Psychology 101

When a feeble man wants to convince himself he is a god, we walks among men who are weaker that he feels.
He seeks worship to justify what he does not truly believe, no matter how desperately he claims to.

Flattery, or insinuating a positive about another, is the easiest way to ensure the lowering lowering of its usual scepticism.
A tactic practised to perfection by astrologers, priests, and con-men.

For this reason I practice the reverse. I either avoid flattering, or I never emphasize the positive, knowing that if what I say is true then it requires no trickery on my part to make it so.

Psychology fails to become a science because it refuses to integrate irrationality into its theories.
Other sciences integrate chaos into their analysis of natural order in the form of uncertainty, or in the form of a mathematical fraction, representing an approximation, but modern psychology always begins with the idealistic premise that life is innately rational, and all behaviour must have a rational cause, or, at least, a cause that can be rationalized. This presumption prevents its advancement beyond the practice of diagnosing and medicating what diverts from the cultural rules of 'normality'.

Men desperately want to be seen...because existence is a very solitary experience...relieved by sharing, and participating and following.
An individual's world-view gives you the appearance of his internal workings - requiring an accurate and objective interpretation....just as appearances are automatic/impulsive/spontaneous interpretations of presence, that require deciphering.
Deciphering means to bring into focus, to find meaning, i.e., to perceive the conspicuous and inconspicuous inter-relationships, so it has to do with the ego and its talent for empathy.
Here the corruptive effect of antipathy/sympathy must be kept in mind as being a qualification of empathy - similar to how strength is a measure of weakness, knowledge is a measure of ignorance, freedom is a measure of determinism, power is a measure of powerlessness, and, more to the point, subjectivity is a measure of objectivity.
The use and abuse and misuse of language indicates this relationship between the individual subjective lucid awareness of world and self, in relation with an indifferent and uncertain, fluctuating cosmos.

Therefore, the mind that is unhappy with itself and its conditions will show unjustified excitement at the prospect of systemic collapse. A sense of excitement that implies that it is confident that what will follow will most certainly be better, for it, than what is. An unjustifiable confidence, based on an unjustifiable pessimism.
The juxtaposition exposes a dissonance between its awareness of self, and its awareness of other, or world - typically a conscious and deliberate overestimation of the former and an underestimation of the latter, as a compensation for what it really thinks, subconsciously.
A hypothesis that conflicts with precedent must be justified as a product of the mind, attempting to evade precedent.
In this case, the precedent of how empires collapse, over centuries, compared to the individuals desire to contradict this precedent with an immediate and dramatic implosion, hints at a motive it dopes not dare reveal, but only imply indirectly.

The first sign of obtuseness, in psychological contexts, is an inability to read another in real-time; adjusting self to his particular psycho-synthesis.
It is usually rooted in an inability to accurately judge self - Know Thyself - and how you appear to others. A failing that is usually excused with the usual claim to be indifferent towards other's opinions.
We may call it a disability to go beyond sympathy/antipathy, to become empathic.

Females have an innate talent for this...though most cannot understand how they do it, because they simply feel it, so they cannot cultivate it further.
Men are the worse, because ego stands in the way of becoming truly empathic. It is part of their evolved role to prove themselves worthy, requiring bravado and undeserved self-praise for sexual competition to ensue.
They are always over-estimating self, in relation to others. This is why nihilism comes easily to males, particularly those whose egos have been traumatized or retarded in their development.
An overcompensation, over-inflation, attempts to over-compensate, protecting the scars, and preventing the wounds from reopening.

Ego is the biggest hindrance to both empathy and objectivity.

I think that Nihilism is an extension of Jayne's Bicameral Mind hypothesis.
awakening to yourself is a confusing period. Ancients thought the voices in their own head - their internal dialogue - had an external source....gods or spirits were talking to them.
we've progressed...but we are still trapped in the dilemma's of self-consciousness.
I've described how self-awareness exposes the individual to himself, in relation to otherness, which produces anxiety and insecurity, to which Nihilism offers a defensive relief.
Nihilism also replaces  the positive absolute with a negative, within the same paradigm; it traps the mind in itself, confusing its own 1/0 methodology for a cosmic truth.
It confuses its own methods of interpreting reality as being an aspect of reality.
The simplification/generalization of 1/0, either/or, good/bad, are projected as external spirits, gods, or absolute truths.

