, or spiritual harm, then no matter what group that acting person belongs to, they have CAUSED HARM and are completely responsible for their actions.
Actions are not excusable because of one's religion, or lack thereof.
Behavior is a choice.
Attacking others because they don't belong to one's own group is simply Chimpanzee behavior, nothing more. It can not be rationalized or explained away as if it is somehow logical.
Enemies are created by one's own brain, one's own desire to have them.
If you do something, anything, aggressive, hurtful, or hostile toward another being, you own that behavior. You did it. Just you. It is a choice.
Paying attention to how we act toward another before we act, taking responsibility for our actions and speech, and understanding that we CHOOSE our behavior as INDIVIDUALS is an absolute requirement to be called a SENTIENT being. If we do what the others around us do without discernment, if we fail to weigh the actions and behaviors of our groups, if we just do what others do and think what others think, if we make enemies of those who belong to other groups, or who we are envious of, we DO NOT FIT the definition of Sentience.
AWARENESS OF ONE'S OWN SELF, and of one's own actions, and the ability to separate one's self from others, and awareness of the consequences of one's own actions toward one's self and others.
The way a person behaves is that person's sole responsibility, REGARDLESS of the group he or she belongs to. You don't get a pass on the same behavior you would condemn in someone else, because you think your group is "entitled" to be "above" the other group. Your group is the exact same species as every other group.
If that person's actions cause harm and pain toward another human being, or if those actions restrict the freedom of another human being, or cause them emotional, financial, or spiritual harm, then no matter what group that acting person belongs to, they have CAUSED HARM and are completely responsible for their actions.
Would You Like Your Favorite Artist In Real Life?
Most humans don't judge others based on their actual abilities, they judge them (accept them or reject them) on how they FEEL when that person is around. If John Mayer showed up for a cover band audition, and no one knew who he was, there is an excellent chance he would be rejected because his skill and easy manner made the other members of the band feel intimidated and/or jealous~ "out-shined". If they thought it through, they would realize that having a band member who is that skilled would be a GOOD thing for their band, but the emotional reaction toward another person usually dictates behavior, not thought process.
If Jennifer Hudson applied for a job at the mall, anonymously, unless her past references from employment were very, very steady; (and often artists' work history looks less than steady on paper because they need to make work adjustments due to the difficult scheduling of gigs and shows), she would only be hired if the person hiring her LIKED HER personally, and did NOT feel threatened by her looks.
If Cindy Lauper walked into a bank to get a loan, if no one knew who she was and she didn't disclose her information, the likelihood of a flat denial, along with a lot of condescension, would be very high. If she dyed her hair brown, tied it into a tight knot, wore wire framed glasses, a business suit and black heels, with certain jewelry, and still didn't disclose her information, the odds would be a bit more in her favor.
If she wanted to hang out in the local crowd and just be "one of the crowd", she could not do it; she would be the target of ridicule, envy, competition, and gossip by at least one clique, no matter what she did. (That same clique would probably be the ones who would act like her best friends if they found out who she was; people who live in cliques operate on 99% emotion, mostly fear and security seeking.)
If Albert Einstein showed up at a neighborhood picnic, most people there would judge him as "the crazy old guy". They wouldn't say he was a genius unless someone told them he was; and then they would probably wait for him to "prove it". No one would treat him with any more respect than they would treat any other "crazy old guy". If he showed up as his younger self, he would be that "weird guy".
If Marie Curie joined in on a conversation at the same picnic about random subjects, no one would take her opinion seriously, they would dismiss most of what she said as idle chatter. If she tried to join in on a conversation about car engines or anything of a scientific nature that the men were having, she would be challenged, opposed, or dismissed by most of them. If she tried to join the women, but could not make small talk about their common interests, they would turn a cold shoulder on her.
When Jim Jones showed up at a gathering, several people were very taken with him, judged him to be beyond brilliant and wonderful, and hung on his every word, seeking his approval, following his every whim. Same with Charles Manson, David Koresh, Joseph Kony, Adolf Hitler, and Bonnie Nettles, to name a few.
Most judgments about other people are so far off the mark they might as well be on Mars. That's a big reason why judging others is "wrong"; people who believe their own judgments about others without question or exploration frequently treat them as if they are someone much different than they really are.
