Psychology 101

Obsession/Addiction appears to be a left-brained fixation.
A self-destructive, self-deceiving repetition of a thought or an activity.

An inability to 'read environment' and react accordingly, in real-time - tied to the idea of choice.
The will is overwhelmed by the external - the universe.

I find it interesting that those who believe in the absolute freedom of the will, are inclined toward authoritarian human systems, or impose a strict self-discipline on themselves - as a way of dealing with the chaos of the absence of absolute order, and with the agencies - their unpredictable choices - of other organisms; those who absolutely reject the will's freedom, to any degree, are inclined towards anti-authoritarianism, the rejection of human rules, human conventions, traditions, socio-economic hierarchies, and tend to be impulsive, carefree and careless.
Belief in the will's absolute un-freedom promotes an obsessiveness with liberty of self in relation to other - ego.
Belief in the presence or absence of absolute order seems to be psychological, resulting in particular personality traits.
Right/Left hand-use indicates which hemisphere dominates. Ambidexterity seems to indicate a desirable balance.

I would expect similar detrimental consequences to a damaged or atrophied left-hemisphere, such as an inability to focus on a task, impulsiveness, procrastination, an inability to remain true to a plan, prone to ennui requiring constant novelty, unpredictability.

Left = self, i.e., body/brain; corporeal: slow rigidity of the physical.
Right = ego, i.e., mind; spiritual; quick flexibility of the mental.

Art is dependent no the right-hemisphere, explaining much about Hollywood and why artistic types are prone towards certain political views and attitudes towards the body, viz. sex, race, mutations such as homosexuality etc.

You could say, you have a bunch of creatives coming up with ideas, being mostly right-brain-hemisphere dominated (left hand, politically left leaning) and then there is the merchant executive Hollywood producer who is more of a business person, making decisions and acting on them, being mostly left-brain-hemisphere dominated, who then selects the creative ideas which get made into a product according to his Jewish sentiments.

Metaphysics expresses a deep insecurity regarding the physical, observable, world.
Particularly when it is used to completely disregard, contradict and replace it with idealism, spirituality, and philosophical constructs.

Philosophy as a discipline of the human mind, can be reduced down to a body/nervous system/mind triad.
This triad refers to a cosmological sequence of past/present/future: immutable/mutable/immanent can also be represented as cause/subjective effect/objective goal.
This is a profoundly philosophical triad.

In the middle parts - referring to existence - is where the possibility for confusion and clarity begins and ends - it is where I place free-will as a dynamic agency participating in its own future determinations - it participates in the creation of a future that will become, for it, a determined past.
This is also where I place order/chaos interactivity, which is conceptualized into a synthesis, as past, absorbing chaos into an ordered abstraction, i.e., pattered and non-patterned (random) energies which we experience in the present as existence, and we interpret as appearances= the dynamic present is abstracted (interpreted) as a static appearance.
It is in this randomness where freedom - expressed through choice - is not only possible but necessary to deal with the chaotic/unforeseeable in real-time. A method that evolves automated processes that adapt, through the process of natural selection.
It is these automated reactive evolved processes that are sometimes confused as belonging to an external will, or an external conciousness - another.

Psychology is a diagnostic discipline and not a prescriptive one.
All it can do, once a spiritual disorder is diagnosed, is to medicate it to the point where it becomes manageable.
It cannot heal what is broken.


Reality, like the sun's rays, can be focused by a powerful lens - like a mind can focus truth. But, prolonged exposure to the energy may warp the lens - even shatter it.
The more delicate the lens, the more focused the sun's rays - but also the more fragile it is. The slightest warping will affect it like a larger one cannot affect a less sophisticated lens.
Reality is not always positive.
Few have the constitution to endure it, for long, and of those not many survive the experience unscathed.
Once the else cracks - no matter how slightly - it can no longer be mended.

Psychology lacks the knowledge and the tools for a lens as delicate and complex as the human mind.
I doubt if it will ever be able to reconstitute a broken lens, once it has cracked.
Unless one can turn back time - the entire chain of causality.

