Does "tough love" motivation work on you?

[squark]

I have a hard time noticing the Te in that type of speech.

The CEO of the company I work for is a LIE-Te and his "motivating" speeches have more data and are more factual, I find this approach convincing, whereas in the video I see a lot of emotional pressure.

I have the impression Se doms are more likely to give these kind of speeches.

Te in the "let's cut the fat, and get the best performance" kind of thing. What you're doing isn't working, so let's find what does. The insults and so on are something else imo.

I've never had a boss of any type try the put-down and insult kind of approach - it's demeaning and not to sound conceited, but I'm better than that and don't need to put up with that kind of thing. And as an aside, the Te-lead bosses I've had in real life have actually been some of the best and most fair, and I did respect them. On the other hand, this . . . meh, no.

It makes me think of chickens. Some dogs got into my chickens and I only had 2 of the old crew left, and introduced a new group to the old two. One was clearly the lead chicken, everyone gave her space, respected her, and she didn't have to do anything. Mostly she left everyone alone unless they were clearly out of line or challenging her. The other. . . wanted to be boss, and was instead just a bully. She constantly chased the other birds around, not leaving them alone, trying to force respect out of them. They were afraid of her, sure, but she was no leader. Nobody would follow her. And this clip makes me think of that - you're all fired and worthless (bullying behavior) earn your jobs back because you're not as good as me (I demand respect) . . . and well I'm not giving anyone like that respect. Just looks like that pathetic chicken to me.

[Ave]

Having not watched the video:

In most cases, no.

There can be some exceptions, like if I trust the person well enough and know they are doing it for my good, otherwise I am likely to see them as sadistic, not as someone who is well-intended.

That said, I can be pretty demanding and tough on myself at times. But I tend to be more of a lone wolf and don't appreciate group motivation rituals that happen in alot of team sports. I wouldn't mind having friends who are into lifting too as we could mutually motivate each other, though this would be more of an informal thing, ideally. I don't really see how I could find someone who wants to do my program with me, though: different people go to the gym with vastly different goals, and it's rare to find someone who wants to do exactly what you want to do, ime.

I guess I don't really appreciate the idea of sacrificing myself for anything other than myself, doing it for "the team, the company, the country" whatever seems like scary collectivist thinking, I'd rather do it for myself, if others follow, great, if not, too bad; I still did it for me.

[sbbds]

Seriously though, these “bitchy” people are the ones you can typically get the most value and resources from because you can leverage their bad karma guilt lol. If you don’t crack under their pressure, they’ll basically give you their inheritance and stuff because they’re obliged to afterwards if they see you’ve put a decent amount of effort in. Meeting an asshole is often a blessing in disguise financially. Everyone else misunderstands them and leaves them but you, but only you can see their warm fuzzy interior. How to endear yourself to Te ego bosses 101 lmao.

Maybe it’s easy for me to distinguish this “tough love” from real abuse, or maybe it’s the opposite. The lines are blurred for me and I just don’t care anymore, seeing as my mother periodically called me a worthless whore and I’ve worked extensively and almost exclusively for similarly fierce, powerful Asian women.

Do not forget that the truly strong will instinctively feed those they feel are weaker than them, yet similar to them with potential.

[FDG]

Seriously though, these “bitchy” people are the ones you can typically get the most value and resources from because you can leverage their bad karma guilt lol. If you don’t crack under their pressure, they’ll basically give you their inheritance and stuff because they’re obliged to afterwards if they see you’ve put a decent amount of effort in.

Yeah, I noticed this with a SEE-Se-E8 boss. I'm not sure what's the point of this approach? I don't think it's especially healthy if you want to promote a performance-based stable organization it creates more of a "posse" mentality.

[sbbds]

I have a hard time noticing the Te in that type of speech.

The CEO of the company I work for is a LIE-Te and his "motivating" speeches have more data and are more factual, I find this approach convincing, whereas in the video I see a lot of emotional pressure.

I have the impression Se doms are more likely to give these kind of speeches.

Yeah, I noticed this with a SEE-Se-E8 boss. I'm not sure what's the point of this approach? I don't think it's especially healthy if you want to promote a performance-based stable organization it creates more of a "posse" mentality.

Granted, if you had an aggressive boss like that in an irl situation with a big team, there’s a high chance they would be batshit.

