Attachment Theory

[Ranger]

Well I'm waiting for a good debate ...any takers?

Not going to happen. Lol

 

[Spaz]

Not going to happen. Lol

That's too bad. It would have been very interesting.

 

[Spaz]

IMO, this is backwards.

It is behavior that drives knowledge, which drives us to adapt. Just look at BigDave as an example. You can give that man all of the knowledge he needs, but if he takes no action to do something he knows little about, he will never have experiences that contradict his perception. Therefor his knowledge will remain flawed, his actions limiting and success out of reach.

We must proceed to do things with a limited knowledge in order to grow and adapt; to experience new things that can sway our knowledge and understanding.

It's how he thinks that always influences how he does things.

In Dave's case, he lacked social knowledge/acuity similar to a person with aspergers, you can teach him all you know with social interaction but it still would not have registered in his mind. He listened, he read every word, but he couldn't understand it.

 

[Roober]

Childhood has a significant impact on a person's (man and woman) future. An individual cannot be completely free without understanding the chains of their past and developing tools to break them.

 

[Spaz]

Which is why he never progressed or adapted. He allowed thought, most of it assumption and irrational fear, to dictate every action, when instead he needed to take action against his thoughts, in spite of them, in order to actually progress and grow.

He was spinning his wheels because he had it backwards.

I had to overcome some of the social limitations of Asperger's myself. Action had to be taken in pure faith, having no clue what would happen each time I did something new and unknown, in order for me to eventually overcome the limitations caused by thinking. Some actions confirmed and others contradicted what I thought. But it was action that promoted an ability to further develop new thoughts and insights that had never occurred to me before.

How he thinks is a mindset.

Taking action on a workable process starts with the right mindset - the knowledge that acting on something will yield results.

Pure faith has it roots from knowledge. You cannot have faith when there is no prior knowledge/understanding of it.

The only part in a humans body that doesn't require knowledge is the heart. It will beat regardless of how you think, you might be able to slow it down, or even make it beat faster just by how you think but it'll still continue beating.

Even instincts that doesn't require much thought is actually an accumulation of knowledge that's embedded in our mind.

Dave can change provided he understands social norms. He is oblivious even with insults being thrown at him. Even a man with a subnormal grasp (nerds) of social norm cannot consistently withstand those insults but he did - his gifts made him immune.

But with his gifts, it made him an excellent car salesman, never knowing when to quit, studying all he needs to know what a car can do. That persistent so evident in his postings is a godsend when selling cars which made him an incredible salesman.

A person with aspergers can never fully understand social norms. He can copy certain aspects of it but it will not compute in his mind to properly interact with highly social creatures such as women.

 

[Spaz]

Have you ever had to watch a 2-year old?

Stay away from the hot stove.
Don't play near the electrical socket.
For Gods sake stop sticking jelly beans up your nose.

Children do not act on knowledge. They just act. You have to do most of their thinking for them because they have very few experiences to draw from.

The child that decided to touch the hot stove even when he was told it's hot did so because he was curious.

He was curious because he has no prior knowledge of how hot a stove could be. That's why he touched it. As a kid I did the same and so did many here.

Once that knowledge is understood it's unlikely he will touch it again.

Telling a kid something doesn't equate understanding.

The same applies to BigDave.

 

[Spaz]

Curiosity is not knowledge driving action. It is action to seek knowledge.

Knowledge is always born out of curiosity and understanding.

How you think men 1st made fire ?

 

[Spaz]

Exactly.



I can say with some level of certainty that he did not just decide to go out and experience fire for the first time in human history.

He first had an experience with fire. An event, an act had occurred to create that situation.

Curiosity grew from that event, from that experience.

He took action to figure out how to make it on his own.

Actual knowledge was the last step in this process. An experience, an act, an event, something happened to start it.

Experience --> Curiosity.

Action --> Knowledge.

All you mentioned above is = how he thinks

In the end it's how he thinks that influences how he does things.

 

[guru1000]

You're both correct.

Sometimes a catalyst is prompted to change your (or incite new) thinking. For example, a hurricane comes and destroys your home, so your thinking becomes more protective (i.e. secure a higher insurance policy next time around).

However, your thinking prompted by the hurricane incident then creates the action of securing a higher insurance policy.

So, in the above scenario we must distinguish between the acts (1) the act of the hurricane which is outside of your control; (2) the act of securing the higher insurance policy which is within your control.

So Amante is in the catalyst to prompt thinking (which would otherwise be unavailable) camp, see #1. And Spaz is in the thought before willful action camp, see #2. They are disparate arguments but both true.

The discussion is null as the points are for divergent arguments.

