Sociopath Community

Major Major Major said: 

Good said: 

It's irrelevant how I sound.

Irrelevant to what? Life's survival? It's pretty fucking relevant if you want to convey anything.

I mean holy shit, no offense, but I read all of what you wrote. It's similar to the bullshit they have on /r/zen. I bet it would sound hell of a lot less mysterious if you made even the minimal effort to draw examples and connect to something more concrete than evolution.

No hate here, this is all love.

It is irrelevant because I am not responsible for how something sounds to you, you are. It is what it is and if it sounds like anything else, I can't be bothered with that.

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Losing is an art itself. Ultimately when you lose, you must learn from it, not shake your resolve and not let your enemy even realize you lost, perhaps even find a way to use your loss to your strategic advantage.

Acceptance of a loss can reduce it's impacts, and utilizing it before someone else can can let you steal your own loss' thunder. In general, what it means to win or lose is largely self-defined, so if you can reduce the impacts of said loss without detaching from it then you're arguably that much more open to life experiences than someone who charges into every opportunity like it's a mission. There is value in knowing how to sit still and just take things as they come (Bumi's point about Neutral Jing). 

Acceptance of a loss is natural, it is what I described.

How many losses towards the same situation do you figure is too many? I've gone with losing being life's greatest teacher while winning just confirms where you already were, and I've found it worth climbing to pursue others of even greater skill to amount to even more noteworthy losses. 

Loss is not a goal, regardless of how it can teach you. There is no amount of losses that are too many.

I think more people would benefit from learning how to relax and otherwise find balance in their lives instead of pointing all their emphasis forward. 

Why do you assume that relaxing and balance is not pointing the emphasis forward?

This does not mean that you should accept losing as an option, it just happens.

So you don't believe in the notion of "cutting your losses"? 

There's a point sometimes when you just have to take the loss instead of pushing further.

Why exactly? If you learn from your loss, then this is clearly just you being defeatest, because you are tired.

You also describe harmony unharmoniously. Life's more easily handled like upkeeping a garden than some hill you need to fight for.

That is your choice. But it is stagnation in my world. You have the power to be more. And life is just weighing you down so you stop advancing: another one of life's tricks.

What's the point of being more if it's not an enjoyable path though? Why climb if that's not otherwise your natural path?

I don't see the value in the climb anymore beyond the financial incentives. I'd rather be able to relax with little than constantly struggle to grasp at 'more'. I'd rather be sated than constantly hungry. 

Because thats boring, among other things. It is not really a struggle if you are relaxed. You seem to think you can't be relaxed while doing all of this, this is wrong. If you, however, feel accomplished at not your maximum potential, as I already said, this is your choice. But, I think it is a trap and it is not mine.

You must neither stop nor try too hard.

I understand the latter, but what's really wrong with stopping beyond immediate context? 

If you're in a position where you don't have to do any more, why do more beyond your own individual reasons (like boredom)?

Because it is a trap, a trap of comfort. It's fine to stop to rest, but stop entirely? Did I die? Even if you are not bored, that will change once you get going again. It is easy to stop and sit once you feel comfortable, you even think its perfect. But once you get going, you feel even better.

Do what you want and do what you think must be done.

See, this is where I figure that in many cases that it makes more sense to reappraise ones stances and goals instead of push too hard over your own. 

Why work on changing the world when I could instead work on myself within it? There's a lot less to work with if I keep it smaller like that. 

Work on what you want. Why stop is the question?

Disregard the odds against you and think of a plan that will get you what you want. 

Disregarding the odds isn't really smart for the majority of cases...

If you think of a plan, it is smart. If you are just afraid, then you lost.

This is why a lot of people are weak. If you find a different way to be strong, I respect that as well. This is my way. 

Strength and Weakness are the same though beyond the context of the moment. A lot of guides even advise that people find ways of turning their weaknesses into strengths instead of going the Jack of All Trades route. 

Without having to focus on what once was required to be "strong", strength could instead be found in other, potentially more nuanced ways.

