Randomness thread, part two.

[oskar]

I think of success as a very inefficent way of dealing with death anciety.

[oskar]

[spoonitnow]

Let's do this though. What are you trying to accomplish but have so far been unsuccessful at?

I was on mobile and couldn't really give this a long answer last night, but here's a bit more of a breakdown. I like to get into the "why" of things like this and not just the "what."

I had a realization in my mid-late 20s that I had spent the majority of the past decade and a half feeling ashamed of what I wanted in life. We could get into the reasons for that (that's outside of the scope of this), but when you show a lot of work ethic and determination and reach some level of success, it often brings out the worst in people. They frequently want to drag you down and make you feel like shit about it while they've got their hand out looking for you to finance their laziness and fuck-ups. Crabs in a bucket, etc.

After I gave up pretty much everything I had and put my life on hold for years for a woman who started off great but ended up really treating me like shit, I ended up extremely depressed and was suicidal. I saw how I had held myself back for my entire life because I was afraid of making people uncomfortable and having them not like me (which has happened repeatedly to myself and everyone I've ever seen that's been successful on any level). Looking back, I've found the reasons for what might have been a bit of hypersensitivity to this kind of thing. That was around four years ago (almost to the day), and that's when the plan started coming together.

You mentioned the idea of people seeing you as successful but you not feeling that way because you're only a portion of the way into your plan, and I can relate to that 100 percent. I think of my own plan as having "sections" for lack of a better word, and I can only really expend a large amount of effort into a limited number of those sections at a time. After determining what I wanted to accomplish, a lot of the planning process itself was determining what order I wanted to do things in, and to answer your question, those things I haven't gotten around to yet are the source of not feeling successful yet for me personally.

I started off knowing that I needed to get myself together financially, so my work was something I needed to work on as a priority. This has two parts, the first of which is my day-to-day work, and the second is the process of building assets that aren't tied to me needing to tend to them every day, etc. Naturally, the first part I've worked on consistently for a few years because I needed that financial stability and the ability to provide, and the second part has to come after that, and it's something I've only recently been putting work into. Again, this second part that I'm only now getting around to is where I feel unsuccessful.

I mentioned that I also neglected my health for the most part, and a part of the plan was to change how I eat and work out regularly. This is something else that I'm only starting with recently because there was too much on my plate previously, and so it's something else where I feel unsuccessful.

But if you snapshot my life right now, and compare it to that of my peers, they would probably consider me to be successful. Afterall, I went to school, got a job in the field and specialty I wanted (to an extent) and have a nice car and the beginnings of a marriage and family. But I didn't set out to achieve these things, I set out to achieve them as part of a much larger plan.

I read a book a couple of months ago by Tim Grover called "Relentless." He's significant for my purposes for being the mental game coach for people like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade and a number of other really high-profile athletes. He makes a very important point to this discussion, particularly this quote above, about how this type of mindset is inherently lonely. When your plan is steps A-Z, and you're already pretty above-average once you finish A-F, then people get pretty weird about you going for G, H, I and J. It can be a very alienating thing when they start acting insecure about what you're doing.

The people in my life who have given me the most problems and tried to hold me down through their comments and actions have been the people who glorify laziness and who have shown that being unemployed for years at a time is acceptable to them through their actions. If that's what someone's goals are and that's what they've decided to do, then that's completely fine by me, and I'm not looking to change them. But if I'm going to leave them alone and let them do their thing, then they need to do the same thing back to me and knock off their little comments and their attempts to actively sabotage people who are trying to do more with their lives.

But the problem is that the bums can't do that. It's not as easy for them to sit back and mind their own business as it is for people who are working on a real plan for their lives. The difference is two-fold. First, people who are actively pursuing a plan for their lives simply don't have the time to worry about what some bum is doing. Second, people who are actively pursuing a plan for their lives aren't made insecure by what some bum is doing. You combine insecurity with a lot of free time, and you get the people who are the real opposition to being successful.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I frequently self-sabotage because I'm afraid of being so ridiculously good that it alienates me from people who are close to me.

If you view your own actions as self-sabotage, then there's an inner turmoil that you're struggling with.
Maybe you're dealing with some kind of moral crisis. Maybe a form of codependency.
Maybe it's personal doubts and fears manifesting in a displaced way so that you perceive it as coming from others, when it's just you.
At any rate, it's complicated.

I think the best thing to do in these spots is to talk it out with people you know have your best interests in mind. This frequently means beginning with a conversation among close friends and not those suspected to be at the heart of the dilemma. Talking to people closer to the heart will be a longer-term plan.

First things first is to clearly identify what's messing with your ability to form a coherent/consistent self-image and future-image.

***
Also... people who are alienated by you achieving your goals are probably not your people. Still, family can be a pain, especially when they don't share your values. If you need to better communicate your values, that's a possible solution. Or if you need to compartmentalize that certain people have (altogether funny) emotional reactions to certain sentences, and some of those sentences describe your life and goals, then ... so be it. Don't say the things which push your loved ones' buttons unless you need to.

[Savy]

***
Also... people who are alienated by you achieving your goals are probably not your people. Still, family can be a pain, especially when they don't share your values. If you need to better communicate your values, that's a possible solution. Or if you need to compartmentalize that certain people have (altogether funny) emotional reactions to certain sentences, and some of those sentences describe your life and goals, then ... so be it. Don't say the things which push your loved ones' buttons unless you need to.

Family is an over rated concept. If you have family members in your life that are have a largely negative impact on your life then fuck them off.

[spoonitnow]

Family is an over rated concept. If you have family members in your life that are have a largely negative impact on your life then fuck them off.

