Natasha Tori Maru

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.

This is a broader topic that can also apply to many users issues with understanding women ❤️❤️❤️

An insight is “true,” or it is not really an insight. An insight is not simply an opinion or a guess. An insight is an authentic experience. An insight is beyond any belief—it is instead something personally encountered and understood. An insight is self-validating, since the truth or validity of the realization lies inherent in the thing realized. An insight is authentic, and a person who has one will speak with authority since no guesswork is involved. With insight, a clear and personal grasping of the subject matter is the authority Do we agree with the above? Do you have any body, emotion, or feeling sensations along with an insight that indicate the experience for you? I do. Tell me what you experience adjacent to your insights.

@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.

You think you can grab or claim a woman without paying conscious attention to emotions?

I would start off by approaching the discovery of someone's values and their value structure by spearheading toward relational based questions. Lean into relational over analytical (you need both though). Analytical understanding is good to uncover someone's stated values - but people can lie, virtue signal or simply be telling themselves a story they want to believe about what they value. Relational understanding give you access to an often overlooked dataset that isn't often seen when we analyse. This delves into what actually has meaning for the person. Relational based questions often need us to understand meaning - the persons meaning - to fully grasp. But they result in that person feeling seen and sharing a sense of belonging and being. Powerful. - What makes life feel really worthwhile to you? - When do you feel most alive? - What sort of experience leave you feeling deeply fulfilled? - What do you care about so much that you actually feel hurt when it goes wrong? - When do you feel most yourself? - What do you admire in someone that makes you think "I want to be just like that!" - What kind of things make you angry? Not just irritated, like morally angry? - What makes you feel deeply connected to someone? - What do you wish there was more of in the world? Often times you will discover many people haven't done the work to brainstorm and identify their values. You can ask them directly what the value through analytical questions, but I have found this can be a minefield of self deception! IE someone states something is important to them, but their actions show communicate something completely different. Relational questions can get to the meat of the person in a more effective way. By analytical questions/insights I mean: What are your values? What principles do you live by? What do you prioritize? What qualities do you admire in others or what would you never compromise on? While these can be more direct - they are often not the total truth when it comes to humans. Our values are deeply connected to our emotions, feelings, desires and experiences, and these often reveal themselves through our preferences and behaviour... So I find it more helpful to address these types of topics by relating to the meaning of the person. Driving toward their emotions and feelings to uncover what their actions might show value toward. And not just words. Sometimes this can also illustrate where a commitment overrides a preference - which gets SUPER interesting as how the person deals with the conflict between feeling and value can itself reveal so much about a persons character! You could then split this into stated values, lived/revealed values and overriding commitments. This is why listening and observing others is a real epistemic skill & talent.

@Inliytened1 I am telling you - people would rather contemplate what a cup is that actually try to contemplate an emotion and what THAT is. Most people are terrified of their emotions. I can't think of anyone who isn't using some method to escape feeling something Half the shit we get ourselves into is simply trying to avoid them.

You need to educate yourself and purge your mind of this backwards thinking. My post is being sarcastic and returning your rhetoric against you.

Men must be a huge genetic mix of women's particles inside them then, they must be passing down all the genetic particles from the women that have gotten into their bodies and brains. Mens children must have all the traits from the women they have had sex with.

Not needing closure. Or Resolve. Settled. Residing - none of these are resistance to knowing. When I am in dialogue with someone I don't always feel like I need to come to a conclusion. In any event - I suspect you did not attempt to relationally understand me here - which is more what I am pointing to. My comment quoting you could have been a comment illustrating Leo's behavior. I don't think you asked me what I meant before assuming it applied to you (at least, this is what it how it appears) - and then defended. Relational understanding vs analytical understanding. Go too far one way we tend to retard the other.

Sometimes we have to inspect why we are motivated to respond. In fact - it is always beneficial to do so. Especially when we are analyzing someone's behavior rather than relating to them

Fear, anger & jealously are the poisons we drink expecting the other person to die. Don't drink.

This is what I call "provoking" an answer to an unspoken question (assumption, in this case). It can be a supremely powerful technique to prompt willingly given information from a person. It has the effect of drawing out information without the person feeling interrogated. It usually creates curiosity around what sort of context you are approaching someone from - hence the questions from the other party. The secondary affect is a useful proxy: you are essentially prompting a person to "correct" your assumption. This can be a pleasant agoic experience and reveals how YOU respond to being wrong & corrected. How you react here is important. If you can be corrected and remain open, curious & untriggered, you project calm safety signals which women immediately register. The context underneath this form of interaction is where the meat of the info is 😁