The defensiveness of the feeble mind is so ingrained that it refuses to consider its own culpability in anything negative that happens to it.
For example....the MRA's refused to consider that their rejection of paternalism was at the root of their current predicament.
Their naive idealism was certain, remains certain, that once females had been liberated then all would love each other, and all would find a companion and so on.
The only reason all males, in the past, married and procreated was due to the imposition of rules which later came to be known as Paternalism. But, in their demented psyche, this could not be so. They refused to question or doubt their own idealism.
So they had to find another to blame...and that other was women.
the fault was in their own idealization of women, not in the nature of women.

The same happened with feminism.
They were so naive, and still are, that once liberates both sexes would attain power, and be equal, and all would live happily ever after.
When misery, disillusionment followed, they did not question or doubt their ideals, but they had to find another to blame, i.e., males and paternalism that kept them down and prevented them from attaining their full potentials and so on.

Nihilism with its absolutist either/or, binary dualities is full of such examples.
We can see it in Determinism if it believes that either man is absolutely free, or he is absolutely un-free.
It's always something, or someone else's fault....there's always an element of deferred responsibility.
they then accuse all who expose them as being guilty of what they do, selectively applying freedom and responsibility.
The idea that another's actions, if they result in a negative outcome for the individual, cannot be entirely blamed on them, because the individual is responsible for knowing that the possibility is present, eludes their psychosis.
See how they describe anyone who mentions any degree of free-will. He is doing so to accuse, to blame another.....victimhood....when in fact the opposite is the case, and it is they who are using determinism is such a selective way - blaming others of a free-will they deny themselves so as to become their victim...and when caught with their pants down they simply admit that all are victims of absolute order, the universe....which cannot be changed and which they do not contribute in their own fate in no way....since even choices are determined, and not at all determining.

You see this in Marxism when and where it has been applied. it's not the ideology which is at fault but its application - some are at fault for its continuous failure to produce the utopia it expects.

You see it in Judaism....their choseness is a divine product placing them in a privileged position of being the agency through which the absolute manifests in real-time.

You see it in Christianity with its uniformity of sinfulness, brought about by a mind-game - the allegory of lost paradise and how Adam dared to exercise his god given free-will which went against god's. A mind game meant to absolve the God of evil - the idea/ideal - placing it squarely on Adam's shoulders, and that of the Devil - the imperfection, the snake, within the perfection of Paradise.
The "evil" is always otherness - reality - which challenged the pure perfection of the ideology, the idea/ideal.
The problem, you see, is choice, if it is uniformity you seek; the problem is chaos, when absolute order is what you worship.

The issue of consent is an interesting one. It asks another to become responsible for your own happiness and well-being.
If the outcome is negative, then you did not give consent - for it to be negative.
If it is positive, which it never is, entirely positive, then maybe you did give your consent.
It's never positive because of the absolute high expectations of naive imbeciles. Nothing real can ever match the romantic ideals in their feeble minds...so the outcome will always disappoint, and then they will claim that they did not agree to this negativity - they did not give consent for the negative, but only for the positive.

Nobody is asked for consent.
Nobody deserves anything.
Consent in now another one of those ideas that imply victimization and victimhood.

Consent is given between equals, or from a superior to an inferior.
Not from a superior to an inferior.

The entire process of heterosexuality - involving some extreme intrusion into the body or into an individual's space - has been dealt with biochemically.
Not only through the mechanism of lust/love, but by evolving a specialized sex that can tolerate such intrusions - self-deceit.  
That is why when a female's hormones gradually dissipate she accuses the male of tricking her, when in fact it was she would deceived herself in order for the deed to be done.
Flirting and sexual relationships are based no deception. if they do not develop into the more lucid - noble - form of agape - philia, friendship - at the price of eroticism/lust, then they fall apart.
All stable, long-lasting marriages sacrifice eros (lust) for agape. This is why they last. They become less about sex and more about a partnership, that includes some sex, once in a while, as an affirmation of the agreement.

