Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
The original poster had once been permabanned but has been creating new accounts to continue posting here.
I see, why would they have a need for such a thing? That is surely disappointing.
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
People are often attracted here because they have problems and want to understand themselves better.
I see, but that banned guy just wants a place to troll.
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
It's a hated forum member who makes lots of accounts to troll people with. Now he has been doxxed to everyone too which I appreciate. I hadn't actually cared enough to just dox him since I can always identify him instantly even if he's trying to pretend to be someone else, but especially in this case where he's just here to tell us all he thinks we're going to Hell for reading books. Poor boy, comic books such as Chick tracts are still, technically, books. On that topic, have a whole Jack Chick film adaptation!
In the future I will dox him whenever I identify him instead of basically just getting caught up in my ego.
I would like to criticize him quoting Scripture to try to say all intellectuals are in Hell, however: Six to twelve people (depending on his particular post) are hardly "most intellectuals of any age." Yes, most intellectuals are going to Hell, that's just the Bible endorsing Sturgeon's Law thousands of years before Theodore Sturgeon was born like it usually does (who knew God was also a science fiction fan?) However, a small handful of intellectuals is hardly most intellectuals, much less proof that all smart people are actually dumb and all dumb people are actually smart. Many of the most famous intellectuals are actually the contrarians. For example, take the field of linguistics. Most people treat Noam Chomsky (though he's not a pious guy by any means) as the establishment and treat themselves as the contrarians, but that's never been the case. Right now the establishment is Daniel Everett and his cultural fire theory (the name of which rather reminds me of the Nazi world ice theory quite a bit, neither of these are a real explanation for anything.) Before Everett there was Langacker and before Langacker there was B. F. Skinner of Skinner box fame.
The ideas you hear about are often the unpopular ones, not the mainstream ones, but most people like feeling like they're the rebellious James Dean of science or whatever (the College James Dean?) so the majority often claims to be the minority to make themselves feel better. And as I said to him, if you really think it's all intellectuals rather than most, you need to get off your computer because it was created by intellectuals. I have no proof Einstein is OK but I have no proof he's not. He seems OK to me despite being one of the most popular scapegoats amongst the kind of people who like to criticize others just so they can thumb their noses and get admiration from people without really having to do anything constructive regardless of what their preferred ideologies are. Karl Marx on the other hand seems like an awful person with an awful philosophy to me, but maybe God knows something I don't and even Marx could be in Paradise, and maybe that could even be true while Einstein was secretly an awful guy who's burning now. I know a lot of things about Marx that make me want to read his philosophy in light of what I know about certain lineages of occult groups since Marx was in an occult group called The League of the Just that might very well have been an actual descendant of the Bavarian Illuminati, and the details of his personal life seem to be highly suggestive of him being an actual Satanist who did things like engage in human sacrifice, but even if that were all certainly true rather than overwhelmingly likely none of that is the unforgiveable sin. I certainly can't hope for anyone to be in Hell, and speculating on the fates of various people doesn't seem worthwhile. I'm not trying to become the next Emmanuel Swedenborg here even if maybe I hypothetically could.
And in Mr. Peteronfireeeeee here, you can see my point illustrated the people who think religion is solely about having the correct intellectual beliefs about things when the texts of religion never actually say that. There are some things you have to believe, but I hardly see how saying God is the unmoved mover and the prime intelligence constitutes a major heresy of any kind when churches have literally argued the exact same thing. Just because one thing is true of God doesn't mean other things can't also be true of God. Is light a particle or a wave? Oops, I just quoted modern physics, and everyone knows that's some major heresy because intellectuals are all wrong about literally everything. Gravity is occult Devil worship while we're at it, and Mr. Newton is just forcing his Satanic alchemy and hermetic ideals of "as above, so below" on us while positing invisible forces operating at a distance like magic.
Last edited by Metamorph; 04-24-2023 at 01:41 AM.