I think this approach mainly only works in reality if it’s direct one-on-one mentorship. Basically people who are competent enough to survive through it will feel the seriousness of it and significance. Those who aren’t will at the very least be motivated out of stagnancy, by sheer force if nothing else.

It’s funny, I didn’t see much convincing emotional pressure when I watched the video. I saw the guy as trying to be strict, but also being rather impersonal and deadpan. It’s impossible he seriously thinks they’re all ******s, etc lol.

[Exodus]

Real tough love is when you push someone to do what they have to do, but aren't doing due to laziness or self-doubt or denying reality or whatever. It means thinking better of someone than they think of themselves, instead of humiliating them and treating them like crap.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

Real tough love is when you push someone to do what they have to do, but aren't doing due to laziness or self-doubt or denying reality or whatever. It means thinking better of someone than they think of themselves, instead of humiliating them and treating them like crap.

Using force is never love. Lots of bs because someine thought they knew better than me. Laziness doesnt exist there are Reasons, some times not understood or even conceived by the one himself.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

The only proponrnts of tough love are Kids Who never grew up to make their own decisions. They want someone else to force them because they lack forethought and inner guide. If u had strong sense of self and meaning u would never be fine with being coerced. The shitty trope of im hurting u for ur own good.

[ruined]

tough love has always worked for me but at the same time, i lack a lot of it, my mom is caregiving and i don't have a father and no other family gives a shit about me so my only sources of motivation is really myself which is impossible to find and my mom who only reinforces what keeps me behind, she has no foresight, no understanding of the time that is now and how things have changed, i.e teenagers aren't the same as they were in the 70s lol, new things matter, there's a hierarchy and you gotta play by the rules

[Animal]

IME, "tough love" only really works for people whose egos have been annihilated and subsumed by their super-ego. (Talking Freud here, not Socionics.) That is, people who have bought heavily into the "tyranny of shoulds", unquestioningly kowtowing to socially-sanctioned imperatives or goalposts, possibly because their own sense of personal agency or values have been ignored/starved of acknowledgment, or brutalized or blackmailed out of them. This explains why a lot of young men with absent or distant father figures tend to latch onto hectoring, prescriptive father figures like Jordan Peterson: the super-ego's role is to discipline one to the demands of the external world in order to meet survival needs. If your father (or society, in loco parentis) is absent or withholding of approval or love, your super-ego will go haywire trying to find the appropriate hoops to jump through in order to fill that deficit of love in your life: it will latch onto what it thinks you need to be in order to gain approval (of your father, of others whom you've projected your father's disapproval onto, etc.). As a result, they become rather submissive to society's definitions of success, with little connection to their own inner values, wants, desires, and they alienate or try to brutalize (or seek out others who will brutalize) their id impulses out of them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the true self will always put up resistance, and so symptoms like anxiety, procrastination, depression, shiftlessness, confusion, etc. show up... which just perpetuates another cycle of super-ego brutalization.

You only assent to criticism you, on some level, agree with. Otherwise, resentment erupts, and your id and ego are riled into asserting themselves. People with a healthy relationship to their super-ego (understanding the role of social mores, but also being grounded in a sense of one's own impulses and needs) don't tend to need someone to berate them into doing something: if they actually want to do it, they do it; if they don't, then being berated is not going to convince them they want to do it.

[sbbds]

IME, "tough love" only really works for people whose egos have been annihilated and subsumed by their super-ego. (Talking Freud here, not Socionics.) That is, people who have bought heavily into the "tyranny of shoulds", unquestioningly kowtowing to socially-sanctioned imperatives or goalposts, possibly because their own sense of personal agency or values have been ignored/starved of acknowledgment, or brutalized or blackmailed out of them. This explains why a lot of young men with absent or distant father figures tend to latch onto hectoring, prescriptive father figures like Jordan Peterson: the super-ego's role is to discipline one to the demands of the external world in order to meet survival needs. If your father (or society, in loco parentis) is absent or withholding of approval or love, your super-ego will go haywire trying to find the appropriate hoops to jump through in order to fill that deficit of love in your life: it will latch onto what it thinks you need to be in order to gain approval (of your father, of others whom you've projected your father's disapproval onto, etc.). As a result, they become rather submissive to society's definitions of success, with little connection to their own inner values, wants, desires, and they alienate or try to brutalize (or seek out others who will brutalize) their id impulses out of them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the true self will always put up resistance, and so symptoms like anxiety, procrastination, depression, shiftlessness, confusion, etc. show up... which just perpetuates another cycle of super-ego brutalization.