Yeah this shit MMM is on misses the point entirely.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But the problem is that the bums can't do that. It's not as easy for them to sit back and mind their own business as it is for people who are working on a real plan for their lives. The difference is two-fold. First, people who are actively pursuing a plan for their lives simply don't have the time to worry about what some bum is doing. Second, people who are actively pursuing a plan for their lives aren't made insecure by what some bum is doing. You combine insecurity with a lot of free time, and you get the people who are the real opposition to being successful.

Realize that their melodrama is so passe'.

Not everyone needs to know everything about you. Not even your family. If there are things about yourself that you don't talk about with them, then that's fine. Focus on conversations with them that highlight what you appreciate about each other.

I only rarely get to talk about physics with anyone I'm close to. They aren't interested. We talk about other things, and I expect some light-hearted ridicule if I start to lecture on some physics topic. Or to be outright cut-off with a change of subject. All of which is fine.

It's a little frustrating, but in the end... I know I'm a big nerd who spends a disproportionate amount of time thinking about some things. We don't have to talk about stuff which gets our blood boiling just because those things exist.

[spoonitnow]

Realize that their melodrama is so passe'.

Not everyone needs to know everything about you. Not even your family. If there are things about yourself that you don't talk about with them, then that's fine. Focus on conversations with them that highlight what you appreciate about each other.

I only rarely get to talk about physics with anyone I'm close to. They aren't interested. We talk about other things, and I expect some light-hearted ridicule if I start to lecture on some physics topic. Or to be outright cut-off with a change of subject. All of which is fine.

It's a little frustrating, but in the end... I know I'm a big nerd who spends a disproportionate amount of time thinking about some things. We don't have to talk about stuff which gets our blood boiling just because those things exist.

You are talking about things that can be easily hidden from people, and the rest of us are not. It's apples and oranges.

[Savy]

Why as a lazy layabout bum am I not as insecure about things to try and sabotage people?

I feel like that would give me something to do.

[boost]

Family is an over rated concept. If you have family members in your life that are have a largely negative impact on your life then fuck them off.

This realization early in life is a huge part of who I am, and it is so hard to talk about as most people immediately think of their own situation, the emotions they have tied up in their family, and even if you told them your situation or gave an extreme hypothetical, the initial space their mind went to blocks them from empathizing. I think I've gotten better at explaining it, but it's an uphill battle. The most succinct line that gets to the heart of it is to use simple logic and probability:

There are assholes in the world

By sheer bad luck these assholes are part of somebody's family

"Family above all else" as a concept is therefore inherently unfair

Therefore we all should feel free to engage or chose not to engage with any persons willing to engage with us, family or not. Insisting on anything else is to damn the unfortunate simply by virtue of their circumstance of birth.

[oskar]

Spoon has a point. Most lazy people are bad at it. They are filled with guilt. They secretly have goals and dreams and they rationalize their lazyness away by denying that they have those, and they try to diminish other peoples accomplishments to raise themselves up. But that's not true for all lazy people. Most of my friends work 25h jobs that pay the bills, and they spend a whole lot of time just doing whatever they feel like, and those are some of the nicest people I've ever known. Ultimately it's all about just being happy and not being a dick to other people.

[spoonitnow]

Spoon has a point. Most lazy people are bad at it. They are filled with guilt. They secretly have goals and dreams and they rationalize their lazyness away by denying that they have those, and they try to diminish other peoples accomplishments to raise themselves up. But that's not true for all lazy people. Most of my friends work 25h jobs that pay the bills, and they spend a whole lot of time just doing whatever they feel like, and those are some of the nicest people I've ever known. Ultimately it's all about just being happy and not being a dick to other people.

@bold, I wouldn't personally characterize these people as lazy or bums. They're taking care of what they need to take care of instead of relying on someone else to give them a hand-out, and they aren't trying to drag people down who are doing more because it makes them feel insecure.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You are talking about things that can be easily hidden from people, and the rest of us are not. It's apples and oranges.

Get better at hiding stuff. You're not doing much to help me understand where I'm misunderstanding you.

You're speaking in broad terms and I'm trying to gauge what under that banner is worth addressing and there's no need for me to overlap with what Savy and Oskar are saying.

I find it surprising that you, of all people, need to be assured that it's OK to not love anyone (blood ties or otherwise). Same for you needing to be told that if you're spending time with people who drag you down, then it's OK to not spend time with them anymore.

So I don't know what to say that will help you through this time of reflection and lament.

[spoonitnow]

You're proving my point here. Your suggestion is to hide success so it won't make bums insecure or uncomfortable so that they don't act out like the bums they are.

[JKDS]

Is family the end all be all? Does this answer depend on the notion of free will?

If you believe that regardless of circumstance or experiences, that we are all responsible for our own actions...then it's alright to push toxic family members aside. They chose that path after all.

But if bad things happen sometimes that are out of our control...or if we lack any control at all...is it OK to discard such people? If some are destined to be bad, is it OK for society to toss them aside?

A different question is whose duty is it to help people through difficult problems? Is it a duty created by trust and choices, so that those who intentionally build support networks are rewarded in hard times? Or is it a duty created merely by being family? For those people with no one to turn to...should they at least be able to turn to their family for help?

[JKDS]

@mmm: suppose spoon has a really nice car ( idk). He drives to visit family, and they react with insecurity due to them not having as nice a car. Substitute wit clothing, house, food choice, etc.

Is spoon to change all of that when he visits? Rent a clunker for the day? How would his family react if he did?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're proving my point here. Your suggestion is to hide success so it won't make bums insecure or uncomfortable so that they don't act out like the bums they are.

That's not really my point. At a bare minimum, you need to add: if this is stupid or extreme, then don't do it, but also don't subject yourself to those bums.