Well, he doesn't just want a place to troll. He unironically believes the things he was saying on his Kwame Kilpatrick account. Some of his other accounts are just trolling, but his proselytizing is proselytizing and trolling. He went psychotic too. While some people are falsely diagnosed, he was hauled off to an insane asylum once and made a post about how now he's in the Bourne Identity basically because of it. Yes, that happens to some people, but seeing as he's not a spy or protestor of any kind and doesn't live in the USSR that's not what happened to him, he just acted really crazy like he still acts now. I upvoted a couple of his posts anyway like I'd upvote Hı̇tler if he came here saying that meat is bad for you to some of the carnivore diet types here, but he's still the absolute most insufferable person ever to have graced the forums and that's even with the site owner being an apologist for Mao and the Uyghur Genocide.
Dam, why does this website seem to have so many mentally ill people?
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
Again, because it's about psychology. Attracts people who feel there's something wrong with them.
I can't even say it's solely because of the topic of psychology, because even though psychology tends to attract them, it's not like all of psychology ever has been done solely by mentally ill people, and I don't think the medical version of psychiatry is ironically even allowed to be practiced by people who actually have severe disorders anyhow. I would blame the site owner for not screening these people out more effectively.
5 Theses on Anti-Intellectualism (thegospelcoalition.org)
For all the evangelicals out there who might be feeling embarrassed by Peteronfireeeeee right about now, I've got you covered. Most of this is applicable to people other than intellectuals who believe the Bible and use authors like C. S. Lewis as a resource, but it's specifically written by evangelicals from an evangelical point of view and that means it generally counteracts everything Peter keeps doing here.
Even in the website you linked earlier about the problem of evil, https://iep.utm.edu/evil-log/, it says this:
Does Plantinga’s Free Will Defense succeed in describing a possible state of affairs in which God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil? It certainly seems so. In fact, it appears that even the most hardened atheist must admit that (MSR1) and (MSR2) are possible reasons God might have for allowing moral and natural evil.Or do people not read the things they link/send to other people?Mackie admits that Plantinga’s defense shows how God and evil can co-exist, that is, it shows that “the central doctrines of theism” are logically consistent after all. However, Mackie is reluctant to attribute much significance to Plantinga’s accomplishment.
It is an accepted solution, one that is not very strong admittedly, but logically sound nevertheless. Whether you agree with it or think it's sound is one thing - and it's fine to disagree with it/think the reasoning isn't sound, but stating that it doesn't function at all as a solution is just misinformation.
Socionics is a fringe-y pseudoscientific theory. Flat earth groups probably attract oddballs as well. Actually, being an oddball is like the bare minimum requirement for entry onto this forum.
Socionics is Slavic MBTI. MBTI is a fringe-y pseudoscientific theory, but it doesn't attract anywhere near the number of oddballs as flat earth theory. Anyway, we only have one flat earth theorist here and most sites have many more than that, so far, so good. People just troll here because there aren't really repercussions imo. Having to make a new account each time you want to troll is hardly a punishment.
I feel like mbti is significantly less fringe-y than socionics? I was given an mbti test at my normie job a few years ago.
I do agree that lax moderation plays a part in it too.
Did you apply for your normie job in a Slavic or Baltic country?
No
This forum is IPV4-only and there are a limited number of these addresses, especially when you start dealing with CGNAT. Permanent IP banning is not good. More moderation as @Poptart said, sure, I can try to do more. But also it's a problem when the community keeps feeding the trolls. You, @Midnight Maverick, and to some extent @Subteigh are the biggest sources of this fuel.
Well, Subteigh used to be a mod before he became a punk and I'd accept being a moderator if I were made one. I'm not saying this to criticize you or any of the other current moderators. I'm mostly criticizing the site administrator who likes to act like the Deist God, setting the forum in motion and then leaving it alone except for Discord.
I can think of other solutions besides permanent IP banning but if I stated them, people would retaliate against them just because I'm the one who proposed them, so whereof I cannot speak, I must remain silent. I have nothing to say and I'm saying it.
I mean...I was just trying to have a discussion with the guy and persuade him...but I gave up on it and realized he was trolling (and ignored him) after seeing what he said after the last thing I posted to him.
I have actually been making efforts to only focus on the positive interactions lately, but yeah, maybe I will just pull an Adam Strange if trying to have a calm and rational conversation with someone who holds different views than me is feeding trolls.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 04-24-2023 at 10:12 AM.