The context here is about life, so it is not really different. Turning a weakness into strength means it was not a weakness. The weakness is your thought process and if you fail to turn a situation to your advantage when you could of, that is your weakness.

Relaxation is one of the rewards of winning battles. Relaxation itself is a battle when you feel like you should worry and/or be stressed.

Relaxing can happen through tons of paths though, there's people who give away all of their possessions and sit in one place as their path to comfort. How it happens is on the individual in question, and I see more sense in adapting to what's available instead of reaching for what isn't yet there.

You don't need comfort to relax. It helps though. You adapt, not to be comfortable, but to advance.

You can't just charge into all situations expecting to get it the way you want, especially these days without some sort of passion project's worth of financial backing. Most people tend to make it by adapting to a current need instead of insisting upon their own.

You don't charge in, you think about it lol. It may take you years, it may take you hours. Adaptation is just a strategy.

I almost never let myself worry. It happens, but its hard and usually never repeats on the same subject/topic. 

That... seems unhealthy to me. 

I think gaining a proper tolerance to worrying is preferable over avoiding it. It can be a positive helpful ally if it's handled with moderation. 

Without worry there is no plans or strategy. 

I do not worry, because how often do you face something that is worth worrying? I am not in a vulnerable position. There is very little that can really impact me. And I've thought about it, even if I end up losing everything, I will still be alive and able to get back. Will suck, but why worry so much? And if I die, then I wont feel anything. It is just not relevant enough.

Worrying leads to defeat in your 'strategy', you don't make a strategy based on your emotions. Emotions are for your actions, they can and will be manipulated by your enemy, especially in the context of who your enemy is in this topic(life).

Stare at your fear, overcome it and then calmly prepare for it and ignore it.

Ignore it!?

No, no it should be weathered through, not ignored, otherwise you won't learn from it beyond how to not deal with how unpleasant it'd have otherwise been.

I'd rather deal with how unpleasant it is so that I might understand it, otherwise I'm burying something "my enemies" (or myself) might use against me later. I'd rather understand it so that it won't be my better, but rather my equal, allowing for some means of steering it from within it as well as a means of further relating to others going through the same things.

Once you conquer fear, you have learned all about it.
Once you prepare for it, you have already defeated it.
Then you ignore it because it is no longer relevant, other than to cause you harm.

^ it is what I said in the quote

Turncoat said: 

When it strikes, you will calmly and confidently execute your plan, because you are ready and you will win.
This is just detachment, and it's liable to inhibit growth while you pat yourself on the back in a Vulcan style. "It's the logical thing" is typically a cope to avoid the harder aspects of feeling, and it's even used like that in Star Trek itself about Spock in particular, praising his moments where he's more human than vulcan for that being the harder path to take. 

Avoiding feeling the situation means less experience serves to be gleaned from it. It has to have feeling or it's no different than just reading something out of a textbook. 

Feeling a situation is deceptive. In fact the best strategy in war is to exploit the feelings of your enemy. It is the most cost-effective method to victory. Your feelings must be left out when you plan your moves. Your feelings can only be used as materials, as part of the equation, but not as part of the process of calculating.

Do this enough and you will always be calm and confident because as you do it, you will also lose often and try and try and try, while still losing, until you start to win. Then you will fear neither loss or confrontation. 

This is avoidance. 

You may be physically present for the circumstances, but this sort of "planning" only serves to not fully deal with things. It depreciates it's depths.

It is avoidance because feelings are in your way, they should obviously be avoided when they are in your way. There is no 'depth' to this and you deal with things fully because you have detached and seen the situation clearly. If you do not, then you will never deal with it. You will always be stuck in the motions. Emotions are for motivation, pleasure and sensory information. They are not for planning, there they are your worst enemy.

War is not won by being a hothead or stressed. It is the cool and cold minds that prepare, think ahead, have vision and resolve that win. Thinking war is stressful, is thinking it as either the loser, the civilian or a new soldier.

You must think of it as the general. Soldiers, cities, people(or other objects in other contexts(money, relationships, etc)), they are all pawns and resources.

What's wrong with thinking like "A Civilian"? They're civil.