I'm not suggesting to hide your success. I would never do so. I only suggest that there are plenty of things to take joy from in a relationship, and oftentimes, it's worth a little personal humility to maintain a strong relationship.

If anything, I'm suggesting that you don't flaunt your success in a way that makes people you care about uncomfortable. If you don't care about them, then I don't see how it matters if they're uncomfortable. I'm 100% in agreement with Savy and Oskar about cutting ties with people who are effectively poison to your happiness and success, whether or not you're related to those people.

If being the best version of yourself that you can imagine (or at least struggling to do so) makes people uncomfortable, then - as I said - they are not your people.

[Savy]

A different question is whose duty is it to help people through difficult problems? Is it a duty created by trust and choices, so that those who intentionally build support networks are rewarded in hard times? Or is it a duty created merely by being family? For those people with no one to turn to...should they at least be able to turn to their family for help?

Why is it anyone's duty? If you care about people why would you want them to have to make sub-optimal decisions for their life for your benefit? The only thing you should have to do as a person is support your children until they are at an age to do so themselves.

That being said it should be somewhat rare for your relationships not to be somewhat mutually beneficial for both parties.

It's not quite the same but I remember someone asking me that if a family member was in an accident and needed someone to care for them for the rest of their lives would I do it? To which I answered no, shock horror on this girls face, "but what if it happened to you?". I wouldn't expect someone to waste their life, especially if young, caring for me.

There are clearly situations that are slightly harder to come to definite conclusions on but that's the general gist of how I feel about it

[MadMojoMonkey]

@mmm: suppose spoon has a really nice car ( idk). He drives to visit family, and they react with insecurity due to them not having as nice a car. Substitute wit clothing, house, food choice, etc.

Is spoon to change all of that when he visits? Rent a clunker for the day? How would his family react if he did?

It's up to spoon whether or not these would be reasonable or unreasonable compromises to his situation.
I don't know how his family would react.

***
I don't view any of these things as symbols of his success, merely symbols of his sense of fashion and style. Tangentially, they represent his ability to acquire and save money so that he has it to spend on things he prioritizes. That is not a generic statement of success (to me). I have known plenty of broke-ass people who dressed well and drove clean vehicles in good repair. I have known plenty of would-be homeless people who still find money to support their addictions. I don't really see these as any different. They have prioritized what they value and they spend their money on their priorities. Equally successful, IMO.

All I meant by hiding things is that there are seemingly infinite things that people can talk about and there's no a priori need to bring up or focus on things which will make people upset. I your relationship can be just as strong without delving into the things about which you strongly disagree, then I don't really see the need to dig into those things. Of course, a healthy dialogue between disagreeing parties is excellent, but if it's just 2 people yelling things about which they wont change their minds, then it's just melodrama, and it's a waste of time.

[OngBonga]

@spoon

The people in my life who have given me the most problems and tried to hold me down through their comments and actions have been the people who glorify laziness...

Why are they in your life?

@bold, I wouldn't personally characterize these people as lazy or bums. They're taking care of what they need to take care of instead of relying on someone else to give them a hand-out, and they aren't trying to drag people down who are doing more because it makes them feel insecure.

The first sentence here could easily refer to me. The second, not so. I don't try to sabotage anyone for chasing their goals. I pretty much keep my anti-work views to myself amongst my working friends. I don't gloat on facebook that I'm lazing in the sun with a spliff at 3 o'clock on a tuesday afternoon, I don't suggest people leave their jobs to protest how our tax is spent on wars, I do my best to leave people to live their lives as they want to, to chase their goals etc.

You're not describing bums in that second sentence, you're describing dicks.

[spoonitnow]

Is family the end all be all? Does this answer depend on the notion of free will?

To me, family is less about blood relation and more about the bonding with and uplifting people. The people who I consider and refer to as my family the most are not related to me by blood.

If you believe that regardless of circumstance or experiences, that we are all responsible for our own actions...then it's alright to push toxic family members aside. They chose that path after all.

But if bad things happen sometimes that are out of our control...or if we lack any control at all...is it OK to discard such people? If some are destined to be bad, is it OK for society to toss them aside?

For me, it's all about how people handle the position they're put in regardless of the degree of control they have on what that position might be. I think there are some things that people can control and some things that people can't, but I have no problem with people being discarded out of an individual's life for either type of reason.

To give an example, I had a friend who I'd known since I was seven years old. I'm now 31, and about a year ago, I had to finally cut him off for good. This is even though he regularly referred to me as his best friend, and I was pretty close with his mom and his son. The reason is that he caused me entirely too much aggravation and stress through a combination of the cards he was dealt and what he chose to do with those cards. He was a bum (which I'm using in place of things like "lazy sack of shit" and "sorry motherfucker") who thought it was acceptable to mooch off of his mom and work about two weeks out of the year for several years in a row. Whenever I'd be doing something well for myself, or even someone else, he'd shit all over it and talk about how I thought I was all high and mighty now that I had [built a business/moved into a better home/was putting a female through school/dressed like I hadn't just gotten out of bed/etc].

I don't know what it is that makes people like this, especially when he had plenty of opportunities where people (including myself) were trying to help him. To give one instance, I'd set up him with a really easy job that paid pretty well for what it was, answering the phone at an auto body shop. The job was his, and all he had to do was show up at a certain time to start. At the age of 26 or 27, he played World of Warcraft through the entire time, and I got a phone call from his would-be employer letting me know what happened. It really disappointed me because I had vouched for the guy, and it made me look like a jackass to the would-be employer. When I asked the guy about it, he told me "he forgot."

A different question is whose duty is it to help people through difficult problems? Is it a duty created by trust and choices, so that those who intentionally build support networks are rewarded in hard times? Or is it a duty created merely by being family? For those people with no one to turn to...should they at least be able to turn to their family for help?