 

[Spaz]

You're both correct.

Sometimes a catalyst is prompted to change your thinking. For example, a hurricane comes and destroys your home, so your thinking becomes more protective (i.e. secure a higher insurance policy).

However, your thinking prompted by the hurricane incident then creates the action of securing a higher insurance policy.

So, in the above scenario we must distinguish between the acts (1) the act of the hurricane; (2) the act of securing the higher insurance policy.

So Amante is in the catalyst to prompt thinking (which would otherwise be unavailable) camp, see #1. And Spaz is in the thought before willful action camp, see #2. They are disparate arguments but both true.

The discussion is null as the points are for divergent arguments.

Nay.

I've not explained it properly.

For example, take in what's happening at this very moment. You're reading my posts and you're reacting to it.

You call your reactions "thought."

That's the way most of our thinking works--in reaction.

And where does the reaction take place?

In those body of thoughts, feelings, conclusions, associations that make up our previous thought--in the one who has been concocted in our past. In our memories of successes, of failures, of hurts, of wrongs, of good feelings, of bad feelings etc etc.

In short, in the composite of you...the sum total of you up to now.

Don't say NO yet, just think about it.

And once you do Guru, then apply that logic to the nature of your business - as an example.

Because your business does exactly the same thing. Through the people who work there. Through the people who used to work there. Through the decisions, conclusions, reactions, behaviors - each and every one of them have had and continue to have, on the personality, the behavior, of your company, today, and tomorrow, and forever, until...something changes.

What would change, you ask?

The way you think.

About time, about money, about management, about marketing, about the very thought of thinking itself.

How you think determines every single thing you do. (How you think + how you do things = results)

How DO you think?

Ask yourself that question.

 

[guru1000]

Yes Spaz, you are an amalgamation of your experiences and conditioning (I would also add genetic proclivities) if I understand you correctly.

Your thinking is the embodiment of the totality of this.

This is true.

The way I read Amante's position doesn't contradict this.

So he brings two examples (1) an outside fire; (2) A father telling a boy not to touch the hot stove.

Both 1 and 2 are catalysts. In these two catalysts, the thinker has no prior experience with. They are novel. They are different. They are outside of his awareness. Without these two catalysts, thought regarding these catalysts could never manifest.

One cannot think about fire if he never saw it. One cannot think about the "hot stove" if the "hot stove" wasn't brought to his awareness. So his thinking is prompted by the catalysts.

I stated that you and he have divergent arguments. Your argument is that all actions you take is prompted by your thinking which is prompted by your experiences (and these experiences can include outside catalysts). His position as I understand it is some novel thinking can be prompted by catalysts outside of one's present awareness and experience.

Both are true.

 

[BeExcellent]

A good discussion.

I am reminded of the maxim

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different result"

This truism arises from a body of experience which informs thought. That is @Spaz's position.

However no change is made without action...and I would suggest that the action that is different from habituated patterns will introduce a level of discomfort because of thought habituated to the subconscious by the existing pattern. That is the resistance to change.

Your subconscious does as it is conditioned. To change ingrained subconscious patterns established in relationships you have to make a conscious effort. This begins in self awareness and manifests in intentional effort.

But ACTION, however uncomfortable is REQUIRED to bring change to fruition. And the more the new action is reinforced into a different habit.

So debate over what starts the process notwithstanding it is ACTION that is the key piece.

And that is why adjusting attachment patterns is so difficult. It is the challenge of growth & improvement despite established patterns.

It's worth it however. The growth I am seeing in myself and in my guy as a by product of a willingness to ACT in spite of discomfort is a pretty neat journey so far. We had a long chat about this on a road trip yesterday.

And the willingness for both of us to value the relationship in the face of both of us being outside our comfort zones is pretty cool too.

And nope I'm not chasing him or hamstering or rationalizing @LARaiders85, It's more accurate to say I am observing & adjusting...as is he. His actions and investment continue to show that he values me and the relationship...and he is doing that to create a different result in his life.

See definition of insanity above.

Whether I benefit from his efforts to improve himself in the long run only time will tell...but it's been an interesting journey so far.

Action is key to change as @Amante Silvestre notes.

To adjust in this way you have to remove expectation, exist and act in the moment and let things develop in an organic but consciously self directed way. You have to drop past baggage and remove those filters.

 

[Spaz]

A good discussion.

I am reminded of the maxim

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different result"

This truism arises from a body of experience which informs thought. That is @Spaz's position.

However no change is made without action...and I would suggest that the action that is different from habituated patterns will introduce a level of discomfort because of thought habituated to the subconscious by the existing pattern. That is the resistance to change.

