Считаете ли вы, что следует избегать полит. обсуждений на форуме?

[acapnotic]

But yet, not everyone who perceives the world as hostile and threatening is a control freak. There are other ways of dealing with the problem, ranging from hyperactivity to complete non-participation.

Non-participants are simply failed control freaks. They don't believe in their ability to control the world, and since the prospect of living in it and not controlling it is unbearable, they decide to leave it.

If they don't do that literally, by committing suicide, they confine themselves to their minds. They truly live only there, if anywhere at all. There is simply no more place to retreat. Actually even thoughts are too real, and they can't fully control even them, so the only way out is death, of course. But it simply destroys everything rather than solving the problem. Besides, killing oneself means messing with the world, which they have an aversion for. It means going out in the wild, in an uncontrollable area and doing something that has uncontrollable consequences. Even if you succeed with the suicide, you still don't know what will be after life and so, quite logically, you can't control it. But you absolutely have to. So you are absolutely stuck.

This craving for control stems from a deep distrust of everything and everyone that exists, including yourself as a part of this reality. And what you can't trust, you must control or run away from. What else can you do? Make friends with it? That would be ideal, but your distrust is the result of your failed attempts to do exactly that, so it's no longer an option. You just don't believe in it. It's too good to be real.

[Easy-Breezy English]

Whoa, that's seriously grim. I'm not liking where this is going as it's starting to sound borderline psychotic.

This craving for control stems from a deep distrust of everything and everyone that exists

Okay, let's play it out with logic since this seems to be the language you speak best. So, they don't trust anyone or anything, alright. Do they expect an attack by defaut? If that's the case, are they afraid of physical destruction? This doesn't make sense as they seem to be more than ready to go. What then? What's their fear?

[acapnotic]

What's their fear?

Whatever. Why does it matter? Just imagine that deep down you always expect something bad to happen because the world is dangerous and hostile. You can't trust it and so can't simply let it be. That's why you need to control it. And then either you think you can or you think you can't. Obviously your behavior won't be the same, even though in both cases you are a control freak.

Controlling isn't necessarily telling people what to do. It's getting them to do what you need regardless of what they want. With brute force or subtle manipulation, or something else. Whatever you are good at.

[Easy-Breezy English]

It's getting them to do what you need regardless of what they want.

I've always thought that this is an intrinsic characteristic of any living being. Your definition puts every single person into the control freak category, thus making your point moot. What would the alternative be? Not wanting others to behave in the way that's most favorable to us? That would be irrational.

Whatever. Why does it matter? Just imagine that deep down you always expect something bad to happen because the world is dangerous and hostile. You can't trust it and so can't simply let it be. That's why you need to control it.

It's not whatever, it matters. I can see the world as generally hostile, but upon considering my fears I might choose to ignore the dangers or scale down my paranoia. I'm neither resigning, nor engaging in megalomania, but rather hoping to do what I can in some ways and luck out in others. But I still believe the world to be fairly inhospitable. Does this make me a control freak still?

[gavenkoa]

А оказалось, совсем наоборот. Настроение хорошее на весь день, улыбаюсь всем

Кровь вынесла продукты жизнедеятельности. Ускорили обмен веществ.

И мозг впрыснул энторфинчиков, жить стало веселее ))

[acapnotic]

Not wanting others to behave in the way that's most favorable to us? That would be irrational.

It's one thing if you want, another if you need, and yet another if you have to. If a man wants to have sex with all women that are attractive to him, it's probably nothing special. But what if he needs it? It's already not quite normal because, objectively, no man really needs all the women he wants. And what if he has to have sex with all of them? He is a sexual maniac, apparently.

In my posts above I used 'need' and 'have to' because they are what I mean, not just to avoid repetition. :)

The level of anxiety is different in different people, so it's no wonder that the strength of their drive to control is also different. You yourself used anxiety to explain the behavior of control freaks. But what is the source of that anxiety? To me it's pretty obvious that it must be their view of the world as dangerous and hostile place. That view was caused by some early experience and sits in their subconscious, controlling them from behind the scenes. On the surface, they may explain their behavior with some rationalizations and consider it reasonable.

But I still believe the world to be fairly inhospitable.