The friend in question above had tons of family and friends try to help him, and I've seen a whole lot of cases like his where, for whatever reason, someone just wants to sit around being a bum instead of getting up and doing something to better their lives and the lives of the people around them. It hurt a whole lot to see him do that to himself when he had every opportunity to do better, and it pissed me off to see him being thrown opportunities left and right whenever I've known a handful of people who really did want to work and do better who kept seeing nothing but roadblock after roadblock thrown in their way.

@mmm: suppose spoon has a really nice car ( idk). He drives to visit family, and they react with insecurity due to them not having as nice a car. Substitute wit clothing, house, food choice, etc.

Is spoon to change all of that when he visits? Rent a clunker for the day? How would his family react if he did?

See this is the entire point that MMM doesn't understand, and it's probably because he's only recently entered the work force in his circumstances, but he's saying that the solution is to go through a ton of effort to avoid offending people when the real onus should be on them not to act like insecure bums in the first place.

[spoonitnow]

That's not really my point. At a bare minimum, you need to add: if this is stupid or extreme, then don't do it, but also don't subject yourself to those bums.

I'm not suggesting to hide your success. I would never do so. I only suggest that there are plenty of things to take joy from in a relationship, and oftentimes, it's worth a little personal humility to maintain a strong relationship.

If anything, I'm suggesting that you don't flaunt your success in a way that makes people you care about uncomfortable. If you don't care about them, then I don't see how it matters if they're uncomfortable. I'm 100% in agreement with Savy and Oskar about cutting ties with people who are effectively poison to your happiness and success, whether or not you're related to those people.

If being the best version of yourself that you can imagine (or at least struggling to do so) makes people uncomfortable, then - as I said - they are not your people.

And you just completely backtracked on the position you stated earlier, which is typical of you and reminds me why I shouldn't try engaging you in conversation.

It's up to spoon whether or not these would be reasonable or unreasonable compromises to his situation.
I don't know how his family would react.

***
I don't view any of these things as symbols of his success, merely symbols of his sense of fashion and style. Tangentially, they represent his ability to acquire and save money so that he has it to spend on things he prioritizes. That is not a generic statement of success (to me). I have known plenty of broke-ass people who dressed well and drove clean vehicles in good repair. I have known plenty of would-be homeless people who still find money to support their addictions. I don't really see these as any different. They have prioritized what they value and they spend their money on their priorities. Equally successful, IMO.

All I meant by hiding things is that there are seemingly infinite things that people can talk about and there's no a priori need to bring up or focus on things which will make people upset. I your relationship can be just as strong without delving into the things about which you strongly disagree, then I don't really see the need to dig into those things. Of course, a healthy dialogue between disagreeing parties is excellent, but if it's just 2 people yelling things about which they wont change their minds, then it's just melodrama, and it's a waste of time.

Apparently you don't view having employment as success from your previous statements in this thread, so I'm not sure how much credibility you have left on the topic.

The first sentence here could easily refer to me. The second, not so. I don't try to sabotage anyone for chasing their goals. I pretty much keep my anti-work views to myself amongst my working friends. I don't gloat on facebook that I'm lazing in the sun with a spliff at 3 o'clock on a tuesday afternoon, I don't suggest people leave their jobs to protest how our tax is spent on wars, I do my best to leave people to live their lives as they want to, to chase their goals etc.

You're not describing bums in that second sentence, you're describing dicks.

I mentioned earlier that I'm using the word bum to substitute for profanity-laced tirades, and you can probably see why with as many times as I've used it.

And again, I'm not suggesting that people go out of their way to rub it in peoples faces because I think that's shitty. However, there are plenty of things that are largely unavoidable that will make people act insecure and shitty towards you, and that's what I was originally talking about in response to JKDS's comment about whether or not he finds himself successful.

The entire point is this: Some people will think you are successful when you do not think you are successful because you have a much higher standard of what you are holding yourself to than they do. In these situations, those people will very often resent you for continuing to push hard past what they would have already thought was success because your drive makes them feel insecure about themselves.

Why are they in your life?

When you have a very high standard for what you consider to be success, cutting out everyone who doesn't would mean you associate with virtually no one because only a tiny percentage of people care that much about their own plans for the future.

[MadMojoMonkey]

See this is the entire point that MMM doesn't understand, and it's probably because he's only recently entered the work force in his circumstances

I'm trying to understand and to help you find answers in this, so help me understand.

but he's saying that the solution is to go through a ton of effort to avoid offending people when the real onus should be on them not to act like insecure bums in the first place.

I never said any of that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And you just completely backtracked on the position you stated earlier, which is typical of you and reminds me why I shouldn't try engaging you in conversation.

Your subject matter was presented in a broad manner, and my original responses were equally broad.

I don't see that my position has changed. If you bothered to follow my initial assumption - I.e. Spoon doesn't need to be told who to love or that it's OK to not love anyon - then you'll see that the only thing which has changed is my presumption that you've already decided that keeping these people in your life means more to you than any personal pride.

Apparently you don't view having employment as success from your previous statements in this thread, so I'm not sure how much credibility you have left on the topic.

Ad hominem doesn't suit you, spoon.

[spoonitnow]

I never said any of that.

Get better at hiding stuff.

Okay.

Your subject matter was presented in a broad manner, and my original responses were equally broad.

I don't see that my position has changed. If you bothered to follow my initial assumption - I.e. Spoon doesn't need to be told who to love or that it's OK to not love anyon - then you'll see that the only thing which has changed is my presumption that you've already decided that keeping these people in your life means more to you than any personal pride.

The subject was success, not trying to play armchair psychologist.

Ad hominem doesn't suit you, spoon.