Refuse of an un-invested man or woman.

It’s also a lesson on the idea of value or greatness. To sacrifice one thing, means you must strive to succeed another; a very particular important concept that goes unconsidered. The internal life is critical. An absence of a cultivated identity, leads to a life spent in disorder and rootlessness. Knowing thyself, is the key to living well, either in the succession of one’s biological imperatives or in noble selfhood and creation. The problem is the inferior objectives and goals of most people, helplessly strapped down by their superficial environment and all its decadence, exacerbated by weak temperaments seeking to fill voids in themselves through external attachments. Having no developed sense of past, and self, or mind.

This is more a look into the human animal with a complete lack of identity.

A child is an externalization and continuation of yourself.
It affirms the father's father, like a flexible link in a chain strengthens it.
The father can see himself continuing on in his children. He is the link to the past, and they the link to the future.
With no such investment males whither and seek alternatives in accumulating things. Things, stuff, become representations and extensions of himself instead.
But they are lifeless so he needs more and more of it, creating a material shell extending his identity, his sense of self, into the world.
Artificiality becomes part of his lost continuum. At the very least he will be remembered as long as it takes to clear all the stuff away.

Men with no future implode in on themselves. They become ego seeking relief - hedonism, narcosis, inebriation etc.

Defining the word 'self' accurately is a beginning.
But such minds will refuse to do so or to even consider any definition that will expose them to this painful fact.
Nihilism serves its purpose here. It rejects self altogether...or remains eternally unconvinced, because no absolute has been offered.

In an open-ended existence nihilism provides an enclosure, either as an absolute one - universe - or as an absolute void - emptiness.
The enclosure is always in and of the mind, the only place where it can exist as a vague, obscure, idea with no precise definition and no reference outside of itself.

Psychologically it's like the womb where we grow and then emerge.
Nihilism is a desire to return to the womb.

Sceptical double-standard
It is easier to fool another by feigning interest, while harbouring a hidden indifference, than it is to convince them that you are truly indifferent and not harbouring a hidden interest.

Satyr wrote:

Sceptical double-standard
It is easier to fool another by feigning interest, while harbouring a hidden indifference, than it is to convince them that you are truly indifferent and not harbouring a hidden interest.

That does depend on what the other wants to be true. I guess most people would prefer someone else having interest in them. They usually don't know about unwanted interest because they feel like they can deal with that easily enough, these days at least.

It's the easiest way to manipulate another.
You feed into his/her needs/desires.
Then his/her stringent logic and scepticism melts away and the most absurd concepts become possible, at least; whereas the most rational concepts, no matter the evidence and reasoning, become highly suspect.
Best lies are the ones the other already believes in.

The most savage form of slavery is to ones own nature.

The one sure thing about a retard, no matter how linguistically talented he or she is, no matter how creatively he or she manipulates abstractions, is that no matter what happens and how many errors he/she makes and how many self0destructive consequences his retardation produces....he will never change.
Linguistic word games, denial, negation of free-will, or what have you, will always be employed to prevent him from accepting the source of his dilemmas and the root of his life- destroying choices.
Unable to pinpoint the source, he/she will seek it elsewhere, and do he/she will repeat the same method of judging and choosing, and will face the same consequences.

You cannot even help such a moron, even if you were foolish and altruistic enough to want to, because he/she is immune to all external sources.
He/She has cut himself/herself off, ensuring that all that remains is coping. Stoicism.
So be it.

Identity
Individual man = mind - meme, i.e., family, tribe, ethnos (culture), SuperState...
Collective man = body - gene, i.e., tribe, sub-species (race), species, life...

Mind cannot emerge nor exist without the physical; the physical is accentuated, and projected via the mind.

The grand narratives are divided in two major groups.
Monism - monotheism.
Multiplicity - polytheism.

We can identify them as belong to the mind, where all is converted to a singularity, and to the world, which confronts the mind with its fluctuating diversities.
Mind = noumenon.
Body = phenomenon, the presence which is interpreted as apparent/appearance.