Conscious beliefs are another matter. If you grew up in a healthy family, where members were generally accepted, supported and respected, you know the good side of life. Your world view has light colors as well as dark. You may be currently in trouble but you know with certainty that good life is out there and you can have it -- why? because you've had it already. Which means that you deserve it, that you are good enough to have it. It's yours by right.

But if you grew up in a failed family, where you saw little to nothing of what I mentioned above and a lot of the opposite, your world view will be different. It will be full of gloom and doom. Acceptance, support, respect, honesty, love will be mostly just words to you. You'll know theoretically that they exist and that some people seem to enjoy them, but what about you? Why weren't you given those good things? Apparently because you are not good enough and the world doesn't love you. Probably it even hates you. It doesn't want you. You are its unwanted child. There is no place for you at the feast of life. :) And so on.

Consciously, you may think differently, quite rationally, but that ancient world view is still there and casts its grim shadow. And since you've lived all your life in that shadow, it may even not occur to you to question it. It's just how things are for you. "Life sucks and then you die."

Feeling rejected by the world, you either turn to manipulating it or say, "Okay, if you don't want me, I don't want you" and become a non-participant.

[Easy-Breezy English]

You yourself used anxiety to explain the behavior of control freaks. But what is the source of that anxiety? To me it's pretty obvious that it must be their view of the world as dangerous and hostile place.

Again, I think it's a gross oversimplification. Not everyone who's anxious turns it against others. It's often turned against oneself (e.g., eating disorders) or even put to good use, and the level of anxiety has little to do with it. You're trying to stretch the definition by including non-participants into the controlling group. It's like saying that everyone who's genetically predisposed to alcohol addiction is in fact an alcoholic, even though they might've not had a drop of liquor in their life.

What does this reasoning do to help us explain why some people engage in controlling their fellow individuals while others don't? Even though they may all see the world as hostile.

But if you grew up in a failed family,

Very few people grew up in perfectly healthy families. So now we're going to weigh the proportion of good and bad they saw in their childhood to calculate their predilection to control others? And then take someone like Chekhov. An extremely screwed-up, abusive childhood. And yet the guy turned out to be noble, compassionate, and empathetic.

Telling you, we're missing something here.

[acapnotic]

Again, I think it's a gross oversimplification. Not everyone who's anxious turns it against others.

So what? Your reasoning goes like this dialoge:
"Why is this man dead?"
"He was shot."
"Not everyone who's shot dies. It's a gross oversimplification."

You're trying to stretch the definition by including non-participants into the controlling group. It's like saying that everyone who's genetically predisposed to alcohol addiction is in fact an alcoholic, even though they might've not had a drop of liquor in their life.

Well, they say that if you are an alcoholic, you are an alcoholic for life, even if you've managed to quit drinking. Those who are predisposed but haven't drunk are latent alcoholics. And non-participants are failed control freaks.

What does this reasoning do to help us explain why some people engage in controlling their fellow individuals while others don't? Even though they may all see the world as hostile.

Do you also think that being predisposed to alcoholism does nothing for its explanation because it alone can't explain why some people become alcoholics and others don't?

So now we're going to weigh the proportion of good and bad they saw in their childhood to calculate their predilection to control others?

I thought you wanted to be scientific. Science is about measurement and calculation. But it seems you are looking for some magical factor that will explain everything.

[Easy-Breezy English]

I thought you wanted to be scientific.

If I wanted to be scientific, I wouldn't be shooting the shit on this board. :-)

So, what kind of a control freak are you? Failed? Latent? Aspiring? :-)

[acapnotic]

So, what kind of a control freak are you? Failed? Latent? Aspiring? :-)

All three, and counting. :) What about you?

[Easy-Breezy English]

All three, and counting.

Yeah, I was definitely starting to get the vibe. LOL!

What about you?

Me, a feeble female? My power is in submission. :-)

[Харбин Хэйлунцзян]

We ought to have a great deal of circumspection in conversations of religion and government, because they are public matters, and subjects on which particulars are not at liberty to say what they think, especially, if their thoughts are in opposition to those established in the country where they are.

John Trusler

[mustang]

Харбин Хэйлунцзян,

John Trusler is a real dick, then.

Преподобный Джон Трюслер был эксцентричным английским божественным, литературным составителем и медицинским эмпириком.

You should have read up on him before posting this nonsense here.

[Харбин Хэйлунцзян]

Преподобный Джон Трюслер был эксцентричным английским божественным, литературным составителем и медицинским эмпириком.