Your subconscious does as it is conditioned. To change ingrained subconscious patterns established in relationships you have to make a conscious effort. This begins in self awareness and manifests in intentional effort.

But ACTION, however uncomfortable is REQUIRED to bring change to fruition. And the more the new action is reinforced into a different habit.

So debate over what starts the process notwithstanding it is ACTION that is the key piece.

And that is why adjusting attachment patterns is so difficult. It is the challenge of growth & improvement despite established patterns.

It's worth it however. The growth I am seeing in myself and in my guy as a by product of a willingness to ACT in spite of discomfort is a pretty neat journey so far. We had a long chat about this on a road trip yesterday.

And the willingness for both of us to value the relationship in the face of both of us being outside our comfort zones is pretty cool too.

And nope I'm not chasing him or hamstering or rationalizing @LARaiders85, It's more accurate to say I am observing & adjusting...as is he. His actions and investment continue to show that he values me and the relationship...and he is doing that to create a different result in his life.

See definition of insanity above.

Whether I benefit from his efforts to improve himself in the long run only time will tell...but it's been an interesting journey so far.

Action is key to change as @Amante Silvestre notes.

To adjust in this way you have to remove expectation, exist and act in the moment and let things develop in an organic but consciously self directed way. You have to drop past baggage and remove those filters.

By taking ACTION you are actually deciding to ACT on how you think.

By not taking ACTION a person is also actually deciding to ACT on how he thinks.

Going back to my original post.

Core values + how you think + how you do things = results.

Since core values cannot be change (what you're learnt during childhood) and doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results each time is how you do things (as you mentioned is the definition of insanity). Then what must be change is how you think to achieve a desired result.

 

[Spaz]

Lol. We can go in circles here. But just for the sake of discussion...

Haha yes that seems likely. Well I don't mind if it's benefits people.

Every thought you have is not random. It will always be stimulated somehow in some way (even the thoughts you think are random) by one of the 5 senses; by something actually happening that Can be picked up on by feeling, seeing, hearing, etc.

Exactly. Refer to my reply to @guru1000 post.

If you don’t see a rock coming toward your head, the thought and act of moving out of the way will never occur to you. This is not you deciding not to take action. This is you not even thinking to do it to begin with because nothing stimulated that thought at that time, even when you have all of the abilities to do so.

Exactly.

If there is no knowledge of a rock being thrown at him, how can he act or react to that ?

To act on something, you must have knowledge.

If you’re hungry, horny, angry and decide to take action to eat, fvck or fight, those thoughts were originally triggered by senses your body picked up on.

Exactly.

These senses you talk about is also knowledge.

If you were born color blind towards the colors red and green you will not have the knowledge/understanding of that color.

Senses are therefore highly dependent on the knowledge/understanding your body acquires.

I can even claim a thought in and of itself is an action occurring in the real world. The neurons in your brain are firing off with electrical pulses through a network of connections.

Something has to be happening in the real world, whether it is internal, external, consciously, subconsciously, etc. to trigger a particular thought that you use in order for you to take a particular and appropriate action in turn.

Exactly.

I've already explained this in detail in my response to @guru1000 post.

Which part of it you don't understand or disagree ?

If this were not true, if thoughts always came first without being stimulated by some act (even if it is a biological process that generates the feeling of hunger, for example) every thought and resulting action you take would be completely random, nonsensical and not appropriate to the surrounding world and it circumstances.

Exactly !

Thoughts is also acquired through an act.

I've also explained this in detail to my reply to @guru1000 post.

Again which part you exactly don't understand?

You would not be functional in society. Your mind would be completely detached from the surrounding world.

Exactly.

And that's why I've said "how you think determines every single thing you do".

Again refer back to my post in response to @guru1000 for better understanding.

 

[guru1000]

As stated earlier, different actions, disparate arguments.

Amante is referring to an action (catalyst) that prompts different thinking.

Spaz is referring to an action that is prompted by one's thinking.

A fire cannot be thought about until witnessed = True

Two twin brothers can grow up with identical genetics, conditions, and circumstances, and lead two entirely different lives. The difference between them is their thinking = True

Discussion is moot as the qualifier of which action (before or after) is omitted in the contentions being argued.

 

[guru1000]

There are also much deeper concepts and implications at play here that have been discussed for thousands of years by the greatest minds of existence.

Free will vs Subject to.

Owner (of) vs. Victim (to) circumstance.

I'll share my views once the discussion ends. Inevitably, it ends as a spiritual (not to be confused with religious) concept.

 

[Ranger]

There are also much deeper concepts and implications at play here that have been discussed for thousands of years by the greatest minds of existence.