You only assent to criticism you, on some level, agree with. Otherwise, resentment erupts, and your id and ego are riled into asserting themselves. People with a healthy relationship to their super-ego (understanding the role of social mores, but also being grounded in a sense of one's own impulses and needs) don't tend to need someone to berate them into doing something: if they actually want to do it, they do it; if they don't, then being berated is not going to convince them they want to do it.

What does your experience consist of? I’m sorry but I find this psychoanalysis to be quite a stretch and really quite silly.

It reads as a long-winded rationalization of wanting to preserve the belief of “lmao, I am so unassailable compared to others”.

[Animal]

What does your experience consist of? I’m sorry but I find this psychoanalysis to be quite a stretch and really quite silly.

It reads as a long-winded rationalization of wanting to preserve the belief of “lmao, I am so unassailable compared to others”.

That was my own firsthand experience, based on actually experiencing toxic situations and years of therapy. I can see how it might come across as haughty armchair analysis, but it wasn't meant to be. I've had people try to use "tough love" on me, including my own parents, an academic counselor, and two bosses. In each case, my experience was that something in me (the pat of me that wanted to be acceptable to society) would acquiesce to the criticism, and immediately try to "get me shit together." But inevitably, later on down the timeline, I'd realize that it had caused me to alienate quieter parts of me that needed to be listened to. I've realize that, if I'm not doing something, there's a reason for me not doing it: not an excuse or justification or rationalization for inaction, but rather a recognition that inaction is almost always a symptom of some inner conflict. The answer, in the end, was not for the part that wanted action or inaction to "win" the conflict, but usually some form of action that stood completely out of the perspectives of the warring parts. And when I allied with the imperatives thrown at me by others, I was betraying the part of me that was on the resistant side of that conflict; and when I allied with the nonactive parts of me, I was betraying parts of me that wanted engagement with the world. Both parts reflect vital needs, but neither had the full picture.

I've learned to value those resistant parts as protectors: learning to listen to their more quiet (though sometimes inconvenient and socially-disapproved-of) role in my life: they've helped me define my values, my own feelings, my own direction in life independent from other people's expectations. Learning to listen to the inconvenient parts of me has helped me find true agency in the last few years, which is why I don't respect "tough love" anymore because it often bulldozes over the quieter and subtler work of truly getting to know what's ticking inside.

Psychoanalysis isn't really popular anymore, but most people who bash it haven't actually read much of the good stuff (I like early Freud, Harry Stack Sullivan, Klein, Winnicott, Alan Schore, Diana Fosha, Adam Phillips). I think they have something important to say about human nature, even if they're just metaphors and heuristics. Understanding human irrationality and subjectivity from the inside-out is important, especially since we've become so bent on positivist narratives of the self, telling us who we are from the outside-in. We lose a sense of what life actually is like for us from the inside, which is painful.

[sbbds]

That was my own firsthand experience, based on actually experiencing toxic situations and years of therapy. I can see how it might come across as haughty armchair analysis, but it wasn't meant to be. I've had people try to use "tough love" on me, including my own parents, an academic counselor, and two bosses. In each case, my experience was that something in me (the pat of me that wanted to be acceptable to society) would acquiesce to the criticism, and immediately try to "get me shit together." But inevitably, later on down the timeline, I'd realize that it had caused me to alienate quieter parts of me that needed to be listened to. I've realize that, if I'm not doing something, there's a reason for me not doing it: not an excuse or justification or rationalization for inaction, but rather a recognition that inaction is almost always a symptom of some inner conflict. The answer, in the end, was not for the part that wanted action or inaction to "win" the conflict, but usually some form of action that stood completely out of the perspectives of the warring parts. And when I allied with the imperatives thrown at me by others, I was betraying the part of me that was on the resistant side of that conflict; and when I allied with the nonactive parts of me, I was betraying parts of me that wanted engagement with the world. Both parts reflect vital needs, but neither had the full picture.