Civilians are not those that go to war, they just send others and hope for the best. They are at the mercy of others.

While it may sound cold, this is the only way to ensure victory with minimal loss (including loss of life if it is with real people).

I mean in life or death circumstances sure, you do what you have to, but when you have choices it's really more of a matter of preference. 

"Victory" is not one set of terms, and keeping them adaptive instead of all pre-planned is how to be ready for more. Blocking out the shit you don't like is a quick way to becoming rigid and unadaptive, even if the way you're doing it is through sub clauses within it (namely the depths of one's invested feelings) instead of avoiding the entire thing.

Keeping them adaptive, is pre-planned, not sure how it can be anything else. If by blocking the shit you dont like, you refer to detaching yourself from your emotions when you are in the process of decision making, then you are wrong. You do not block your emotions from your life, or from your decision even, just the process of forming it and this is required for a successful decision. If you do not mean this, then I do not know what blocking you speak of.

This does not mean to backstab your friends, if you value your friendship, because losing your friendship is rarely an acceptable loss towards a war. You must think of everything in context and anything can be part of the equation: friends, emotions, money, ideas, etc.

As Neegan said many times on Walking Dead, "People are a resource". 

Life is a series of conflicts and I always handle things as they are. It is my way(dealing with things as they are) and I can't say if its the best, but it sure feels like it to me, so I use it.

I feel like an afternoon at the Spa might do you some good. It sounds like a dig, but I mean this as someone who unironically enjoys the Spa experience now. 

You can still handle life responsibly without it having to seem so demanding. "Perception is Reality" effectively, and realigning one's goals oftentimes makes more sense. 

As a former chronic pre-planner, I'd say that if you can work on yourself to be able to handle what's thrown your way without pre-planning it all and emotionally detaching from it to see it through, you'll be that much more ready for The Unexpected. If you can't plan for everything, then it makes sense to plan for that.

You may be confusing pre-planning as overthinking. I do not pre-plan every detail, I mostly have an 'arsenal' and I know what can be done in which situation. I used to overthink things a lot, but I've learned how not to, sometimes I still get myself into it, but I've learned to stop when it happens.

I can't even imagine the unexpected at this point. But I do have a plan for it lol.

Major Major Major said: 

Good said: 

It's irrelevant how I sound.

Irrelevant to what? Life's survival? It's pretty fucking relevant if you want to convey anything.

I mean holy shit, no offense, but I read all of what you wrote. It's similar to the bullshit they have on /r/zen. I bet it would sound hell of a lot less mysterious if you made even the minimal effort to draw examples and connect to something more concrete than evolution.

No hate here, this is all love.

I feel like I was too harsh. I do not know what is on /r/zen, this is the first time I hear of that place's existence.

Not sure what examples you want, just debating on a forum is a kind of war. Having your opinion heard over others is a type of war. Getting what you want means that other people will not get what they want -> another war.
Everything can be interpreted as a war/battle.

And life is always in your way, you have to fight it. Working with life is to accept that you have no control, but you do have control.

War is methodical and helps create a structure about how to navigate this battlefield. You just need to contextualize it.

The problems with such motivational speech are many, let's start with the obvious ones.

1)You can't control shit, you can only control your reaction to it, or various conditions that are involved in it.

If a car hits you while you are walking down a street and you are unaware about it coming, you already sealed a deal that's beyond your control. (hospital, death, not being able to walk, brain damage blah blah)

You can say that it was in your control-to not being naive and unaware and look at your environment but.

It can happen even when you are using your capabilities fully towards an effective purpose, failure that is.

So that's the number one problem so far, you overestimate humans for the sake of appealing to a logic that involves them being dedicated, strong, and controlling their own life instead of being passive.

Problem number 2)

Sometimes being passive and staying still, is better than acting.

As insane as it sounds, sometimes that's the best approach, and by staying still i don't refer to not caring or avoiding the issue, i refer to stoicism.

Some things, some times, in very very rare cases.

Are completely-beyond-your control.