You should have read up on him before posting this nonsense here.

Мы с вами отличаемся тем что я читаю и цитирую человека, а вы тупого Google робота.

-

[mustang]

Мы с вами отличаемся тем что я читаю и цитирую человека, а вы тупого Google робота.

Молодец, следуешь его заповедям?

зы И чё такой сегодня вежливый? Не сдерживай себя, милок.

[acapnotic]

Yeah, I was definitely starting to get the vibe.

Btw, what do you think about argument? Is it an attempt to control another's thoughts? Since people are stupid (compared to you), you can't trust their ability to think correctly and have to control them. When someone is wrong on the internet, you feel an urge to come and set them straight.

[Easy-Breezy English]

When someone is wrong on the internet, you feel an urge to come and set them straight.

LOL! Is that why you argue with me? Would you like to control me? Am I somehow threatening to your universe?

[Ленья]

П-п-помедленнее, я записываю...
amicability, palatable, regimented, predilection, in the guise of, an avertion to sth, to beat a hasty retreat, feeble...что там дальше было? А, этот, ...and counting

[acapnotic]

Is that why you argue with me?

No, I thought that maybe it was why you argued with me.

Would you like to control me?

I already control you with my avatars, don't you remember? :) I can bring back that guy with a pack of soda at any moment if you behave too badly.

[Easy-Breezy English]

П-п-помедленнее, я записываю...

Ах-ха-ха!!! acapnotic, улыбайтесь, за нами, оказываются, наблюдают. ))

[Easy-Breezy English]

No, I thought that maybe it was why you argued with me.

See, this is how the strength of our convictions clouds our vision. :-)

Going by your blanket definition of control freaks, though, I might as well come off as one. After all, I'm trying to influence your thinking, so this makes me controlling by default. It must be my hidden agenda then, right? Well, wrong.

There was an actual example of an attempt to control earlier in this thread. Mustang didn't like me talking penises because that was at odds with his image of me. So, he wanted me to stop. See the difference?

[acapnotic]

It must be my hidden agenda then, right?

No, not must. Can, may.

Well, wrong.

How can you be so sure? Our hidden agenda can be hidden even from ourselves. Knowing that you've had experience with psychoanalysis, I'm surprised that you ignore this possibility.

Mustang didn't like me talking penises because that was at odds with his image of me. So, he wanted me to stop. See the difference?

No, not really. What is it?

[Easy-Breezy English]

Ok, let's backtrack since we are getting bogged down in irrelevant points.

Your argued that the urge to control stems from perceiving the world as threatening. Which I refuted by saying that this is a nearly universal sentiment. Only a complete idiot would see reality as inherently benevolent. Needles to say, this idiot wouldn't survive out in the wild for too long. So, this line of argument isn't getting us anywhere.

My point is that it matters how exactly you go about controlling your environment. You basically have two choices: to act (and abstaining can be seen as one such form of action) or to delegate this responsibility to others by telling them what to do. Remember what we started with? Why do some people prefer to silence others rather than generate their own content that could potentially attract new members with similar interests?

Of course you can dispute my position by saying that forcing others to do something is an action in itself. And you did in fact come up with this argument. But this is what cherkas would call sophism, I think. :-) Pretty boring.

How can you be so sure? Our hidden agenda can be hidden even from ourselves.

And how can you be sure you aren't hallucinating right now? How can you be sure I even exist?
Come on, this kind of rhetoric is notoriously unproductive. Even though we can't ever be certain of anything, we just have to operate on the assumption that some things are ...er... more real than others.
I understand my motivation for talking to you fairly well, so I'm not too inclined to look for some clandestine reasons unbeknownst to myself.

[acapnotic]

Easy-Breezy English, so you seem to believe that people are conscious in their every move. Okay, but then I don't think we can agree about anything psychological. Talking about such matters, we speak different languages and our conversation doesn't make sense.

[Easy-Breezy English]

you seem to believe that people are conscious in their every move.

That's a serious overgeneralization. :-) That said, I'm fairly confident that I'm conscious at least some of the time. But then again, I speak for myself - you might live in the world of complete uncertainty for all I know. That would explain why you cling to formal logic so much. :-)

we speak different languages and our conversation doesn't make sense.

So be it then. :-)