I've learned to value those resistant parts as protectors: learning to listen to their more quiet (though sometimes inconvenient and socially-disapproved-of) role in my life: they've helped me define my values, my own feelings, my own direction in life independent from other people's expectations. Learning to listen to the inconvenient parts of me has helped me find true agency in the last few years, which is why I don't respect "tough love" anymore because it often bulldozes over the quieter and subtler work of truly getting to know what's ticking inside.

Psychoanalysis isn't really popular anymore, but most people who bash it haven't actually read much of the good stuff (I like early Freud, Harry Stack Sullivan, Klein, Winnicott, Alan Schore, Diana Fosha, Adam Phillips). I think they have something important to say about human nature, even if they're just metaphors and heuristics. Understanding human irrationality and subjectivity from the inside-out is important, especially since we've become so bent on positivist narratives of the self, telling us who we are from the outside-in. We lose a sense of what life actually is like for us from the inside, which is painful.

Thanks for sharing, but the problem I had with your OP was that you (perhaps inadvertently) cast other people going through those dynamics as being victims like how you apparently saw yourself, which is demeaning. Yet you didn’t reveal that you were a victim yourself in that post, which is shady.

Also you could consider that you simply don’t need the tough love anymore as a symptom of evolving away from it, not that it’s useless in itself or was always useless for you. Or perhaps just that it’s just yourself who was like this. I asked you for your experience, and you only talked about yourself. You spoke as if for everybody in your OP.

[Animal]

Thanks for sharing, but the problem I had with your OP was that you (perhaps inadvertently) cast other people going through those dynamics as being victims like how you apparently saw yourself, which is demeaning. Yet you didn’t reveal that you were a victim yourself in that post, which is shady.

Also you could consider that you simply don’t need the tough love anymore as a symptom of evolving away from it, not that it’s useless in itself or was always useless for you.

I think that's a fair criticism of that post. I think I've probably been reading too much psychoanalysis, which has a tendency to pathologize people. That said, it's hard for me to think of a situation in which tough love would be the best option compared to something subtler and more respectful of people's deeper motivations (and anti-motivations). People have reasons for being the way they are and doing the things they do, even if it's seemingly self-destructive. (Some of the things I've done in the past were self-destructive, and people tried to tell me that in a tough love kind of way. I appreciated that they cared and were concerned for me, and that helped me a bit. But, I think, people need to be given time and space to listen to themselves for the resulting behavior changes to be more than just going-through-the-motions of social compliance or shame/guilt.) The "love" part of tough love is important, and is lacking in many people's execution of tough love. A lot of people who preach "tough love" are just trying to coerce people into their own value system. But I can see how tough love, coming from someone who really loves you or cares about your welfare, might register and help mobilize a healthy part of the self. Without that crucial component, hough, it's very easy to turn into self-punishment.

[ruined]

IME, "tough love" only really works for people whose egos have been annihilated and subsumed by their super-ego. (Talking Freud here, not Socionics.) That is, people who have bought heavily into the "tyranny of shoulds", unquestioningly kowtowing to socially-sanctioned imperatives or goalposts, possibly because their own sense of personal agency or values have been ignored/starved of acknowledgment, or brutalized or blackmailed out of them. This explains why a lot of young men with absent or distant father figures tend to latch onto hectoring, prescriptive father figures like Jordan Peterson: the super-ego's role is to discipline one to the demands of the external world in order to meet survival needs. If your father (or society, in loco parentis) is absent or withholding of approval or love, your super-ego will go haywire trying to find the appropriate hoops to jump through in order to fill that deficit of love in your life: it will latch onto what it thinks you need to be in order to gain approval (of your father, of others whom you've projected your father's disapproval onto, etc.). As a result, they become rather submissive to society's definitions of success, with little connection to their own inner values, wants, desires, and they alienate or try to brutalize (or seek out others who will brutalize) their id impulses out of them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the true self will always put up resistance, and so symptoms like anxiety, procrastination, depression, shiftlessness, confusion, etc. show up... which just perpetuates another cycle of super-ego brutalization.

You only assent to criticism you, on some level, agree with. Otherwise, resentment erupts, and your id and ego are riled into asserting themselves. People with a healthy relationship to their super-ego (understanding the role of social mores, but also being grounded in a sense of one's own impulses and needs) don't tend to need someone to berate them into doing something: if they actually want to do it, they do it; if they don't, then being berated is not going to convince them they want to do it.

not having a father figure is probably why i follow such radical male political figures like malcom x, huey newton, etc.