Although, to be fair, I felt successful at putting in solid effort to search for a good job even when I was unemployed for years

Okay.

[OngBonga]

The entire point is this: Some people will think you are successful when you do not think you are successful because you have a much higher standard of what you are holding yourself to than they do. In these situations, those people will very often resent you for continuing to push hard past what they would have already thought was success because your drive makes them feel insecure about themselves.

Right. Well, that's their problem, not yours. That's their personality flaw, not yours. Why allow it to concern you?

I consider you successful based on your career. If you have higher ambitions, all power to you. Fuck those who have an issue with your ambition. Fair enough you can't cut all negative people out of your life, but you don't have to worry about what they think.

[OngBonga]

I'm so lazy I don't even quote people properly, while everyone else does.

[spoonitnow]

Right. Well, that's their problem, not yours. That's their personality flaw, not yours. Why allow it to concern you?

I consider you successful based on your career. If you have higher ambitions, all power to you. Fuck those who have an issue with your ambition. Fair enough you can't cut all negative people out of your life, but you don't have to worry about what they think.

Duh.

Also:

[OngBonga]

Well that was enthralling. I should be a motivational speaker.

[MadMojoMonkey]

When I said "get better at hiding stuff." I was under the assumption that you prized the relationships above any personal gripes, as I later noted. Also, that it wasn't some petty shit like people being offended by your clothes or car or any possessions. What a stupid reason to be mad at someone. I wasn't assuming such pettiness in your friends and family.

I never said, "the solution is to go through a ton of effort to avoid offending people when the real onus should be on them not to act like insecure bums in the first place."

I meant that if someone is bothered by your (hypothetical) bondage thing, then maybe don't leave the ball gags and hand cuffs on the coffee table when they come by to visit. And try to find other things to talk about in conversation. What I didn't say - because I assumed that with you it goes without saying - is IF this is too much to ask of you, then realize that they are not your people and break ties.

Apparently you don't view having employment as success from your previous statements in this thread, so I'm not sure how much credibility you have left on the topic.

Ad hominem - To direct your counter argument against the person and not what they argued.
E.g. you said 1 stupid thing, so therefore you say stupid things, and nothing you say matters.

The subject was success, not trying to play armchair psychologist.

I frequently self-sabotage because I'm afraid of being so ridiculously good that it alienates me from people who are close to me.

Okay.

[spoonitnow]

I think I've spent enough time in my life trying to have conversations with total aspie cases that have went nowhere that I'm not going to try anymore.

[a500lbgorilla]

Is anyone here successful?

It's impossible to know for me, personally. I grow in certain ways, degenerate in others, and am pulled by the current of time.

It's always interesting to think about what you would look like as a Success, but I always see myself spending my success on frivolous and ridiculous things. I think the most successful people in this world learn how to leverage everything for more and I'm more in the realm of building a firm footing, and then building the next step up.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'll add, the world certainly does find ways to remind you you're worth it, I just don't think of myself in terms of success or failure. I wasn't born wrong, and for all the success I'll see, I'll still die.

Grim topic, spoon. Not even I can keep it afloat.

[a500lbgorilla]

God I don't even know where to start. My physical health is the worst it's probably ever been in terms of being in shape, and that's largely due to neglecting it because of everything else that's been on my plate. May has been the month I've planned to be when I try switching to a keto diet (thanks wuf) and start on a regular exercise schedule instead of just eating whatever and exercising sporadically, if at all.

I'm also struggling to keep up with the work schedule I'd like to maintain. Knowing I can just do nothing and still get the bills paid instead of working harder kind of sucks. I can keeping going for a few weeks or a couple of months at a time, and then I just crap out. This is probably related to the physical, which is honestly my biggest motivation to do something about it with diet and exercise.

I frequently self-sabotage because I'm afraid of being so ridiculously good that it alienates me from people who are close to me. I've been working on recognizing this one a lot in the past few months especially, and it's helping a lot as well.

I look at the old men I know, and I see those that keep a rich social circle, and love a big family, living well beyond their eyes and ears sensibly allow.

Seems like a decent path.

[a500lbgorilla]

I read a book a couple of months ago by Tim Grover called "Relentless." He's significant for my purposes for being the mental game coach for people like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade and a number of other really high-profile athletes. He makes a very important point to this discussion, particularly this quote above, about how this type of mindset is inherently lonely. When your plan is steps A-Z, and you're already pretty above-average once you finish A-F, then people get pretty weird about you going for G, H, I and J. It can be a very alienating thing when they start acting insecure about what you're doing.

The people in my life who have given me the most problems and tried to hold me down through their comments and actions have been the people who glorify laziness and who have shown that being unemployed for years at a time is acceptable to them through their actions. If that's what someone's goals are and that's what they've decided to do, then that's completely fine by me, and I'm not looking to change them. But if I'm going to leave them alone and let them do their thing, then they need to do the same thing back to me and knock off their little comments and their attempts to actively sabotage people who are trying to do more with their lives.

But the problem is that the bums can't do that. It's not as easy for them to sit back and mind their own business as it is for people who are working on a real plan for their lives. The difference is two-fold. First, people who are actively pursuing a plan for their lives simply don't have the time to worry about what some bum is doing. Second, people who are actively pursuing a plan for their lives aren't made insecure by what some bum is doing. You combine insecurity with a lot of free time, and you get the people who are the real opposition to being successful.

Yeah, but those guys were already well on the lonely path at 19. And their lonely path was obviously and clearly competitive. There was high, immediate feedback to their performance. Normal people live in a murkier, less responsive world. Those all-stars lived in an obvious artifice and thrived so much that their decisions outside of it were made much easier. You don't have that good fortune. We're left to find one of any of the many sufficient paths through a darker swamp.