I mean, if we all do that, there will also be no content on the forum except trolling.
Does my autism count?
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
That isn't healthy, people aught to seek professional help instead of relying on a forum.
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
I think the belief that "professional help" is the solution to any problem is much more damaging.
Oh, that's interesting (how widely held views today (not necessarily majority-held) for a religion can be widely different from what they were originally. There's always seems to be a new way to reinterpret scripture too I guess.
Why do you believe that?
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
Did I miss something? Is Andy Lee/Kwame Kilpatrick supposed to be Peteronfire?
I think so.
Yep. Can't tell you how many people have been absolutely stunned by the fact that the Bible does not say anything about "three wise men" or "three kings" following a star to bring baby Jesus gifts. This is something most people think they know about the Bible, since it is regurgitated by numerous preachers, articles, blogs, religious books (those for children and those for adults), kids' coloring books, those little "Jesus in a Manger" figurines, traditional songs...all kinds of shit. Some sources go as far as providing the names of "the three wise men." However, the Bible never specified how many wise men there were.
Christian Christmas is pretty ironic, too. If it's done in celebration of the birthday of Jesus, why do Christians also break one of God's commandments as part of the tradition? The Bible says not to lie, but on the same day they honor the Biblical figure which is Christ, they also lie to their children by telling them Santa is real.
Along a similar vein, the majority of modern day Christians believe that all you have to do is "accept Christ into your heart and confess that He is Lord and Savior" in order to be saved. In the Bible, however, there is not one single scripture anywhere in the Bible that does not say, "Believe, be baptized, and be saved." In every place of the Bible that talks about how to be saved, it includes "be baptized" as the second step of becoming saved.
Another one, which I find kind of funny in a sense: the Bible doesn't say people go to heaven immediately after they die. It actually says Jesus is preparing heaven, and that everyone's souls will be called up from the graves on judgment day. I cringe when I hear someone say, "they're in heaven now."
Most people do not know the Bible as thoroughly as I do. I was only a Christian for 2 years, but somehow I know it better than the majority of people who have been a Christian for 22 years. To me, it honestly seems like most people only regurgitate information as though it's just a rumor or a game of "telephone." It's just some casual, lighthearted, superficial, and pretentious Sunday ritual. In order to feel as though it's not, people sprinkle a little bit of Jesus into their daily lives and values, like "no cursing," and "no fornication," and "pray sometimes." Maybe they also listen to some preacher's podcast, or watch some show/movie about Jesus. It's worn on hoodies, T-Shirts, pins, you name it, and treated as though it's part of their identities. They credit God for all of the successes and positive events in their lives, and they perceive the bad times as God's trials for them to go through, and they believe God has a plan and it's happening for a reason. They have faith that God is "never going to give them more than they can handle," or, in other words, their belief in a higher power is looked to as a crutch to give them strength, endurance, and resilience. Since they're doing all of these types of things, they really think it's not merely some Sunday ritual for them. After all, there are also all of these events serving as confirmation biases to support this idea that God is actively present in their lives. "The baby almost died, it was a close call! It's a 'miracle' the baby survived! It must have been God sparing the baby! Praise God!" The problem, and the reason I am saying it's a Sunday ritual, is because Christians generally don't actually take time out of their days to study, read, and learn what "God's will" for them is. The Bible says that God's will is His Word, The Bible, but modern day Christians interpret "God's Will" as some kind of abstract meaning that revolves around all of the events happening in their lives and in others' lives. They don't actively seek to apply more and more of the Bible's laws and commandments to their lives, their selves. They don't stop to sit with themselves, introspect, soul search, and correct their own behaviors in all of the ways the Bible commands people to. "Faith without works is dead." This is one more scripture that is commonly misunderstood. The key word behind the common misconceptions is the word, "works." As I talked about in prior posts on this thread, the common misconception further exemplifies my point that people apply their own personal (which tends to be what is socially conventional) interpretations of words instead of researching throughout translations, contexts, and other relevant sections in the Bible, to see for their own selves how the words they read are Biblically defined. They settle into this sort of ritualistic comfort zone, and that comfort zone is whatever views, beliefs, and ideals, are socially and culturally accepted and esteemed to be