[idontgiveaf]

No one tough love me

I tough love you

[sbbds]

@Animal Also if you don’t reply to me or this thread anymore it will be funny because of my avatar and your name caption.

[cry]

Well let me tell you- the best way to make me depressed is to tell me everything is fine and nothing should be changed. I might even become lazier knowing how easily satisfied people are. I get alot of my energy from other people's dissatisfaction actually, so when someone is unwilling to tell me the truth or thinks everything is fine and dandy I see them as useless or even boring to me. I just love issues. Not that I can tell people what is wrong- actually I might be exactly the kind of person I think is useless.

Also the guy reminds me of the my Dad's style of motivating people- through these reality checks. I'm not saying I listen to him but I am familiar with this so it's pretty easy to relate to.

[Memento Mori]

Tbf, IIRC Squark is LSI. LSI is EIE seeking and thus Fe+ seeking. I think her position makes perfect sense in that light. What is motivation to one person may be rebuked by another.

Betas are not responding to this scene quite as well as I'd expected. It was an SLE that showed it to me years ago. Personally, I love it, and respect people willing to be 'that guy' that sacrifices their likability in order to make a humbling impact. Obviously that impact doesn't work for everyone, and I concede that real estate/sales is not in my future, so I'll likely never be in a position like this to know beyond doubt how I'd react. People can argue whether or not the character is an abusive antisocial, but he's a character in a fictional movie, so I think superimposing malevolence is kinda pointless. I take it the writers wanted a character that would grip the audience for a few minutes and totally rock the egos (no puns intended) of the characters in the scene. It makes for a great clip, his likability aside.

That said, this scene really has nothing to do with 'tough love', so I understand some of the stilted reactions. He's literally just passing through and throwing his weight around to--from his perspective--separate the wheat from the chaff.

Be grateful to those who would set us straight, for they are the ones who bring out the best in us. Equally so, be grateful for those who we repudiate, for they remind us of what we are not, and thus consequentially what we are. There is always a worthwhile lesson for the vigilant.

[squark]

^ Yes, exactly!

[Metamorph]

The only motivation that works is praising someone if they do well and ignoring or correcting someone if they don't do well. No one's a pathetic no-good loser who shouldn't've been born until you call them one. Maybe some people should be called one, but not just for learning a task wrong. Jesus!

"Did you know some people don't have to get their acts together? Maybe you should consider suicide while your humiliation still hasn't gotten as bad as it could!" ...Now, does that really work? No, it just makes people with no self-esteem do lousy things for you. I don't know why you'd want to be that person. It's more rewarding to have actually competent slaves in my correct opinion, and especially not ones that are likely to off themselves without warning when you need them to lick your boots clean or something.

[Aylen]

Title was misleading. OP was not about tough love at all. I have had an employer claim to love me or the idea of me. He was 30 years older and a creep. I was a teen. It didn't look like the video. More like, "I can make this job easy or it can be hard". I left without collecting my last paycheck. Seriously dude... trying to pull that for a minimum wage job... He thought he could apply pressure to a kid who needed the job. I didn't need it. I found something else soon after with much better pay.

Bad employers are what made me to decide on self employment.

[Muddy]

Bad employers are what made me to decide on self employment.

What are you doing if I may ask? I'm desperately looking for a way out of being a wage slave to corporations but I'm struggling to find alternatives.

[ouronis]

I think tough love is one of the best ways to motivate people who are so far afield of success they're in the next state, but for someone whose difficulties are not around being crazy and needing structure, but are around just making mistakes or being indecisive, tough love won't do a whole lot besides encourage you to hem in your thinking.

[ContractedCriminalboy]

I didn't watch vid but from past experience it doesn't work on me at all. It'll just really piss me off and make me combative and defensive and make me strongly dislike the person who attempts it on me.

[FDG]

Most of the environments where there is a lot of tough love aren't healthy in the first place imho

Anyway I thought about it, I find though love just fine when it's during a task, like a trainer telling you sucked at doing something. I find it kind of weird when it comes to your life in general, like someone saying you will amount to nothing bla bla

[gone]

It can feel quite unsettling but it actually yields results. I think I need a certain amount of external pressure.

[Alomoes]

Motivation? No. Teaching? Yes. Why do you think I am a good driver? Why do you think I avoid driving long distances?

