Natasha Tori Maru

Okay, cheers. You avoid parts of my enquiry. I won't press further. I perceive the above is a bit circular. It appears like a potentially self-validating epistemic structure. "I see the hidden psychological structure and others don't, so their ordinary interpretation is superficial & my deeper model explains why they are missing it". Because if anyone disagrees with you, their disagreement can be explained as "They simply don't have sufficiently high resolution psychological modelling capability". If you follow. I do this also. Leo does this.

Cheers ~ It didn't intend it as a nit-pick - it was rather clumsy and poorly phrased question by me that didn't communicate my thoughts properly. I should have said "why do you think so few people see the pattern"? People largely aren't oblivious to seeing poor behaviour - I think many see behaviour and do not call it out. I also think it is a ordinary human behavioural pattern to call it out. It does not necessarily need a psychological motive. And to be clear, I am aware I am putting forth a hypothesis that involves inference. I am inviting you to correct me So to rephrase - how did you come to the "mostly no one else sees the harmful pattern" conclusion? And to be even more frank, this: is probably the sort of leap I see you make often. I would move to challenge this because it requires substantially more evidence than you have access to.

@Joshe Can I ask why you think no one else sees the pattern you illustrate and the causative harm chain? How did you come to this conclusion?

@Joshe correct - that's why I (if you reread carefully, I think you again didn't relationally ask me) didn't claim to know exactly what you mean. I offered my hypothesis and asked you to tell me. That's what I am saying to do. The worst my post could come across as is a speculative interpretation with some explicit epistemic hedging. And yes, my speculation is analytical and looking at mechanism as a possible explanation. But once again, I am asking your meaning, but also illustrating potential gaps that could be missed in this process. Calling out Leo by psychologically analysing him can be received poorly. Just also Leo's words can be received poorly. Do I mean to understand this as a rightuous endeavour on your behalf? Also again you express to "know I am probably cringing" . Also notice I am not saying your model is wrong.

@KosmicGeng You misunderstand on all counts.

You need to be able to relationally understand to know. Sad state of affairs.

@KosmicGeng I'm not saying anything about the state of women in my post. Let's make sure we don't twist anything around in our minds to justify dehumanising and objectifying others.

Come on. The issue with this thread is not that people are discussing sex. This discussion is starting to reduce women to sexual objects and turning personal sexual preferences into sweeping claims about women's value/beauty/age at which they should be pursued. Keep it to your own experiences and perspectives. Stop generalising about women or treating them as a category of sexual targets. ‘Feminist propaganda’ and similar rhetoric also isn't a substitute for an argument. Sexual discussion is fine. Just don't objectify and put forth misogynistic generalisations.

I agree. My post was definitely more pointers to work out values - almost in a dyad style template to contemplate with a partner (or prospective one!). Most people don't even know their values and they unconsciously play them out. Which is why relational approaches can be better than simple analytical style questioning. The person is seen rather than analysed. To add more complexity; our values change as we grow through experience. Having the ability to relate to another keeps us in touch with that person's meaning. Rather than falling back on analysing and questioning. Following someone into their experience reveals a lot more. Analysis has its place to supplement the answers we find through being with another in this way. Many times people are dishonest (aware or not, intentional or not) with themselves regarding values.

@Jordan of the Shire Appreciate your interaction with my process My experience of this process is as an energetic release actually! As confidence goes up, I feel an energetic release in my body as a result of my thoughts of doubt, second guessing and uncertainty fade into the background "dissolve". The energy that was going toward that inner narrative is then diverted to the task at hand - heightening focus, awareness and efficiency. As I have worked on my own strange behaviours in place to manage my emotions (to avoid them mainly) the released energy has translated to an ease of being. Of life. I am not getting in my way, so to speak Totally - and I think this insight was particularly powerful because I found it within my OWN experience. I identified it and recognised it as a pattern I was experiencing. As opposed to an insight about reality that I observed/identified, but wasn't found in my behaviour or internal experience. It felt like a puzzle piece clunking in place with that particular cardboard-y friction click or satisfaction!

It sounds like that's your experience of it.

I agree. Many times we just can't identify or be aware of our emotions. Especially if we have built elaborate behaviours to avoid them. What is "like" but an expression of a feeling/emotion? I ain't letting you off so easy! 😁

That all requires emotions - and paying attention to them.

Ha! You are kidding yourself

Understand my meaning. Not just surface analysis where you think because a mechanism is "explained" their behaviour, intentions, meaning and experience are known. For example - with a passage like this: What are you trying to achieve, other than to advertise an analytical observation of mechanistic behaviour? It substitutes analytical interpretation for relational understanding. Your action here appears to take Leo's observed rhetoric and convert it to a model of Leo's inner state and motives. That model/analysis may be partially or entirely correct. Do you think you might be trying to produce insight? This is unlikely, by itself, to produce the kind of self-recognition that facilitates voluntary change. Especially as this sort of analytical model-push has been repeated by you many times (and others) on the forum, over a prolonged period. Again I make no comment as to whether I think you are correct or not. If you want to achieve a change in Leo, you need to create the possibility of affecting recognition from him. He needs to recognise himself in your representation of him. There is very little relational connection occurring in the interaction as described. Connection needs to have this relational aspect to be transformational. Hit from both axis (insight "There is a pattern here" + recognition "Yes, I see this pattern occurring in me"). Your analysis of Leo denies his meaning before discovering it. Imagine Leo responds to the above "That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm actually trying to articulate something I think people are misunderstanding." Often the response will be: "That's exactly what someone with a superiority complex would say." (in fact, I can imagine you writing this - and maybe you wouldn't, but my mind took me there!). But that is a self sealing model where anything Leo says is more evidence for the model. That is the opposite of relational understanding. This the other dataset you are overlooking by focusing so much on analytical understanding (mechanistic explanation) then the "mind reading" epistemological leap. And that dataset is found in relational understanding. By avoiding relating in this way, you subtly dehumanise Leo (you may not intent to do this at all, it is just this mode of relating can have dehumanising effects regardless of intention). You can remove yourself from the relational experience of what you're saying, and therefore from what it may be like to repeatedly have someone interpret your inner world through armchair psychology. Stripping someone of their humanity like this is just going to block your message from being recognised. Relational knowledge and understanding is part of the pathway by which another person can actually receive and integrate a message. Explanation is not understanding. Having said all that - this is why I am confused as to what you are trying to achieve. If you just fancy your ability to diagnose and play psychologist, or if you are genuinely trying to get through to Leo and aren't aware that you have more tools available to you. And if the case is the latter - the dehumanising effect your persistent comments can cause is shooting you in the foot.