mostly harmless

You should watch Ajahn Brahm on self compassion If you live in a country where you have to pay for psychotherapy, then a buddhist society could be an alternative. Seriously. Some of the best psychologist borrow buddhist perspectives, knowledge and techniques.

This is how to learn effectively. Particularly how to focus on what you need to know for your current project, avoid overwhelm etc. Blender, as in the video title, is a 3D modeling, animation and rendering software. However what is said in the video is universal. And it's very well said. If you want to learn anything, watch this.

Terence McKenna talks about various psychedelic experiences. Some are hilarious. Not into this but I thought you might be interested.

Logotherapy developed by Viktor Frankl is worth a look. But it depends of course on what for you're seeking therapy. And of course not all psychologists are automatically great just because they have a legit degree from a University. You may have to look around a bit before you find a good one. I would see it as a good sign if the psychologist is into buddhism or has also studied philosophy. Psycho analysis is in my book a long process which may provide you with an alibi feeling of working on the problem while you're actually just spending many years with somebody who diligently and professionally takes stock of your problems, instead of actually changing anything. I would not do that.

Have you read Eckhart Tolle or seen some interview or his talks on youtube? That would be a recommendation. When I am bothered what someone thinks of me, I like to think of something that Eben Pagan once said: 'What other people think of me is none of my business.' Add to that: Whatever somebody thinks about you, it's not the truth, it's an opinion. And whatever idea anybody has about who someone is, it's always wrong –at least to some extent. Let's take a person who most people would agree is horrible. Even for that person, there's probably another person, who thinks he or she is good. Add that any blame or accusation is really meant as a punishment for wrongdoing. And this is both an inadequate way to relate to people, and it is inefficient in the way that it is not suited to make someone change their allegedly wrong behavior. Whatever someone (allegedly) did that was (allegedly) wrong, that person did the best they could in that situation based on their abilities and consciousness. That means that you cannot blame anyone for anything, really. Laws still have to be enforced and I wouldn't propose to let others take advantage of you being too understanding. But blaming is just primitive. So what would that mean if someone would blame you for something? That means, that you are not to blame. You did the best you could, and maybe your best is worthy of criticism, and maybe it's worth investing energy into doing better next time, but an attack to make you feel bad just for the sake of making you feel bad is, again, primitive. So bringing a behavior problem to someone's attention, that's fine if it is aimed at improvement. If it is meant to hurt someone, then it is in itself bad behavior. You see where I am going with this? If somebody attacks you, calls you names, that person has a problem. Not you. If you in deed do behave in a way that is to the disadvantage of others, then there are civilized ways to prevent that, make you aware, make you change. I admit there are situations where someone is unfair to others for example, when it is hard not to attack that person verbally. Still I am convinced that lashing out on someone is poor behavior in itself and it decreases the chances of changing the problem. Aside from these thoughts, I think it would help you tremendously if you could disidentify with the person who you think you are. You are not that person. You are not the person someone else thinks you are. You are not any person at all. Your life could become a lot less stressful.

When you say you or someone is an introvert, a kind person, this or that, you fossilize or freeze a momentary state. The most critical problem this produces, is that it defines what you think a person is (in past, present and future, forever basically). If you use this thinking, you are unknowingly implementing the paradigm that persons have a static character (also that persons are distinctive entities, but one thing at a time... ). This rules out a different way of seeing a person (yourself or someone else): As an ever changing process. A great benefit of the latter perspective is that you don`t force your idea of who a person is onto someone else*, which can be regarded as a kind of violence and can provoke anger and problems in relationships, and it enables you to be open for anyone to change (also good because your assumptions about somebody can be flawed unbeknownst to you). *When you have a conversation with 1 other person, there are really 4 persons having that conversation: 1. You. 2. The other. 3. The person who the other thinks you are. 4. The person who you think the other is. Person 1 is talking to person 4. Person 2 is talking to person 3. Person 1 and 2 are *not* talking with each other. Now if you stay open minded for the other person to be different than you had thought they are (you thought they were person 4 while they are actually person 2), do you see how that may help the conversation and prevent conflict? "You can never step into the same river twice."

In art the experience of life from an individual perspective in the moment of its creation –which can not be put into words– can be expressed and communicated via aesthetics and therefore be shared with other people. Great art can change how people see the world. Aesthetics is a domain of philosophy. Maybe you want to check out a lecture or two at youtube and read essays, books on that topic. I have no doubt that this will help you form your idea of what art is in general, to you in particular and what you may want to express and achieve through creating art.

I'd like to add that what appears attractive with women changes with age. When 18 years old, I think boys prefer very slim girls with baby faces. With baby face I mean not only big eyes but also their face not showing any traces of character or experience, like a blank face. I think for guys older than 23, curves tend to become more interesting. Individual tastes may differ, of course. Men from low income families and areas in particular allegedly prefer more shapely women (that claim seems to be hardened when you think of the ideal in India or Africa). Not me though unless Helga Lovekaty would qualify (I don't think so).

Bill Gates made a point that you should only hire the best of the best people because those support other great people whereas when you have mediocre people, they will sabotage and keep down great people (or not even hire them) because they see them as a menace to themselves. In general the people who are most confident that they are more than average in intelligence, are typically below average. Add that people driven by status and feel the most entitled, are most often psychopathologic bullies and stupid, yet ignorant of their stupidity.

I'd say it depends on a particular man's level of consciousness. If it's low, it's 100% physical. Men who have a low status may be forced to not be so focused on appearance. Men who aren't totally superficial (anymore) will look for other qualities: Intelligence, similar level of consciousness, compatible ideas what a romantic relationship would be and can contribute to their lives (monogamous or not, being emotionally very close or not, kids or not, how much time you actually spend together, how much sex you'll expect), ... I'd say that however also for men who are at an above average level of consciousness, the physical aspects never go to 0% importance. For me personally, it's a 2 step process. In the first step, a woman has to be physically attractive. If that isn't the case, we can be friends, but she won't get to level 2. Step 2 is all the non-physical qualities. If that isn't a fit, I might still like the person, but she can look like a super model and I am not interested anyway. Both have to be attractive enough.

Would be interested in your general thoughts on speed reading and possibly particular techniques you use (if any).

42

Composer Rick Beato shares a personal story to illustrate why to never give up.

Second is Kelly McGinigal as posted in another thread. Her book "The Willpower Instinct" has maybe about 20x-40x as much content as this speech. She put a lot of work into that book. Recommended read.

Sex is boring. You can see it any time of day on the Discovery Channel. Add that there's only 2 models of humans. Everybody looks more or less the same.