If I could pretend I took a lonely path, I'd say mine was learning. I chose a major because it promised to teach the most, I took a job because they had great training and I knew nothing about it, and I've grown in my career precisely because I can pick up anyone's niche because I learn well.

Dunno which early path you chose though.

[a500lbgorilla]

Family is an over rated concept. If you have family members in your life that are have a largely negative impact on your life then fuck them off.

This realization early in life is a huge part of who I am, and it is so hard to talk about as most people immediately think of their own situation, the emotions they have tied up in their family, and even if you told them your situation or gave an extreme hypothetical, the initial space their mind went to blocks them from empathizing. I think I've gotten better at explaining it, but it's an uphill battle. The most succinct line that gets to the heart of it is to use simple logic and probability:

There are assholes in the world

By sheer bad luck these assholes are part of somebody's family

Hahaha, damn. Disagree.

"Family above all else" as a concept is therefore inherently unfair.

Let me immediately go to my family, as by absolute fortune, my mother and father, my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, and my older cousins, have each told me the same thing - Life's not fair.

I used to always tell them it's because no one tries, now I've got a better sense as to why no one tries. The game isn't built for fair.

[a500lbgorilla]

Can't speak for bad family and what to do about them, but I've the sense that a good family is definitely something to build towards.

[a500lbgorilla]

And remember, as we post back and forth at and passed each other, we're basically these pups here

[a500lbgorilla]

Alright, that was gay, here's more the right speed

[a500lbgorilla]

This is probably why there are those Elk Lodges and Moose Clubs and what not. Places where dudes just get together and breathe easy because life is kinda fucked up and it's always nice to exist in the comfort of others on a familiar road.

[spoonitnow]

10 posts in a row. Ladies and gentlemen, wufwugy has taken over rilla's account.

[a500lbgorilla]

Eat it up.

In the meantime, here's an interesting article about the concept of Concept Creep used to grapple with how words like 'abuse' seem to keep including more and more things.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-creep/477939/

[Savy]

Can't speak for bad family and what to do about them, but I've the sense that a good family is definitely something to build towards.

Surely this is somewhat obvious, good healthy relationships are obviously a +. I'd just argue that people put too much work into ones that either won't work or require too much effort from both sides for it to be worth it, especially when it comes to family.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Eat it up.

In the meantime, here's an interesting article about the concept of Concept Creep used to grapple with how words like 'abuse' seem to keep including more and more things.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-creep/477939/

I wonder if part of what’s going on is that the punishment-seekers are saying, “That’s prejudiced” or “That’s racist,” and meaning, “That’s racist, the category that we all agree should be maximally stigmatized.” Whereas their critics reply, “No, that isn’t racist,” or “You’re wrong,” meaning not that the behavior at issue is or isn’t coherently objectionable in a way worth interrogating, but that, “Right or wrong, that behavior clearly doesn’t fall into the category of things that should, almost all of us have agreed, be maximally stigmatized.”

This kind of thinking is so missing in modern dialogue.

[spoonitnow]

Eat it up.

In the meantime, here's an interesting article about the concept of Concept Creep used to grapple with how words like 'abuse' seem to keep including more and more things.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-creep/477939/

It's just another fun way to lead more idiot sheep to the slaughter while they're distracted by fighting among themselves about stupid shit like if asking someone if they're Mexican is racist or if there's ever a reason to hit a woman.

I, for one, am completely in favor of more ridiculous policies that increase the number of total pussies and office drones that are being raised. Every year, there's going to be a fresh new batch of dumbasses just waiting to be exploited for the betterment of the superior men and women who have the balls and brains to take what's theirs.

[OngBonga]

Last edited by spoonitnow; Today at 03:06 PM.

I bet that edit was "and women".

[wufwugy]

Winning doesn't change an activist into a non-activist. The activist just finds more ways for their chosen version of activism to be relevant.

It's the same with government agencies. To justify their existence, they must continually find the problems that their job descriptions say they're supposed to solve.

[spoonitnow]

I bet that edit was "and women".

It was the whole second paragraph, but fair enough.

[spoonitnow]

I think of success as a very inefficent way of dealing with death anciety.

When you embrace success from the point of view of having a plan for your life (living actively vs. passively), then it's less about the anxiety surrounding death and more about claiming the agency to determine the direction for the one life that you have and impose your will on reality to make it happen.

[wufwugy]

rilla this post is highly relevant to the main thing you and i argue over.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...equilibri.html

[JKDS]

When you embrace success from the point of view of having a plan for your life (living actively vs. passively), then it's less about the anxiety surrounding death and more about claiming the agency to determine the direction for the one life that you have and impose your will on reality to make it happen.

Yes

[a500lbgorilla]

rilla this post is highly relevant to the main thing you and i argue over.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...equilibri.html

A 1000 years ago, there were still historic democracies to look to for lessons, and among those lessons, you would accurately see that violence can upset the entire system - thankfully there was devised a system to minimize that problem. So while people's complaints and naysaying were sound, there was still good reason to believe it could be done. The Roman Republic failed because politicians had armies, so the solution was to give the military to the people.

So go ahead and tell me what system you'll devise to undercut the threat of violence to an anarcho-capitalist society. As I recall, it was that it simply won't happen because everyone is too rational and self-interested for that, and armies are too expensive to justify existing.

[a500lbgorilla]

At about 12 minutes 10 or 20 seconds this covers how it is that I see our argument

<br>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88#t=12m20s

You want to see it like a math, the beliefs of anarchocapitalists are built upon certain axioms that are taken to be true. If I recall, the idea is grounded in the Austrian School of economics which does exactly that - it has central tenets that are taken as true and derives beliefs from them.