It may also involve some shared trickery, over time.
Like role playing. Cheating without actually cheating.
Or some other form of pretence.
They call it "spicing up a marriage".

The source of feminism's "rape culture".
They've romanticized males and heterosexual relationships to a degree that when this fails to materialize they feel violated - the perpetrating act, of copulation, becomes a violation of their consent.
They do not blame themselves and their own judgements, but the other who must have tricked them, or wrongly accentuated their own positives while hiding their negatives - like people are wont to do during flirting or negotiating any exchange.
The female is "innocent" - pure in intent and application of judgement.
It was not their idealisms, their expectations that are at fault, because that your mean they did something wrong - but it is the other who failed to meet the expectations - another is always responsible for the negatives.

Nihilism increases the schism - institutionalizes schizophrenia, autism, and femininity.

Within natural environments not everyone would pass on their genes. In human environment almost everyone is guaranteed - or was guaranteed - of doing so. this means that many who would not have normally reproduced did - which means that unfit mutations were propagated and compounded over the centuries.
Then, suddenly, in the last generation females are emancipated from Paternalism, and further aided by technological and institutional intervention - the contraceptive pill, abortion clinics, institutional protection and resource redistributions - all benefits they did not have in the past - all interventions that made self-regulating unnecessary.
Place this within feminizing idealism.
So, now we have unfit males competing for females with protections and guarantees that free them from natural self-regulating mechanisms to their promiscuity.
The result are Incels - or free-radicals with no investment in the future, nor any interest in the present, and with a motive to reject and deny their won past - now a source of shame rather than of pride.

To fully comprehend why homosexuality is so antithetical to masculinity, while lesbianism is not so much; why paedophilia is so deplorable; why woman are so traumatized by rape, you must begin with a basic fact about heterosexuality - as reproductive strategy.
It involves a form of aggression - penetration is an intrusion into another being's psychosomatic boundaries.
This is why females had to evolve mechanisms to deal with it, and to stifle the fight/flight automatic reaction. On the female's part there's a mechanism of self-deceit which we can also witness in how her body has to be tricked s that her autoimmune system does not kill spermatozoa, or the foetus.
A mechanism that often fails.
Self0deciet, and deceit in general, is a fundamental part of the heterosexual reproductive strategy - from flirting - negotiating terms, testing the other's fitness - to self-handicaping - as a display of fitness - it is all a process of dealing with the already evolved survival strategies that have to be numbed and calmed so that this alter to evolve reproductive method, can successfully synthesis two different DNA strands - representing two memory continuums.
We all carry our past in a simplified form - we are the past made present - as presence - interpreted as appearance.
To make the process more efficient - and therefore more effective - nature evolved two specialized types, i.e., males and females, designating to each specific roles.
a type of frenzy - passion, lust - is involved to deal with the fight/flight mechanism - a self-intoxication, triggered by specific stimuli, such as the 7/10 hip to waist or hip to shoulder ration, the shape of the rump, the effect of endorphins, the smoothness and texture of skin and hair, all indicating health and fertility.
Love evolves later, as a way to bond, mother to child, parent to offspring, kind to kind - facilitating cooperative survival strategies - and so on. Love also self-numbs, associating other with self, so that  the intimate closeness of copulation can proceed.
for the female, in particular, the process of copulation, places her in a vulnerable position, both during and after fertilization, so her psychology and her attitude towards choosing a mate, has evolved to be more stringent, more demanding.
Females are genetic and memetic filters; excluding from the gene pool, from the net generation, anything they deem unfit, sickly, and weak, ni relation to the environment.  
Males are the expendable sex. They must prove themselves worthy of reproduction.
These two factors can explain the entire gamut of masculine/feminine psychologies, and sexual deviancy in relation to them.

Jung, Carl G. wrote:

We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.