true. Personally, I have never been socially conforming in that way. I'm pretty anti-conventionalism IF/WHEN said conventionalism is followed just because it's conventional. The Milgram experiment, which was tested on some people in my Sociology class in uni, also didn't work on me. I don't have a sheeple mentality. Ever since I was a small child, my dad always encouraged my curiosity and questioning. For example, he never told me to stop asking "why" when I was little the way most parents do. Instead, he encouraged me to learn by answering all of those little questions, then offering even more knowledge about those things than I inquired about. He was an excellent teacher with me when I was a child because he had a lot of charisma and was one of those people who are educated about a lot of things, yet was also able to share said knowledge in ways that made it fun and interactive enough to actually hold a child's interest. I still remember how he would make himself sound so enthusiastic, and how he would continuously ask me questions like, "Do you know what that [plant, animal, or whatever he was teaching me about] is?" He also always raised me to question things--rules, information, whatever--and not to accept things just because someone in authority, or peers, or whoever, says it. "Even me," he always said, "and if I'm wrong, tell me, and I will thank you, because I don't want to be wrong. I want to know the truth." (He repeated that so many times throughout the years that it was permanently imprinted verbatim on my brain.) When I was older, if I asked a question, he often would say, "Look it up, then come back and tell me." He did always know the answer, as he was very knowledgeable when I would go back and tell him what it meant (he quizzed me). He made it clear that the reason he made us do that was because he wanted to teach me to be in the habit of using my own independence/autonomy to search out the answers to things, and not lazily accept anything I'm spoon fed by the shit others tell me. I believe that the ways I was raised had a direct impact on my experiences with Christianity. I believe it's why I didn't end up just like the modern day Christians that I described here, and it's why I know more about the Bible than many people who have been Christians their entire lives. I also believe it's what gave me the ability to be open enough to the truth to look at what was right in front of my face in the Bible, consider whether it was true, and then say "No, all of you people surrounding me are wrong," and walk away from Christianity.
I was pretty deep into Christianity 5 years ago, which was mostly caused by a complete coincidence. One night, I was feeling super depressed (I have chemical depression, so I was basically in a depressive episode), and I prayed very fervently for the truth. I will never forget it because I said, "Whatever the truth is, regardless of whether it's unpleasant, and regardless of what [religion] it might be, I want it. I just want the truth, no matter what." I said it in such a heartfelt way, and with so much passion behind it, that I got really teared up while I was saying that prayer. THE VERY NEXT DAY, someone from a Christian church knocked on my door and invited me to a Bible study, and talked about things like "searching for the truth" and "discovering the truth" and shit like that, in several different ways that I can't actually remember because I was having a moment due to the timing. There was also the fact that I had lived in that apartment for about 4 years, and during that time, not a single religious person had ever knocked on my door to try to sell me Jesus.
I did debate and challenge things, as is typical of me as a person, but I think the Bible is something you have to know a lot about in order to be able to truly question and challenge its problematic points. In general, people can't have enough insight to pick apart the inconsistencies in, or problems with, reading materials that they haven't read much of and don't know much about. They can try, but probably won't have strong arguments. I think what truly compelled me to become a Christian was ultimately my fear that it was all true, and that I might die before I was able to convert because of having doubts about whether it was true cause me to hesitate too much. The church shared several stories about people that happened to, as well as other similar stories (people walking away and then dying, etc). I now see that as part of the manipulation the Bible uses to convert people. (I want to be clear about this: I don't think those people were intentionally manipulating, I think they were mere innocent vessels by way of being victims themselves. I think those people were truly good people, and I still have a lot of respect for their character to this day.) The Manipulation Process: Part 1) It constantly reminds people of the temporality of life, and how tomorrow is never promised. >>> 2) That reminder makes you fear dying without being saved. >>> 3) The fear of dying before being saved compels people to push aside doubts, as it is better to err on the side of caution. The very first chapters of NT--which is the very first part of the Bible new converts are generally told to read--even addresses those kinds of doubts about whether God/Jesus are real, and it addresses them in a way that tends to cause people to fear doubting.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 04-24-2023 at 11:54 PM.