The first is free from natural order and space/time limitations that constrain the second, and so it is where the ideal of a one-god, finds is source. The only place absolutes can exist as ideas, is in the mind's simplifications and generalizations - cutting away dimensional space/time to construct a abstraction, a singularity.

We may even divide physis from metaphysis along the same lines.
Metaphysics is what bubbles out of the subconscious, or what impulsively and intuitively interprets sensual data. It is the body's automatic reactions and methods given forms and structure by a mind that discovers them as if they were independent from the body/mind synthesis.
Man correctly assumes that life emerges in accordance to natural patterns and explores them through introspection - the know thyself projected as an occult underlying realm governing all of existence.
Where man fails is to presume that all is ordered and that its own impulses and intuitions are free from corruptive elements, such as ego and the will to life.
We mistakenly assumes that his self-knowledge - spotty and selective as it may be - is free from an underlying motive which he then projects as a universal truth.
Metaphysics is an exploration of man's own psychological reactions to a world he does not entirely know or perceive, and an exploration of the processes that manifest in his self-awareness, attempting to find the source the origin.
Man can become lost or trapped in his own self, if he does not retain the sensual world as a guide and a standard - sort of like a buoy that can lead him out of a storm, or a ray of sunlight streaming into the cave pointing to a way out and an outside.
Data influx from external sources can be overwhelmed by data influx from esoteric sources.
Occult refers to the internal psychological realm, where ego and emotion can take over as the mind attempts to find the source of its own awareness.
Within the mind, ego and emotions hold sway in ways the external world remains indifferent to.

Descartes' Cogito still remains the fundamental conflict for modern man's spiritual impoverishment; the act of knowing that one is existing, is a hurdle moderns cannot overcome. "The leader also loses his individuality in his followers", as the video says. I've also written this before. Immersion in others, has to come with a loss of self, in order to empower the conceptual cause that everyone agrees to fight for, but no one understands. It all has to do with the simple need to know that ones exists, and exists for a purpose. Modernity detaches man from his existence itself.

The plight of the modern thinker is finding a revolutionary cause against and for the totalitarian menace of bullshit semantics.

They call it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and I consider just as important, if not more so, than I.Q., because it is a real-time behaviour of interacting with living organisms.
Theoretical intelligence, measuring data processing, pattern perception, is a useful guide, but E.Q. is a pragmatic application, in real-time, of an organism confronting a fluid environment, with conscious and unconscious agencies.
Emotion, is an automated response to stimuli. Its control and the degree to which it is allowed to express itself, is a matter of demeanour and training – socialization.
Autism being an example of an emotional imbalance that focuses on data without being able to accurately adjust emotional reactions. An absence of balance, in relation to environment, may produce self-repression - to the point of coldness - or exaggerated emotionalism, exploding in relation to the circumstances in unwanted proportions.
I think the root is an inability to empathize, compensating with an overemphasis on sympathy/antipathy projections.
The individual either losing himself in the other, or remaining completely detached and indifferent to them.
The latter is mostly a masculine corruption; the former mostly a feminine one.
Feminine psychologies immerse themselves, via projections, into the plight of others; masculine ones, unable to project, remain aloof, on the surface, perceiving only what is presented literally because they are unable to understand how theory is corrupted by application.
The mind is either overwhelmed by imagining itself in the other's place, or cannot imagine how an idea can be applied by another outside its theoretical principles.

Self-Awareness, Empathy and Self-Regulation are the main components of E.Q., manifesting as social skill, charm, a cooperative pleasant demeanour that draws attention and a desire to be around.
E.Q. is essential to social organisms, determining the individual’s ability to perceive its social environment and harmoniously position itself within it.
Motivation signifies a desire to do so, which implies a desire to participate and to cooperate.