[MissDucki]

Fuck no. Though, “tough love” is actually needed for certain people out there. I think tough love should only be given as a last resort when someone is on the verge of beating a total dipshit asshole. I think it is better to be soft and kind love but some people really need a hit to the head with a baseball bat to get it.

I don’t do well with it. I need some empathy/sympathy then followed by some encouragement. That moves me. Tough love= criticism. That leads to me naturally going after myself then fixing the problem. Aka, I need soft love.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

The Glengarry Glen Ross clip is just typical Beta communication lol. That's how a lot of SLEs try to boost morale .

I would be motivated to succeed but I don't like being talked to this way, and I wouldn't want a job (although I have had them) with this sort of pressure to perform.

[Aquamarine]

No tough love does not work on me. I see it as an excuse to treat someone like shit in the name of motivation.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

the example video isn't really 'tough love', just basically tough toughness because capitalism is based on competition etc.

It has never worked on me personally. Compassion and genuine empathy have been the only things that made me do something the other person wanted me to do. If a person treats me this way I will backstab them and sabotage them and destroy them and their reputation, and reveal to others what a shitty person they really are and it will backfire against them no matter how much external success they've had. It has been said before the person in a way risks being vulnerable when they do this- as if they were true sociopaths they would just immediately discard of you. That is very true in a way which is why if they do it I will just fuck them over because I hate this sort of thing so much. If somebody hurts me, I hurt them back even worse. I'm not always proud of myself for being this way but that's just how I am.

I never make the first strike, but if the first strike is made against me- I times it by at least three. My own personal wiccan code.

This reminds me of that Devil Wears Prada scene. ((again 'love' has nothing to do with it, just how capitalism works etc.)) Miranda Priestly could have easily fired Andrea on the spot for being a naive little bitch- but instead she took the time to harshly school her in front of others. Not necessarily because she really cared and saw potentinal ((that's how an abuse victim would cope with being talked down to like that- it's kind of a sweet lie you tell yourself to side with the abuser & it's a coping mechanism)) - but because she wanted to hear herself talk and boost her ego with how much she knows. And probably because she knew it would humiliate her even more than just going 'You're fired!' It might look to others that she's doing it for Andrea's own benefit- but not really at all, because at the end of the book Andrea ended up hating and not really respecting Miranda much at all anyway didn't she.

I don't consider the movie canon anyway because they defanged her in ways that the book never did.

"tough love" is an oxymoron anyway. Love is naturally soft and sweet. If your heart is made of stone and bitter for whatever reason it might not get this. I don't know about saccharine- to me saccharine is kinda like when IEE's try to do their 4D demonstrative Fe.

I mean it's sick but this is common in people who were abused by their family members as well- they will make excuses for their abuser of why they were treated so poorly - and sugar coat/minimize the abuse.

You do obviously need to be firm at times though - don't get me wrong. Both in the business world and in your personal relationships. It's healthy to have boundaries with people and to make it clear how they are allowed to talk to you. But none of these capitalist egos talking down to their employees has anything to do with love LOL.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't know why people think IEIs actually enjoy somebody being a genuine asshole. I think the SLEs I knew- they always seemed really nice to me. They were just shitty to other people. Probably because the other people deserved it some way cuz they were being too arrogant about something. Or they were unfortunately in the way of a SLE goals. I never seem to have been in the way of their goals so they never seem that asshole-ish to me usually. ((the ones I know personally, not public figures...))

Why the fuck would anybody enjoy being mistreated? I had this horrible LSE social worker tell me that before that didn't like me, before I banished her to Hell. "bandd likes being mistreated." What the hell? The cunt was projecting (or trying to twist things around so she could get away with being an abuser) - because I sure as hell don't. what fucking masochistic fuck actually likes abuse? So fucking weird. Just because I'm shy and sweet and can be submissive doesn't mean I like real abuse. What the fucking fuck creepos. This is why I wrote that 16types Adventurs chapter 'Social Workers have no Soul.'

[marooned]

It depends why he said that... If it was to destroy, the intent is felt. If it wasn't then there is a wider range of what intent can be interpreted... Though I'd say there is a threshold between intention and impact, after which the pain caused ends up outweighing the reason, but this example shouldn't come close to that.

But still, if the intent was to enable me to succeed, it still may not work, because I'm too afraid of being a lost cause. So it doesn't matter, this question, in the face of personal neurosis.