You can't fix them, you can't affect them, and no matter how much you try, they make you their bitch.

if you think that such cases are rare, you are either one sided, or inexperienced. Being powerless can happen, and it's the worst emotion for a man, or a person-who cares.

Problem number 3)

You overestimate an ideology that works based on specific-conditions.

Everyone, with no exceptions, can break under excessive amount of pressure or pain.

Unless he is completely apathetic, which would be the same as being lobotomized, everyone-can-break.

You can state all those meanwhile you are in your logical state of mind, but if your whole family died, you lost your job, you were homeless, and on top of that there were no chances -for any of these issues to be solved.

You would be depressed as well, <<trust me>> about that.

Which gets me to the problem 4. The major one. To quote.

4) You aren't a war with life, you are part of it, and if the combination of the conditions that structure it, health-economy-people-events decide to lay waste on you, you will be wasted.

That's the problem with your logic, it's delusional. Life-isn't in war with you, and you aren't in war in life, you are simply struggling in it. If you can't understand the symbolic difference here, you are coping. Simple as that.

Unless you tell me that even if the whole life gave you it's worst cards, you would still get up.

Can you say that?

Aizen said: 

 

The problems with such motivational speech are many, let's start with the obvious ones.

 

1)You can't control shit, you can only control your reaction to it, or various conditions that are involved in it.

If a car hits you while you are walking down a street and you are unaware about it coming, you already sealed a deal that's beyond your control. (hospital, death, not being able to walk, brain damage blah blah)

You can say that it was in your control-to not being naive and unaware and look at your environment but.

It can happen even when you are using your capabilities fully towards an effective purpose, failure that is.

 

So that's the number one problem so far, you overestimate humans for the sake of appealing to a logic that involves them being dedicated, strong, and controlling their own life instead of being passive.

 

Problem number 2)

Sometimes being passive and staying still, is better than acting.

As insane as it sounds, sometimes that's the best approach, and by staying still i don't refer to not caring or avoiding the issue, i refer to stoicism.

Some things, some times, in very very rare cases.

Are completely-beyond-your control.

You can't fix them, you can't affect them, and no matter how much you try, they make you their bitch.

if you think that such cases are rare, you are either one sided, or inexperienced. Being powerless can happen, and it's the worst emotion for a man, or a person-who cares.

 

Problem number 3)

You overestimate an ideology that works based on specific-conditions.

Everyone, with no exceptions, can break under excessive amount of pressure or pain.

Unless he is completely apathetic, which would be the same as being lobotomized, everyone-can-break.

You can state all those meanwhile you are in your logical state of mind, but if your whole family died, you lost your job, you were homeless, and on top of that there were no chances -for any of these issues to be solved.

You would be depressed as well, <<trust me>> about that.

Which gets me to the problem 4. The major one. To quote.

4) You aren't a war with life, you are part of it, and if the combination of the conditions that structure it, health-economy-people-events decide to lay waste on you, you will be wasted.

That's the problem with your logic, it's delusional. Life-isn't in war with you, and you aren't in war in life, you are simply struggling in it. If you can't understand the symbolic difference here, you are coping. Simple as that.

Unless you tell me that even if the whole life gave you it's worst cards, you would still get up.

Can you say that?

A side note:

"It's in your hands if you get up or you chose to find a way" -doesn't work

It's not in your hands at all, you can be the best in programming-but if there are no computers to program, and you lack the tools to make one-you-can't do shit.

"It's in your power, composure, coldness, and reaction how you will treat the issue".

Not really, you composure, power, coldness and reactions matter to you specifically, and they help you specifically, whether they will affect the issue it's self or not, is up for debate. Cause the issue could be even something you don't -even understand.

"I dealt with hardships in my life, and i got up"

Means nothing, so did i, doesn't work as an argument. No one cares, results matter, and results can be beyond your control.

Take your time, and please make sense don't ruin this cause you got triggered, please.

So which of the two posts should I read?

Good said: 

So which of the two posts should I read?

 I tried to edit it and i ended up quoting it somewhow lol.

Read the second one because it's beter with the dark-background.

Goot luck in countering the points,  stop avoiding the goat and let's debate.