Free will vs Subject to.

Owner (of) vs. Victim (to) circumstance.

I'll share my views once the discussion ends. Inevitably, it ends as a spiritual (not to be confused with religious) concept.

Agreed. I’ve stayed out of it for this reason. There are more factors involved.

Including IQ. People have a misunderstanding what IQ actually is. You can have basic reading skills and basic math skills and score in a genius range.

IQ is the ability to look at, pose, and solve problems dealing with survival.

The spiritual element (not religious) is very much in play here. Being cause vs. being victim.

 

[Spaz]

This promises to be an interesting thread !

 

[Ranger]

We can start with IQ. Intelligent quotant. A person is in as good a shape as he/she can distinguish between similarities and differences.

This is two fold. Incidents in a persons life, good or bad, are either similar or different. A person with a lower IQ will stack many things together and they are, to him/her all similar or even the same. When in fact, they are not. So, bad experiences with women will all equal to either similar or exactly the same thing. BUT, they are not. There are differences.

So let’s take a new guy who comes onto SS and starts spouting off about the evilness of women, BPD, cluster B’s yada, yada, yada.
He read a lot of articles on this.

Now he has stacked it all together and can’t seperate them. Thus he has formed his reality. What’s interesting is he has also stacked similar events in his whole life and existence together with these failures. His view of the world is theougha prism of everything looking the same if he’s in really bad shape. He can’t unravel it so it’s all the evilness of women.
Mommy leaving him home alone and yelling at him for interfearing with her sexcapades due to being a single mom = girl rejection in fifth grade = woman rejecting him for sex = boss yelling at him = victim

Second part. Mechanics. The physical universe is based upon laws of physics. Every part works together. Distinguishing differences and similarities is mechanics. This is why on IQ tests you get a lot of diagrams that are similar but in fact they are different.

Mommy leaving him home does not equal a girl rejecting him in the fifth grade or a woman rejecting him for sex. There is no BPD or Cluster B. These are classifications used to label certain woman because they have an adverse effect on men who cannot separate their incidents.

It’s not the women who are being the cause. It’s the men being the effect. Victim. They can try to do the same things to a man who can see that his incidents are separate and different so there is no affect on him. She does not equal his mother, his teacher, the girl who rejected him for sex.
It is a self fulfilling prophesy because he catagorizes these incidents together and a new one will be thrown on top of the pile. He/she cannot separate them so of course, all women are the same. A=A=A=A. The same.

This is also why men cannot separate the feminine imperative from their reality. He can spout it off in conversation but it is still interlaced with the total of his reality.
His mind cannot separate the illusions. The imperative isn’t real. But it’s attached to his incident stack up so the separateness is just a thought or idea but is not really a reality to him.

Because he cannot see it with utter certainty he still gets himself trapped in it. He would not have trouble seeing the illusion, the matrix, If it was not interlaced in his mind.

A man who has a higher IQ would see the differences in all his incidents and thus see the illusion of the imperative. The imperative isn’t real in the least.
It’s a social tool to facilitate a breeding strategy with the hope that men can be held suspended in stupidity long enough to keep them squashed.

 

[Ranger]

There is a reason that a woman’s IQ is generally lower than a man’s.
Due to her biology her thought processes are much more interlinked.
Men who have complained that a woman has a long memory and can pull up things from the past to needle him with is much easier to understand when you realize that these incidents are hooked together. They are stacked. She can pull it up because to her, the present conversation is the same or similar. Her mind immediately pops it out for her to give you.

The endocrine system is how we experience emotions. A woman’s endocrine system is more complex and developed differently than ours. It has to be. She has the gift of forwarding our next generation.
Her incidents are more easily grouped. It’s a survival mechanism. So she knows when to flee to another man. (Hypergamy)
This is why I say to beat up a woman for her survival mechanisms is really uninformed. Knowledge.

Morality has no direct link to knowledge. In most cases she is doing the best she knows how.
Her gift to man is her femininity. The exact opposite of us. If a man has a layer of femininity in him, it will repel her. She searches for masculinity.

So why did I stay in a 20+ year marriage? Despite seeing everything from incidents of BPD or “evil” or any other such trick from her? I use to think that it was because I was noble or some other such stupidly driven impulse. No. I just had to unravel the absurdity of it all. I didn’t understand.

So how long did it take for me to see it all? You tell me. It wasn’t until I hooked up with another man to mentor me who I carefully chose because we were a lot the same. He never gave me an answer. He threw something out and it was my job to unravel it. That’s my job. My ability to pose and solve problems having to do with survival. This is where IQ comes in.