MaGilichrist, Lain wrote:

DIFFERENCES ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, BUT EVEN SMALL DIFFERENCES GET TO BE AMPLIFIED

When I say the ‘left hemisphere does this’, or ‘the right hemisphere does that’, it should be understood that in any one human brain at any one time both hemispheres will be actively involved.
Unless one hemisphere has been surgically removed, or otherwise destroyed, signs of activity will be found in both. Both hemispheres are involved in almost all mental processes, and certainly in all mental states: information is constantly conveyed between the hemispheres, and may be transmitted in either direction several times a second. What activity shows up on a scan is a function of where the threshold is set: if the threshold were set low enough, one would see activity just about everywhere in the brain all the time. But, at the level of experience, the world we know is synthesised from the work of the two cerebral hemispheres, each hemisphere having its own way of understanding the world – its own ‘take’ on it. This synthesis is unlikely to be symmetrical, and the world we actually experience, phenomenologically, at any point in time is determined by which hemisphere's version of the world ultimately comes to predominate. Though I would resist the simplistic idea of a ‘(left or right) hemisphere personality’ overall, there is evidence I will look at later that, certainly for some kinds of activities, we consistently prefer one hemisphere over the other in ways that may differ between individuals, though over whole populations they tend to cohere.
For two reasons, even small differences in potential between the hemispheres at quite a low level may lead to what are large shifts at a higher level.
For one thing, as Ornstein has suggested, at the level of moment-to-moment activity the hemispheres may operate a ‘winner takes all’ system – that is, if one hemisphere is 85 per cent as efficient at a task as the other, we will not tend to divide the work between them in a ratio of 0.85:1.00, but consistently use whichever is better to do the whole job.12 On those occasions where the ‘wrong’ hemisphere does get in first, however, and starts to take control, at least for not very demanding tasks, it will most probably continue to trump the other hemisphere, even if the other hemisphere would have been a better choice at the outset – possibly because the time costs of sharing or transferring control are greater than the costs of continuing with the current arrangement.13 I will consider the working
relationship of the hemispheres in detail in the last chapter of Part I.
The other is that, though such winner-takes-all effects may still be individually small, a vast accumulation of many small effects could lead ultimately to a large bias overall, especially since repeated preference for one hemisphere helps to entrench still further an advantage that may start out by being relatively marginal. To the extent that a process goes on usefully in one hemisphere, it reinforces the sending of information preferentially to that hemisphere in the future. ‘Small initial differences between the hemispheres could compound during development, ultimately producing a wide range of functional asymmetries, via a “snowball” mechanism.’14 The hemispheres are thus involved in differentiating themselves.
Equally this lack of absolutism affects the way we need to understand the data. A finding can be perfectly valid, and even of the greatest significance overall, and yet admit of contrary findings. The average temperatures in Iceland and Indonesia are clearly very different, which goes a long way to explain the wholly different characteristics of the vegetation, animal life, landscape, culture and economy of these two regions, as well as no doubt much else that differentiates their ‘feel’ and the
ways of life there. But it is still true that the lowest average annual temperature in Indonesia is lower than the highest average annual temperature in Iceland – and of course the average temperature varies considerably from month to month, as well as, less predictably, from day to day, and indeed from place to place within each region. The nature of generalisations is that they are approximate, but they are nonetheless of critical importance for understanding what is going on. A misplaced need for certainty may stop the process altogether.
This also implies that generalisations can never be rules. As far as the hemispheres go, there is almost certainly nothing that is confined entirely to one or the other. I want to stress that, because I really do not wish to encourage simplistic dichotomising. The differences that I hope to establish are too nuanced to be encapsulated in a few words or simple concepts, but, I believe, they are nonetheless important for that. Descartes was a great dualist. He thought not only that there were two types of substance, mind and matter, but that there were two types of thinking, two types of bodily movement, even two types of loving; and, sure enough, he believed there were two types of people: ‘the world is largely composed of two types of minds …’15 It has been said that the world is divided into two types of people, those who divide the world into two types of people, and those who don't. I am with the second group. The others are too Cartesian in their categorisation, and therefore already too much of the party of the left hemisphere. Nature gave us the dichotomy when she split the brain.
Working out what it means is not in itself to dichotomise: it only becomes so in the hands of those who interpret the results with Cartesian rigidity.

The Master and His Emissary

MGilichrist, who I first encountered in a conversation with Peterson, implies what I've been saying for years.
Dualities are the fall-back position of consciousness, based on the division of the brain hemispheres - humans think in binary, and revert to it when they are stress, confused or damaged in some way.