Where as I see it like a science, whatever the truth is, it has to fit to reality. Whichever axioms we use have to be vetted against reality. Something I've never seen an anarchocapitalist do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The assertion that democracy is younger than conversation seems dubious.
Same for the notion that anarchocapitalism has never been tested.

I'm not saying I'm right about these skepticisms. They're very hard to find direct evidence to support or refute, I imagine. It just strikes me that if it's true (as it seems to be, given fossil evidence and carbon dating) that genetically modern humans have been on the planet for 450,000 years, then that's plenty of time to test out all these models. IDK if population pressures are a vital factor, though. Most of human history experienced minimal contact between roving bands of a few hundred people.

How does the world market compare to anarchocapitalism? Among separate nations, there is no clear leader, there is no real democracy. It's a bunch of people who may be powerful in their own lands, but who are ostensibly equals on the world stage. I know there is no stable equality there, even among leaders with similar standing.

My point is: Surely anarchocapitalism is happening somewhere today, on some scale, if it is remotely viable. Where is this happening, and what are the pressures which drive or prevent that system from scaling up?

[spoonitnow]

This is one of my favorite comics I've ever seen, and I want to share it with you people.

[wufwugy]

A 1000 years ago, there were still historic democracies to look to for lessons, and among those lessons, you would accurately see that violence can upset the entire system - thankfully there was devised a system to minimize that problem. So while people's complaints and naysaying were sound, there was still good reason to believe it could be done. The Roman Republic failed because politicians had armies, so the solution was to give the military to the people.

As pointed out in the post, it isn't the existence of a democracy that makes democracy function, but the widespread cult of democracy.

So go ahead and tell me what system you'll devise to undercut the threat of violence to an anarcho-capitalist society. As I recall, it was that it simply won't happen because everyone is too rational and self-interested for that, and armies are too expensive to justify existing.

It's not that armies would be too expensive, but that destruction would be too expensive. Armies are of the utmost importance in an anarchocapitalist world because they make destruction too expensive. We live in this world today, where the dynamic exists between most states. What makes anarchocapitalism unique is that armies would exist in competitive markets instead of monopolistic markets.

The point of the post was not how this could work today, but how the dynamic works in general.

[Savy]

This is one of my favorite comics I've ever seen, and I want to share it with you people.

I don't get it.

Pretty sure I've seen it before too, can't think where though.

[wufwugy]

The assertion that democracy is younger than conversation seems dubious.
Same for the notion that anarchocapitalism has never been tested.

I'm not saying I'm right about these skepticisms. They're very hard to find direct evidence to support or refute, I imagine. It just strikes me that if it's true (as it seems to be, given fossil evidence and carbon dating) that genetically modern humans have been on the planet for 450,000 years, then that's plenty of time to test out all these models. IDK if population pressures are a vital factor, though. Most of human history experienced minimal contact between roving bands of a few hundred people.

How does the world market compare to anarchocapitalism? Among separate nations, there is no clear leader, there is no real democracy. It's a bunch of people who may be powerful in their own lands, but who are ostensibly equals on the world stage. I know there is no stable equality there, even among leaders with similar standing.

My point is: Surely anarchocapitalism is happening somewhere today, on some scale, if it is remotely viable. Where is this happening, and what are the pressures which drive or prevent that system from scaling up?

You wouldn't test the effects of pregnancy on rats by throwing pregnant rats into bins with hungry snakes. The rats would die before you got anywhere. Likewise, you wouldn't test anarchocapitalism by throwing it in a place that doesn't have the tools to sustain it.

Note: the modern world has, for the most part, an anarchocapitalist food system. People are fed far more with tastier and more nutritious food with greater ease of access and lower costs. The degrees to which are a few magnitudes greater than ever before and ever without the "mostly anarcho" capitalist food system.

That free market capitalism provides for what people desire far more than anything else ever tried is one of the most well documented facts in society. However, that people think this is not the case is also about as well documented.

[spoonitnow]

I don't get it.

Pretty sure I've seen it before too, can't think where though.

Mass media exploitation of human nature, etc.

[spoonitnow]

What's the difference between a terrorist training camp and an orphanage?




Don't ask me, I just fly the drones.

[JKDS]

Scotus heard arguments yesturday for implied consent laws. I've talked about those before, but the gist is that for all 50 states....getting a license to drive means you consent to dui testing. In 12 states, refusing to do such tests is a criminal offense.

The SCOTUS seems like it's focusing on the criminal aspect of those 12 states. But...it's possible that they completely overthrow the concept entirely. If so, there'd be mass chaos.

I kind of want them to...just so I can see how we respond.

[wufwugy]

It's almost as if the state makes it nearly impossible to live a normal life without reliance on the state (by making roads state owned), and then use that as a means to infringe on rights (you consented when using our roads).

[spoonitnow]

It's almost as if the state makes it nearly impossible to live a normal life without reliance on the state (by making roads state owned), and then use that as a means to infringe on rights (you consented when using our roads).

If only there was a solution where things could be owned privately.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Seems like there is an inherent monopoly on roads, though. You can only have so many roads to choose from in a given area. There is no way to keep adding new roads, i.e. new businesses are strictly excluded from arising.

This seems like the kind of situation that free markets aren't that good at self-regulating.

It would suck to have to pass a dozen different safety inspections/licensing agencies just to go on a road trip.

[a500lbgorilla]

MMM

[a500lbgorilla]

As pointed out in the post, it isn't the existence of a democracy that makes democracy function, but the widespread cult of democracy.

As much as I want to let this conversation see itself through without my hammering on it relentlessly. I can't just pass this by.

If something exists, it functions. It is the past existence of a democracy that clues to a democracy being functional.

They say amateurs study strategy, novices study tactics, but professionals study logistics. You'd be a fool to brush aside realized, logistically-functional democracies as the acts of cult-worship. It's pure nonsense. I only wish to see realized, logistically-functional capitalist anarchies before I buy in.