But tough love, when the intent is clear, not to harm or to cast aside--is that possible? Or does tough love always threaten the relationship itself?

[EUDAEMONIUM]

I know that there are really bad examples of tough """"love"""" out there. But I know personally, I need a slap in the face every once and a while. I will get into self-destructive moods and I will spiral down into self-pity. There is a way to empathetically but firmly pull people out of this.

[The Banana King]

"Serious" tough love like the one in the OP video don't work on me. Although if the demands are reasonable or expected within my context then I would at least try to improve.
On the other hand "non-serious" tough love, like mockery works pretty well on me for some reason lol. I remember back in school a few guys used to make fun of me for being a nerd/weirdo/out of shape (all were SLE/LSI lol). Anyways I thought it was funny and eventually it lead me to improving myself a lot (especially in terms of physique and confidence). On one hand I wanted to prove myself physically capable, and on the other hand I began to embrace my nerd interests instead of trying to hide them.
Likewise I have a bad habit of making fun of people for laughs. Some kids back in school thought of me as a bully, but I thought of it as friendly banter.

I agree with what @VewyScawwyNawcissistsaid above: "[proponents of tough love] want someone else to force them because they lack forethought and inner guide." Lacking forethought and inner guide describes me to a tee. However in my case, my parents gave me way too much freedom, which ironically made me "lose my way" in life. Parents ought to help their kids figure out what they want in life and what paths there are available out there.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

Imagine teaching Kids how the works works. U werent given too much freedom ur parents Just did one option and kept doing it because they didnt give a shit
Just find a job and stop whining lol entitled snowflake. They didnt know how it works either. If u dont like it then change ur feelings cuz no one cares. lifes tough they nafe sacrifice to give u food and shelter. U do ur part now and give back
Be grateful for the opportunity.

[Resonare]

Tough love can work but like most things it depends on multiple factors.

1. The person giving tough love can't have contributed to the reason why the recipient is receiving it. For example, a parent can't give tough love to their child for not having friends when the parent themselves made the decision to move the child away from their friends and to a neighborhood with no life. Similarly, a father can't give his son tough love for not being the man he never raised him to be but rather hoped that he would be. I'd be very careful with the "Roof over your head, food in your gut" narrative that diminishes the role good parents (mainly fathers as men are typically the main breadwinners) play in the lives of their children. A parent should not only be providing physically for a child but also teaching their child how to be and also demonstrating it themselves. Anyway, this goes into my next point.

2. The person giving tough love must be living how they're telling you to live. Anything else is just hypocrisy from one of those "Do as I say not as I do" people that shouldn't have children to begin with.

3. The person giving tough love can't have some kind of past. Everyone's not perfect and we all make mistakes, sure, but there are repeated mistakes that aren't really "mistakes" but are vices and there a mistakes so serious that you only have to make them once.

4. The person giving tough love has to understand that different people/generations have different struggles. This is where the whole "OK Boomer" meme came from - an older generation not bothering to understand the modern day struggles of the youth but still choosing to voice criticism. And it's not just age, it happens across race, gender and sexuality as well.

5. The person giving tough love has to be at least get out of the way, and if they don't then recognize it for what it is - a psychological attack or a narcissistic rant to help them feel better about themselves.

Feel free to add more if you think I missed any.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

The original post contains this underlying assumption that tough love consists of insults. There's a difference between having tough love and being an asshole.

For some people, and in some specific kinds of scenarios, "tough love" is also equally tough on the person who is giving it because they don't want to have to take that approach. Such would more than likely prevent someone from going too far. When someone's actions stem from anger or frustration in addition to genuinely trying to do what is best for the other person, lines are much more likely to be blurred.

Don't get me wrong, when it's coming from some people it certainly can consist of insults and such even if they are well-meaning, especially if they are imperceptive about how much "toughness" is appropriate to use or if they are unskilled with the emotional or psychological aspects of things. That's just not the way tough love love in general works when it is done well.

[roger557]

I dish it out to people who need it (and have succeded changing/improving the situation of people, sometimes to my detriment), but I don't like receiving it, mostly because I typically know exactly what I'm doing incorrectly and why. It just demoralizes me. Many times it's just being on the receiving end of a narcissist's tirade, that doesn't give a crap about you, to put down someone and feel better about themselves. You can also simply tell someone without scolding them.