Accepting the negative is difficult; accepting what is judged to be positive is easy, and the most popular method of coping with the negative.
Unable to accept our own responsibilities in the determination of our own fate, is what condemns us to repeat the same mistakes.
We place the blame on others, and with the blame we also offer our will to them; a form of surrender.

Hoffer, Eric wrote:

When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.

A difficult feat to resist this impulse, for a social species, increasingly institutionalizing itself, as a way of extending its lifespan.

Hoffer, Eric wrote:

The craving to change the world is perhaps a reflection of the craving to change ourselves.

Outsourcing ourselves.
Unable to change ourselves, in relation to the world, we seek the impossible, so as to remain exactly as we are - telling ourselves that we, at least, tried.
Self-deceit on a higher level.
Place the standard beyond the feasible - place it beyond the real - and then surrender to fate.
Ambition can be used to discredit progress.

With Globalization and technological interconnectedness, an individual is more likely to find someone like himself, somewhere across the globe, than around his own neighbourhood.
Divergence is identifying - similarity is unifying.
Without differences there is no distinction.
So, a mutation emerging in the same species will be a focus of identification, and its similarity in another, even if he belongs to another kind, would be a focus of unification.

Incels from around the world are unified by the fact of their sexual exclusion from the gene-pool.

Let's push it further to clarify what i am saying....or implying.
If animals could become as self-conscious as man, then a tiger born with albinism would feel more kinship with a orang-utan suffering from the same genetic mutation than he would with his own species.
The factor of exclusion would be a factor of inclusion into a new category;the single factor of fur pigmentation would overpower all other factors, especially when it has become a psychological issue for the individual that makes it feel separate, different, not included.
The mutation of albinism becomes a unifying mutation, even if differences in all other traits remain distinct.

I think this is the foundation of leftist psychology.
The freak factor.
Omegas around the world unite - its their shared psychological awakening to a shared fate - as excluded from the gene-pool, from the future - that unifies them across genetic and memetic lines.
The left always embraces the enemies of their own kind, because they feel more resentment for those who remind them of their inferiority, and a kinship with those who are threatened by the same types.
Lefties always show a hatred, an antipathy, for their own people, and a kinship for individuals who feel the same towards their own.
The foundation of Marxism is this.

The excluding factor overpowers the inclusive ones, and unifies it with those who share the same traumatic fate.
A brotherhood of shared resentment.

You can lie and successfully trick yourself; you may even lie and successfully fool others; but you cannot lie and successfully trick the world.
At the point, you can only lie and successfully trick yourself, once more, continuing the spiral downward.

Difference between females and males excluded from the gene-pool:
In my thesis 'The Feminization of Mankind,' I propose the idea that institutions - church and state, religious and secular - are abstractions of masculinity.
Institutions that can be represented by either males/females or even children....because masculinity is abstracted into a pure idea/ideal.
This means that a female who fails to reproduce then redirects her un-investment libidinal energies towards the institution - essentially she emotionally marries. the institution; it becomes for her the husband (mate, lover) she does not have, and she involves herself in social issues, redirecting her maternal instincts towards the welfare of animals and/or orphans etc. She becomes a staunch supporter and defender of her 'abstracted husband', the State or the Church - God in Christianity is the alpha-male, imposing his authority over males and females - emasculating the males who surrender to him.
Males who fail to pass-on their genes - i.e., incels - become passionate anti-authoritarians, anti-statists, anti-institutional. The State, Church, God, is the alpha-male that denied them access to females, and through them he was kept out of the future - he lost a destiny.
The institutionalized and abstracted male authority is the father-figure that does not want his own sons to surpass him, so he keeps them beneath him, in his service - under his shadow.
Such emasculated males - beta - despise Paternalism because they have never experienced a form that they could relate to - with which they shared blood, traditions and ideals. The institutionalized male - the alpha - is completely alien to them. Not only domineering but also alienating.
He becomes an anarchist, rebelling against an abstracted alienating masculine entity with which it shares nothing - no genes and no memes.
He has lost himself, a future and a past. All that remains is a present to pass-away through hedonism and distractions.