Just because it's not a good thing doesn't make it a complete coincidence.
Some random thought:
The “Saint” thing of Christianity probably borrow from pagans, a form of local deity that existed just everywhere in human’s religion history.
Bringed up Satan as some kind of God’s rival is some kind of dualism we would see in some other religions
And a tons of different philosophies get add later to make it more and more complex… and devided into different schools and methods of worshiping, which is laughable since each of them think they get the word of God, and the others either consider as going the wrong path or heresy.
The original of this religion (and many others) probably very barebones with a bunch of myths and legend and ghost stories that some guys in some random days decide to mix it all together and make it more systematic…
Last edited by Renna; 04-25-2023 at 03:15 AM.
I partially agree with this, but only in the sense that it is damaging to see it as the ONLY solution to any problem and take these kinds of authority sources as though anything/everything they say is correct. However, this ties back into the points I was making in the conversation we were having on Discord, about why social conformity (or being sheeple) is damaging, and why people should think more autonomously. Even though you disagreed with me during that conversation, what you're saying here is still supporting my side of that argument/debate/conversation (whatever you want to call it).
I can't help but to wonder what your opposition to psychs actually comes from. To me, it's really rather simple: rejecting a resource (a professional psych) that has studied something more than you, to the point of entirely avoiding it, is stupid. Sorry for the bluntness and harshness in using that word to describe it, no offense intended, but I feel that it's also necessary to say it that way in this particular instance, in order to stress the extent to which it is something negative. The intelligent thing to do is to at least hear out what someone who has spent 4+ years more than you becoming educated about, from materials that have been researched for 150+ years more than you've researched it (that is when the most advances have been made, but it can actually be traced back to 400-500 years BC), has to say about a subject you're navigating. Then, once you have informed yourself by taking in whatever information you can at the time, you make an educated decision about whether you choose to accept whatever information is presented to you. Making decisions that are as informed as possible, in as many different ways as possible, is not only the most intelligent choice, it's also the unbiased method. The way you trash the entire psych field only suggests there is a high probability that some kind of negative personal experience(s) formed a bias in your mind.
There is always something that can be learned from all things in life.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 04-25-2023 at 03:09 AM.
No, but the fact that this religion was actually false, does.
I don't think it being false makes it a coincidence. I think there are certain unseen influences but it isn't always a good thing. The world technically runs on coincidences. Coincidence doesn't mean random, it means co-incidence, things happening at the same time. There are many factors that cause this far beyond the levels random chance would predict, such as undetected common causes (e.g., someone was mean to you, someone else beats them up, this is because they were mean to other people too, or with timing, such as a disaster correlating with the economy in another region because of people fleeing it) gravitational influences (Moon etc., though some of that's also EM) electromagnetic influences (usually from light, radio, and microwaves rather than magnetism and electricity, e.g. solar flares, wifi, and bioelectromagnetism, but they have effects too, such as charges building up in dark clouds alerting most animals and a few people of an impending storm) assimilation of people who interact and dissimilation of people who don't interact, and nonrandom influences on random samples (e.g., pragmatic beliefs, placebo, power of belief stuff in general.) Many of the effects of these kinds of events can be negative in nature. It doesn't mean there was some kind of positive meaning behind it, but people can essentially draw other people to them with their thoughts among other things. Esther Hicks is just wrong to think this is a good thing, like getting what you want will empower you if what you want is bad for you. Humans have so many self-destructive and other-destructive urges, the id and all that, and that gets factored in as well. For the most part, creating reality with your thoughts turns into creating Hell with your thoughts more than Heaven, because most thoughts seem to be quite bad thoughts, probably related to the saliency of negative emotions vs. positive ones in general.
It’s also funny that many people over analyses the Bible just because everyone call it “The Bible” despite how poorly written it is, and try to find any meaningful shit they could imagine. It’s no different than reading Tarot cards lol, it’s only reflected their own thought/philosophy rather than actually finding any truth.