The either/or of absolutism. Absolutes only existing in he mind, as an extension of the brain's form and the methods evolved from it.
I've traced it further back to cellular rhythms of systole/diastole - a basic organic process of breathing - spirit.

Positive/Negative are extensions of this, as is order/chaos.

All is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality, means that consciousness engages reality via the senses, after it has translated world into its own processes. It can become trapped in itself, believing that the world is its own interpretation of it.
This is why I say that although world is independent from all interpretation of it, that it exists, independently from mind/brain. We can only approach objectivity never realize it, because world is also fluctuating so it is not static and not absolutely ordered. We can never become omniscient, just as we cannot become omnipotent.

All other presumptions are metaphysical in the religious sense.
They project the concept as a cosmic truth
They assume that the existent is not relatively antagonistic to the organism but is in absolutely in harmony with it.
It's laws of nature or of logic are mistaken for universal truths.

Autism is characterized by an inability to read people.
They make genius data processors, like computers, because they never question the data but only regurgitate it.
They do not understand human nature, so they cannot relate to humans.
All they know are systems. How things work or ought to work, in accordance to theory.
They have no nuanced appreciation of their environment.

They do not make friends easily. extreme cases prevents human intimate relationships altogether, because these depend on empathy, or, at least, sympathy, i.e., the ability to relate to the other through projection.
The autistic mind cannot project. It only perceives.

Human systems are incomprehensible to it because all of them are 'perfect', in theory. and expose their imperfections in practice. If a system has not been applied then the autistic mind cannot perceive its application imperfections because these have to do with human nature, and that's their blind spot.

I once analysed how Modern systems manufacture idiot savants. Minds specialized in one field and totally inept in all others.
Autists and idiot savants share many traits, like nerdiness, i.e., specialized knowledge, approaching genius levels, but total impotence in all other forms of understanding.
Usually the lack of social ability is the cost of such dysfunctional.
An autistic mind, like an idiot savant, has a focused knowledge, usually dealing with the abstract, like music, mathematics, theory of some kind, but are unable to function in social environments where perceiving and quick analysis of data is required, and projecting self it other is essential.
An absence of imagination, exposed in their use of language.

On the other extreme we have those who are completely immersed in other and their language is unable to connect with experienced reality. They live in fantasy.

For the above reason, autists cannot make friends or maintain relationships, leading to their isolation and a sense of being excluded,. or shunned.
They need mentors, or external authorities to direct them and tell them what to think and believe. Their usually source of direction is through books where data is absorbed verbatim and understood literally.

They have difficulty with metaphors, sarcasm or anything that involves double-entedres. Everything is taken literally...as they also accept theories exactly as they are.
They have minimal critical thinking, if it does not involve cold, abstract, data. They easily absorb statistics and theories, but cannot apply them because of their mental dysfunction.
Inflexible, cold in their reasoning, yet naive on a profound level.

A common practice of saving face and asking for help to understand one's self, is to accuse another of what you fear ails you.
This would be the method used by autists.

I'm not even gonna diagnose individuals via the internet, because that's so fuckin' easy for me...I'm suffering from extreme empathy, the opposite of autism. I had to train myself not to sympathize or antipathize with every individual I came across.
It's been a life's journey.

I ask each individual to diagnose himself/herself by honestly answering a few simple questions:
1- Have you been able to establishes any long term intimate human relationships, outside family and relatives?
2- Have you ever been able to establish intimate relationships with more than one individual of the opposite sex?
3- Do you, often, find yourself confused or perplexed, by human behaviour?
4- Are you more comfortable with analysing or understanding theoretical ideas, than living beings?
5- Do you always feel alienated and excluded from all human groups, no matter how much you wish to be included?
6- Are you unable to engross yourself in art, primarily films, dealing with human relationships?

I know my answers to these questions so I can diagnose myself....but I cannot observe you in your everyday environment, so you must diagnose yourselves.
If I had direct contact this diagnose would be easy, for me. But using this medium I can only rely on language and time, which suffices but is slower.
Fortunately, most, if not all, humans desperately want to expose who and what they are, so what I lack in observation of their movement and subconscious actions, I gain, over time, through their verbal choices and actions, desperate to show themselves.
It, usually, doesn't take that much time, depending on the level of desperation.