[a500lbgorilla]

You wouldn't test the effects of pregnancy on rats by throwing pregnant rats into bins with hungry snakes. The rats would die before you got anywhere. Likewise, you wouldn't test anarchocapitalism by throwing it in a place that doesn't have the tools to sustain it.

Note: the modern world has, for the most part, an anarchocapitalist food system. People are fed far more with tastier and more nutritious food with greater ease of access and lower costs. The degrees to which are a few magnitudes greater than ever before and ever without the "mostly anarcho" capitalist food system.

That free market capitalism provides for what people desire far more than anything else ever tried is one of the most well documented facts in society. However, that people think this is not the case is also about as well documented.

Oh yeah, the food market exists in anarchy?

[a500lbgorilla]

Really interesting book on cult-worship by the way

http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psyc.../dp/006124189X

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fun at work.



Just laser pointers and a humidifier.

[wufwugy]

Seems like there is an inherent monopoly on roads, though. You can only have so many roads to choose from in a given area. There is no way to keep adding new roads, i.e. new businesses are strictly excluded from arising.

So the solution to a finite resource is to totally monopolize it?

The natural monopolistic elements of roads are greatly overrated. Tons of other industries have the same elements, yet they're highly competitive. Computer hardware, for example, is a natural monopoly. Search engines are natural monopolies. We have mainly just two (Google and Bing), and they work incredibly well. The natural monopolistic elements only account for a small portion of what goes into how the economics of something works. Note: most industries operate in a "monopolistic competitive" market. This includes everything except for mostly farms, where there's no differentiation between products (wheat is wheat no matter where you get it but clothing is differentiated). I make this point to say that having monopolistic elements in a market isn't a problem, so when evaluating a new market, it's important to not overrate their monopolistic elements.

I would argue that roads are far less monopolistic in nature than many tech industries. I think it is even harder to compete in the smart phone industry than it would be in roads. There's a ton of land and tons of reasonable substitutions that would exist in a road free market. In fact I don't think roads would be a money maker for companies. They'd be sunk costs. Consumers don't want to consume roads; they want to consume things at the edges of roads. Literal shopping centers that existed on toll roads would be at such a disadvantage to ones that did not.

Contrast this to smart phone companies. They're nearly off the charts in their monopolistic elements. They require vast economies of scale and have huge fixed and sunk costs. They're so huge that only a handful of companies are players in the entire world. Roads would be nothing in comparison to this.

furthermore, I think a free market for roads would be so effective at optimizing transportation that the types of traffic jams and potholes that we normally worry about would be eradicated. The principle is similar to how when it comes to buying groceries, the experience is as swift and streamlined as the company can make possible. But if you go to the DMV, well, there's a good chance your experience will be full of metaphorical traffic jams and potholes.

This seems like the kind of situation that free markets aren't that good at self-regulating.

The elements that make free markets good at "self-regulating" are deterred by outside regulations, like price controls. In microecon, they teach that you can change quantities and prices of products in monopolies with regulations like price controls, but they also teach that this further entrenches the monopolies by deterring the main elements that spur competition. One example is that price controls deter (typically they almost entirely eliminate) the incentive for entry from new firms into the market. This is because there's no room for profit and firms don't enter markets where there's no profit. This means that a monopoly market with price controls will pretty much always be a monopoly since there will be no innovation in the market.

The industries we have today have mostly emerged out of what appeared to be markets with dominant monopolies, but because there was a lack of regulation, entry and investment and innovation changed and expanded them.

It would suck to have to pass a dozen different safety inspections/licensing agencies just to go on a road trip.

I hope I've laid some groundwork for how road free markets would do the opposite of this.

[wufwugy]

As much as I want to let this conversation see itself through without my hammering on it relentlessly. I can't just pass this by.

If something exists, it functions. It is the past existence of a democracy that clues to a democracy being functional.

They say amateurs study strategy, novices study tactics, but professionals study logistics. You'd be a fool to brush aside realized, logistically-functional democracies as the acts of cult-worship. It's pure nonsense. I only wish to see realized, logistically-functional capitalist anarchies before I buy in.

Sustainable function.

Also, democracies are acts of cult-worship. That's just not the only thing they are.

I guess I'm not sure what you think I said or what you think the post was about.

[wufwugy]

Oh yeah, the food market exists in anarchy?

Somewhat. The food industry involves strong elements of free markets, private property, and individual sovereignty. The times and ways in which the food industry has not had these elements as strongly have shown a more poorly functioning system.

[JKDS]

I like the roads we have. I also like that we have to be licensed to drive, and register our cars. I also like that we need to carry insurance, and not drink and drive.

In fact, I think there should be more regulation.

[JKDS]

Here's the thing, most laws regarding automobiles arose by necessity. Turns out, people don't like it when they're loved ones get killed by idiot drivers. Government responded with licensing and registration etc.

If gov didn't do that, someone else would have. The regulation would exist either way.

BUT, should consenting to dui testing be a license requirement? Should failure to consent be criminal? Keep in mind the huge number of fatalities, injuries, property damage duis cause every year.

[NightGizmo]

Privatize all roads? So every time you crossed a boundary between competitors you'd have to pay a new toll or mile-based fee? Sounds like a logistical headache and a general pain in the ass for travelers.

Roads are not a monopoly? I live near Chicago. How could a potential competitor try to enter into the market with a new set of roads -- where are they going to get the land to build a new road? In everything else you mentioned, a competitor could create something new and disrupt the industry, although it might take a lot of money (Apple did it a decade ago with smart phones). Good luck to any would-be competition creating an alternative to the street that my driveway is connected to.