Are Men Hardwired To Dominate?
Are women hardwired to let them?
Saying we are "hardwired" to act a certain way, so we don't have a choice, puts us in the category of animals. Being self-aware means having a choice in how to act, how to behave, and to choose to see things from other angles. Without choice in behavior, there is no difference between humans and any other life form, except a little extra grey matter to make better weapons and grow more food. The very fact that we can choose the way we behave is the thing that makes us sentient.
Anyone who is "hardwired" to dominate me belongs in a cage, not walking around free, unmedicated. That is a complete and utter violation of my rights as an individual, and anyone else's. It is no different than large wild animals roaming Suburbia, or downtown; they get tranquilized and put in the zoo, or worse. Only animals who do not try to dominate individuals are left to roam freely.
What makes an animal different from a human? If it's all "hardwired", then NOTHING.
If you cannot wrap your mind around this, then here's an example to help you.
A young woman was recently raped in an alley behind her apartment by a man she worked with. He could not overpower her completely, so he cold cocked her with a rock. She came to after a few minutes, when he was nearly finished doing his disgusting crime on her. He had put the rock down close enough for her to reach; she grabbed it and smacked him in the head with it. It didn't knock him out; he tried to choke her to death. She smacked him again, and he got off her clutching his head. Then he dropped to his knees, covering his eyes. He reached for her again, grabbing an ankle.
She kneed him in the head. He fell over backwards, but started to get up immediately. She still had the rock in her hand. It was obvious that his goal was to kill her.
She still had the rock in her hand. She knew he was going to try to kill her if he could catch her. She kicked him in the chin, knocking him backwards, and jogged to the taxi she saw in the main street. He was going to kill her; so, why didn't she smash his head with the rock? She was fighting for her life against a predator; that's the "hardwired" reaction, right?
She knew he was married with two children, and she did not want to be a monster too. She MADE A CHOICE.
She could have easily killed him, and she would have not been charged with anything since it was pure self-defense. The only way to stop a creature twice your size from attacking you is to injure it badly, or kill it. You can't strong arm a creature that's twice your size and hold it down, and drag it to the police department. You HAVE TO injure or kill it.
She CHOSE to not kill this creature, even in a life or death situation, with her sentient mind. If she did not have choice over her behavior, there is no question that this would have ended in the death of the male coworker.
Choice. Sentience.
Saying we are "hardwired" to act a certain way, so we don't have a choice, puts us in the category of animals. Being self-aware means having a choice in how to act, how to behave, and to choose to see things from other angles. Without choice in behavior, there is no difference between humans and any other life form, except a little extra grey matter to make better weapons and grow more food. The very fact that we can choose the way we behave is the thing that makes us sentient.
Anyone who is "hardwired" to dominate me belongs in a cage, not walking around free, unmedicated. That is a complete and utter violation of my rights as an individual, and anyone else's. It is no different than large wild animals roaming Suburbia, or downtown; they get tranquilized and put in the zoo, or worse. Only animals who do not try to dominate individuals are left to roam freely.
What makes an animal different from a human? If it's all "hardwired", then NOTHING.
If you cannot wrap your mind around this, then here's an example to help you.
A young woman was recently raped in an alley behind her apartment by a man she worked with. He could not overpower her completely, so he cold cocked her with a rock. She came to after a few minutes, when he was nearly finished doing his disgusting crime on her. He had put the rock down close enough for her to reach; she grabbed it and smacked him in the head with it. It didn't knock him out; he tried to choke her to death. She smacked him again, and he got off her clutching his head. Then he dropped to his knees, covering his eyes. He reached for her again, grabbing an ankle.
She kneed him in the head. He fell over backwards, but started to get up immediately. She still had the rock in her hand. It was obvious that his goal was to kill her.
She still had the rock in her hand. She knew he was going to try to kill her if he could catch her. She kicked him in the chin, knocking him backwards, and jogged to the taxi she saw in the main street. He was going to kill her; so, why didn't she smash his head with the rock? She was fighting for her life against a predator; that's the "hardwired" reaction, right?
She knew he was married with two children, and she did not want to be a monster too. She MADE A CHOICE.