Messianic Complex Victim-hood
Asks, pleadingly, why do they reject me when I offer them salvation and eternal life, through the absolute?
Why do they casts stones at me, when I offer unconditional love, and omnipotence?
Why do they crucify me, when I come bearing the gift of omniscience?

They know not what they do. They do not comprehend what I am offering.

When people tell others what they are doing, many mistake this as an "ought" - as though they were being told what they should do.
They think this because this is exactly what is implied.

But this is not always the case.
When I explain what the consequences are of what someone is doing, I am not telling them to stop, I am merely informing him of my projections. He can do with what I tell him what he will.
I focus on the negative consequences not because I am a pessimist...but because I am realist living among naive, self-deceiving, nihilists.
I tell them of the probable negative consequences because I know they are only focusing on the possible positive consequences. Most of the time the negative is ignored to the point where the positive need not even be a probability but a possibility.
Of course I come across as negative to such minds.

Surprisingly I have come across some individuals who were the opposite. For them everything was negative.
Pure nihilists, we may say, are negative about everything except some selected ideology...which is all positive.
To that individual I came across as unnecessarily positive. He accused me of lying, pretending...because I could live with a cosmos lacking god, meaning, purpose and certainty...experienced as need/suffering.
This was so incomprehensible to him that he believes I was lying....because I did not deny any of the things that made him depressed.
But such manic-depressives are rare,...because they usually commit suicide.

Instead I'm surrounded by naive, simpletons who see positivity everywhere, coincidentally always flattering, beneficial to them.
Imbeciles like this usually perceive any perspective as being self-serving...self-promoting....self-comforting....because this is true for them...and, simpletons, always confuse empathy with sympathy/antipathy.
If you say something negative about Blacks, or women, or homosexuals...they will always accuse you of a self-interest....or of antipathy, hatred, or fear....
Only the positive is acceptable....because only the positive must be focused upon to endure exiting. If you even hint as t a negative then the motive is always about you compensating, or based no fear, hatred...some emotion...something must benefit the speaker....of either the positive/negative....because all is subjective, and the objective does not exist.
The subject always has an emotional, hedonistic, self-serving motive...The idea of seeing and accepting what is detrimental to you, is unimaginable to the typical modern...especially the nihilist.
For him the negative is, in fact, self-serving and defensive....so they must find the same motive in all expressions of negativity.

The self-fulfilling prophesies of superstitions.
We've all heard of hypnotists making audience members do things against their will, and preachers healing the ill in mass events...even if the "miracle" is short in duration?
Well, the brain is an organ within an organism....

So, a believer in palm-reading or Tarot card reading, will validate its belief in the absurd by unconsciously fulfilling its predictions.
It is so desperate to believe that its suffering is part of a greater plan, and that something else is in control over its destiny, that it will subconsciously validate the gypsy's predictions and prophesies.
It's ego will have no clue what is occurring under the surface.
Self-deceit.

Astrology proposes the absurd idea that stellar objects thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of light-years away, affect an individual's character more than stellar object hundreds of thousands or millions of kilometres away....or more than genes, directly inherited from the parents, and memes which encompass and enfold a child during its early years, establishing the degree its inherited potentials will be cultivated - gene<>meme dynamic.
If anything the time of year, the season, has more of an effect....and this differs from the southern to the northern hemisphere.  

It is a psychological crutch used by individuals with no ability to read personalities through behaviour, body language and verbal cues; a way of claiming an advantage over those who are obtuse and gullible; also a way of implying the unimportance of race and sex in the determination of mental and physical potentials; finally it is a way of exploiting and manipulating human anxieties, feebleness and need/desire.

A precursor to psychology and astronomy....it is a primitive form of superstition; weaker than psychology, which still remains a non-scientific discipline.