The “God” in the Bible may seem very cruel, but if look at the era and the culture influenced it at that time, it could be pretty normal to the people at that era. Nowadays it’s just becoming outdated, so people need to keep finding new meaning for the book’s word to keep it up-to-date. Religion also evolved like many other things I guess.
Yeah, that's all way too theoretical, abstract, and "out there" for me. I'm not into that kind of stuff. I'm not saying I've never experienced anything along the lines of what you're saying (don't ask me how in the hell I knew my grandfather died before I ever received the news, then later confirmed that his death was around the same hour I had that gut feeling). I'm just saying that's not something I can even begin to learn about without getting incredibly irritated by the insufficiency of science involved in the reading materials. It's just that I can't fucking stand anything that is what seems to me like pure speculation that keeps going on, and on, and on, endlessly, because there are no solid, concrete based conclusions that can possibly be determined. I always get irritated by those subjects and shut those types of conversations down if others try to initiate them with me. I barely have enough tolerance to get through two sentences of that nature, lol. (I'm exaggerating in that part to make a point, but it really is probably the fastest way to make me yeet myself out of a conversation.) It feels like a waste of time to me, but other than that, I have no idea why. It's just really, really, REALLY fucking annoying, to the point where it even has me almost thinking it's an overreaction on my part, lol. Those who are into Socionics would probably relate it to Ne PoLR, but personally, I'm not conclusively satisfied with that answer. That is one of the main reasons I hate history, too, though. There are too many things that have only two options: a) speculate endlessly with no end in sight, or b) create an assumption. I hate doing either one of those. There are a lot of things in history that, without the discovery of further evidence, we have no fucking way of actually knowing. Same thing with too far into the future. Hard pass from me on that.
Btw, to avoid any misunderstandings: Yes, I know that some of what's in your list pertains to science. I'm not referring to those things. My focus is remaining on the original topic and overall context in the conversation: me saying a private prayer for truth, then Christians knocking on my door the next day to invite me to a Bible study where they search for truth. Not everything you listed is an equivalent comparison to this event.
I also want to point out that it's extremely common for religious people to go from door-to-door to invite nonbelievers to convert (which they're really only vulnerable to if they are nonbelievers with some doubts about their own stance). It's also incredibly cliché for them to use words like, "to search for the truth about God" when they do that.
I'm not saying this from a place of judgment, but if I had to guess, I'd think it's either a "False Consensus Effect" (you have mostly negative thoughts, so you assume others in general have mostly negative thoughts), or it's something you learned from a faulty resource. I strongly doubt that it's the latter, though. If it was, you probably wouldn't be saying it's usually negative emotions that are causing negative thoughts. Emotions can cause negative thoughts, but negative thoughts can also cause negative emotions. It goes both ways. It's been studied and researched pretty well, and it has been established that for most people, and during most of the time, the negative thoughts are causing their negative feelings. In fact, even when it does originate from negative feelings first, having the negative thoughts that follow after them create a cycle between the thoughts and emotions, thus creating a downward spiral. If negative thoughts are following after negative feelings very frequently, it might be time to determine whether or not chemical depression is the underlying culprit. It isn't necessarily that, but if it persists regardless of diligent efforts to resolve it, you can't pin down any particular reason it's there, and nothing you do helps to alleviate how you feel, then there's a pretty good chance it's that.
Anyway, so...was I right about guessing it's a False Consensus Effect?
(Also, btw, thanks for actually reading my giant ass wall of text where I shared that experience I called coincidental. I hope it was able to offer you some sort of insight in some way.)
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 04-25-2023 at 10:09 PM.
I think it's caused by a variety of reasons.
Also, VP, correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems like you're interpreting what FP said as something that automatically means they are consciously aware that there is something wrong with them, and they are looking into typology as though it's some form of solution. I don't know if that is what he actually intended to convey or not, but I do know he didn't say enough to suggest that is necessarily what he meant when he said that.