She could have easily killed him, and she would have not been charged with anything since it was pure self-defense. The only way to stop a creature twice your size from attacking you is to injure it badly, or kill it. You can't strong arm a creature that's twice your size and hold it down, and drag it to the police department. You HAVE TO injure or kill it.
She CHOSE to not kill this creature, even in a life or death situation, with her sentient mind. If she did not have choice over her behavior, there is no question that this would have ended in the death of the male coworker.
Choice. Sentience.
Monkey Culture Confirmation Bias
Confirmation Bias is the tendency to pay more
attention to things which reinforce your beliefs than to things which
contradict them.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.
...Beliefs about people are very common examples; Asians are good at math but not driving; Blond haired Caucasians are happy but not logical; Italians are fair minded but mobsters; African American males are good at sports but not academics; Men are good at all kinds of things mechanical, are innately brave, and are logical; Women are not good at things men are good at, are weak and scared, and are not logical~
All of these beliefs have been rotated around society for years, but not because they are TRUE. They are not believed by everyone, only those who WANT to believe them because it serves their own ego and identity. Confirmation Bias happens when a person who WANTS to believe these fictional images finds an example that fits; three Asian kids in their classroom, one of them is good at math, two are average, but the person says "SEE! ASIANS ARE GOOD AT MATH!" because he or she has found a single example that matches. It does not register that the other two Asian kids are not math whizzes. A boy was taught how to fix the car by his father, who was taught by his grandfather; but no one would teach the boy's sister, and no one would teach his mother, either. Instead of comprehending that he is being actively coached, and that his sister and mother were being actively excluded from the coaching, he only sees that his father, grandfather, and self know how to fix the car and that his sister and mother do not. He then fulfills his ego fantasy that Men can fix cars naturally and Women can't. His sister, on the other hand, is being taught by their mother how to cook extravagant meals, and her mother was taught by her mother in law and grandmother; no one is teaching her brother or her father, and no one taught her grandfather how to cook. She also confirms her ego fantasy that "Women can cook naturally and Men can't". Both the brother and sister have Confirmation Bias, and most likely so does the rest of the family. If the men taught the sister how to fix the car, with the SAME patience, detail, and attention they use with the brother, and also showed the same confidence in her ability to learn, and the same pride in her when she did learn, then the odds are that she would learn just as well as her brother; but they will NOT explore that, they won't try it, because they DON'T WANT IT TO BE TRUE.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in military, political, and organizational contexts.
...Beliefs about people are very common examples; Asians are good at math but not driving; Blond haired Caucasians are happy but not logical; Italians are fair minded but mobsters; African American males are good at sports but not academics; Men are good at all kinds of things mechanical, are innately brave, and are logical; Women are not good at things men are good at, are weak and scared, and are not logical~
All of these beliefs have been rotated around society for years, but not because they are TRUE. They are not believed by everyone, only those who WANT to believe them because it serves their own ego and identity. Confirmation Bias happens when a person who WANTS to believe these fictional images finds an example that fits; three Asian kids in their classroom, one of them is good at math, two are average, but the person says "SEE! ASIANS ARE GOOD AT MATH!" because he or she has found a single example that matches. It does not register that the other two Asian kids are not math whizzes. A boy was taught how to fix the car by his father, who was taught by his grandfather; but no one would teach the boy's sister, and no one would teach his mother, either. Instead of comprehending that he is being actively coached, and that his sister and mother were being actively excluded from the coaching, he only sees that his father, grandfather, and self know how to fix the car and that his sister and mother do not. He then fulfills his ego fantasy that Men can fix cars naturally and Women can't. His sister, on the other hand, is being taught by their mother how to cook extravagant meals, and her mother was taught by her mother in law and grandmother; no one is teaching her brother or her father, and no one taught her grandfather how to cook. She also confirms her ego fantasy that "Women can cook naturally and Men can't". Both the brother and sister have Confirmation Bias, and most likely so does the rest of the family. If the men taught the sister how to fix the car, with the SAME patience, detail, and attention they use with the brother, and also showed the same confidence in her ability to learn, and the same pride in her when she did learn, then the odds are that she would learn just as well as her brother; but they will NOT explore that, they won't try it, because they DON'T WANT IT TO BE TRUE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)