It attracts women, children and emasculated males looking for some kind of advantage to compete with males they fear they could not compete with; and anxious spirits looking for relief.
It exposes a feeble mind, with a feeble judgement pretending to be wise, with access to occult knowledge promising all sorts of gifts to those who just believe - and through belief its prophesies are realized, no matter the outcome.

Advertisers play games with our minds, even if we're not aware of it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Discover Magazine (@DiscoverMag) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How Advertisers Seduce Our Subconscious wrote:

The limbic system works regardless of whether we are paying attention, and works at a far greater speed than our thoughts. And unfortunately for our consumer selves, it is the system that processes emotional stimulus.
So when we perceive an ad for a brand, we make an instant judgement of its emotional value and store this subconsciously as a marker for future reference. If the emotional value is positive (kind, warm, sexy, cool, successful and so on) we are subconsciously “conditioned” to invest the brand with this positivity. We are not aware this happens, which means we can’t argue against it. But when we come to making a decision involving the brand, we find ourselves “seduced” in favor of it, and provided there is no strong reason not to, we buy it.

We've already passed judgement and chosen according to subconscious, physical impulses, by the time our ego - the lucid part of the mind that perceives self - becomes involved, either to justify the choice already made, or to resist it, imposing a different standard upon the body.

For the superstitious mind this may be misinterpreted as an imposition upon the ego, by an external will, or as if something other than self is involved in the judgements and the choices made, based no them.

Knowing and understanding can override the process. The mind imposing a limit upon the body's impulses.
The brain's processing and pattern recognition, can impose itself upon automated, reactions and subconscious inclinations experienced as impulses.
The triggers become less effective.
This demystification is what makes the world less magical, less mystical...similar to how knowledge what dancing is, and understanding what it represents, makes the abandonment necessary for an elegant performance improbable.
The mind inhibits physical impulses, or makes them less efficient...
This is also what "being is the zone" means.....the absence of a mental intervention upon subconscious and physical impulses; an intervention that makes the performance less effective, less fluid, graceful.

The way to heal schizophrenia might be through the gut. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Discover Magazine (@DiscoverMag) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course all psychology is rooted in need/suffering.
What is the most primal organ that deals with need?
The stomach.

How does one hope to confront and defeat an enemy that uses feminine tactics, when he is handicapped by an outdated sense of 'politeness' before weakness and the feminine?
How can one hope to defeat an enemy when he is hampered by an old-world sense of letting 'bygones be bygones' and 'let and let live'?
how can you fight a war when you cannot even call a liar a lair to her own face, because you've been raised to respect women, no matter what they say or do?

Respect is based no anxiety, showing respect to those who do not deserve it makes them feel powerful, as if they deserve it.

Not only are extreme altruists’ brains different from a normal person’s, they’re basically the opposite of a psychopath’s in one key way [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Discover Magazine (@DiscoverMag) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Researchers polled 1,341 people about creepiness. This is what they uncovered: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Discover Magazine (@DiscoverMag) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The study of psychology is just as relevant as the study of philosophy. It can only be included in philosophy as an important part of it.
Psychology studies the subjective mind that relates and translates an indifferent objective reality.
It's subjective motives are often transferred to the object, corrupting it's indifference with emotions and ego.

All philosophical schools, presenting a world-view, express a particular psychological attitude towards a shared cosmos. The psychology of its adherents is inexorably present in it.
Philosophy is the study of a relationship between the living and the non-living; the idea/ideal and the real; thoughts, noumena, and the phenomena that trigger them: activity and reactivity.

It's clear that language is the instrument of philosophy; a reflection of thinking. Language connects the subject with the object, therefore the type of word used to attempt this connection exposes the one who chooses it as his instrument of contact.
This exposes nihilism as language pretending to be interested in connecting with an indifferent and unknown reality, when it is instinctively disconnecting and selecting words that maintain this disconnection. Even in this case, the subject's choice of words to enact this pretence exposes the subject's motives and the source of its refusal.