Usually, if people are aware that they feel there's something wrong with them, and they want to address whatever is wrong, they're not going to be motivated to join a forum that describes a theory about 16 archetypes of personality. Key word: archetypes. In other words, typology is essentially fitting people into a box, not about reasons they don't fit into the "normal" category. Well, except Enneagram, but most people discover MBTI before any of the other typology systems. If they actually do feel there's something wrong with them, that means they will already sense that they are different than others in some way. When they actually are trying to figure out what's wrong, most people aren't going to think, "Hmm, let me take a deep dive into a theoretical subject that's all about exploring underlying patterns of average personalities people have SO much in common with each other, that there are only 16 categories of personalities in a world that has 8 billion people in it." That's literally in the opposite direction of troubleshooting what's wrong.
There are some things that would motivate people to go in that opposite direction, though. When it is because they feel there's something wrong with them, it's not because they're looking for solutions. I think it's likely they're subconsciously searching for ways to soothe their own feelings of displacement by trying to discover what group of people they can feel like they fit into, in order to feel some sense of belonging with other people. In other words, it's attracting people who feel as though they're different than most people and not well understood by others, which results in them feeling lonely, outcasted, isolated, or like they're misfits.
(I promise I'm not aiming at you by saying any of this, FP, but) One other reason they might go in this opposite direction is if they have a distaste for the psychology field, since that can incline them to sort of "rebel" against the field by finding an alternative to its notion that they have some type of disorder or abnormality. They'd basically be seeking explanations that offer a neurotypical version of an alternative explanation behind what they feel is wrong with them. (I'm guessing this is also why there is a higher ratio of people against standard psychology in the typology community than there is in the average population's ratio.) Feeling something is wrong with them for being how they are would probably be seen as something insecurity or self-esteem related, in those cases.
Another reason is denial that there's something wrong with them, but this one is less common. First of all, people here are actively looking into it enough to get on the forums and read things about personalities. Someone might invest the kind of effort that takes as a means of supporting their own belief in their denial, but most of the people here are already aware they have a disorder and admit it.
As for me, personally...part of the reason I'm here is because I'm drawn to those who have psychological problems that I can help to resolve.
I find it mentally stimulating, as it gives me real/concrete (not hypothetical or theoretical, which are potentially unrealistic and are almost never detailed or specific enough) psychological and emotional problems that I can analyze, troubleshoot, develop strategies for, and offer advice on.
Also, when I read some of what others post here, I have compassion. (Compassionate Empathy entails actually being compelled enough by empathy to take action.) Simultaneously, I feel a sense of responsibility and duty, since I know I'm equipped to help. Especially when I know most "professional" psychs out there fucking suck at their jobs. I'm confident enough in my abilities in that department to think there is somewhat of a chance that I might offer them better insights or suggestions than their actual therapists would. I've been told by numerous people, both professional and non-professional, that I have a gift for it and should be a psychologist. Since I'm passionate about it and I seem to be pretty good at it, I'm currently in pursuit of becoming one. Until then, this is a community where I can begin to satisfy/fulfill my own personal sense of purpose in life without needing a fancy shmancy piece of paper that allows me to do it professionally.
It's also a platform where I can share my knowledge and insight about psychology, introspection, abuse, and all of those kinds of things that most people here can relate to. I like how it educates me by feeding me questions I never thought of before, which I then search for the answers to.
It's a community where there are so many who relate to what I've been through, that it gives me an outlet I can use to twist my negative experiences into something positive by sharing my personal story with others in a way that can provide them with deeper levels of knowledge, insight, and understanding. It might prevent it from happening to them, help them out of what is already happening, or help them heal from what has happened to them already. Regardless, it's a place where my efforts to turn the negatives in my life into positives can be valuable and beneficial to others. Turning it all around like that is something my heart motivates me to do, but it's also my way of destroying the destroyers who are in this world. It gives meaning to the darkness in my life.
It's also a community where I can establish a sense of connection with those who have more insight into, and awareness of, mental illnesses than the average population. I find that I share more common ground with people who have said insight, since the average population instead tends to stigmatize mental illness. Awareness hasn't yet been spread throughout society enough for that to stop.
The way I see it...if some of the people here don't benefit from what I say in any of those ways, then I'm still spreading awareness. Either way, it's something that makes it worth it in spite of what I share being weaponized against me sometimes.
Last edited by Fluffy Princess Unicorn; 04-26-2023 at 01:05 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
