"Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists."
"According to the American research, there has been a 67 per cent increase in it [narcissism] over the past two decades, mainly among women."Now, ladies and gentlemen, what do you think has caused this? Could it possibly be a society stuck in a "girls are nice, sugar and spice/boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" mindset? Academics have written books about this mess. I mean, you tell me, folks. What do you think happens when young, impressionable women and girls marinate for years in a toxic cultural cesspool of gynocentrism and misandry? Nothing? They're just impervious to it all? So, the media mavens who spend fortunes on swaying public opinion on everything from presidents to pretzels have absolutely no effect on the female psyche? Uh-huh, um ... yeah. I think we know the answer to that. And you know what? I don't think I'm as worried about the so-called "bad" girls as I am the "decent" ones who unwittingly allow popular culture to shape their views on relationships between men and women. Again, countless sermons rain down down on men, castigating them for their "unrealistic" ideas about beauty. But what of the distaff gender? That's right. Keep hemming and hawing, and talking about the weather while the 300-pound gorilla takes a dump on the carpet in front of you.
(HT: MarkyMark)
48 comments:
And then those of us who consistently pass on a relationship because it would mean having sex very early in the relationship are considered deluded and frigid--neither of which is true.
I think it means you are Savvy!
Sex is treated in our post Christian culture like it was Koolaid. Everybody can have Koolaid! What is the big problem, it is just Koolaid! You are not afraid of Koolaid are you?
In reality, sex is like over proof rum. You can get hurt and die from it, using it without knowing what it is and what it does will hurt you. There are strict rules and conditions concerning its safe usage.
I am blessed by my wife having been divorced. Her previous marriage was to a charming, angry, abusive man who would routinely lose his temper at the drop of a paper clip and start cussing my wife.
So any Cosmo expectations she had were certainly tempered. Good thing for me!
Trey
It's funny to see women way past their prime with enough baggage to fill a supertanker acting as if they are in their peak years of attractiveness.
Hint, ladies. You can insult the site's author all that you want but that will never change the fact that your attractiveness rapidly deteriorates post age 35 for the vast majority of women. Acting like you're 23 when you're 43 won't change that, nor will your free use of shaming language against people who remind you of this uncomfortable truth that you'd rather pretend does not exist.
Anon, there are more than one way to be attractive. Physical attractiveness is an easy one to notice, but, as you point out, it withers in most of us.
A loving, Christian spirit is VERY attractive. And it grows with time.
Trey
I don't think I'm as worried about the so-called "bad" girls as I am the "decent" ones who unwittingly allow popular culture to shape their views on relationships between men and women.
I've been disturbed--and disheartened about my future marriage prospects--to see how many professing born-again Christian young women on Facebook list among their favorite TV shows Grey's Anatomy, or even Sex and the City. I don't care how many Bible studies a girl attends; if her mind is marinating in that crap, there's no way she'll ever go for a good man and be a good wife to him.
They pissed on your carpet too, dood.
TMink - "Anon, there are more than one way to be attractive. Physical attractiveness is an easy one to notice, but, as you point out, it withers in most of us.
A loving, Christian spirit is VERY attractive. And it grows with time."
Trey,
While there is truth in what you are saying, I have to say, it really does "fit" with a discussion of "The Cosmo Complex".
This is not about men failing to recognize deeper-than-skin beauty in good women, but rather about (aging) women failing to be honest with themselves that their skin-deep beauty (for many of them, the only beauty they ever possessed) is fading - and so are their abilities to COMMAND higher-status men.
Instead, they try to convince themselves that they no longer attract the most desirable men because they have become such strong and beautiful women that men either cannot measure up, of are too afraid to even try to measure up.
I'm guessing that you didn't read the linked article, so I will add this excerpt, which demonstrated their mindset:
"But the sphere in which the signs of self-obsession are perhaps most obvious, and the consequences most immediately felt, is the dating one.
In a recent magazine article, four women in their late 20s and 30s shared their thoughts about why they were still single. A 39-year-old beauty director claimed to be too independent for a relationship.
A 38-year-old music agent attributed her single status to the fact she was an alpha female - independent, feisty, strong-minded, high-achieving and intimidating.
Graphic of a woman looking at her reflection in a heart-shaped pond
Mirror, mirror: Are woman increasingly believing that the universe revolves around them?
She pointed out that she owned a gorgeous flat with gorgeous things in it, had a nice car, was a member of a fancy gym and wore designer dresses. 'I do what I like, when I like,' she said.
She'd been told, and appears to believe, that she's too successful and too well-educated for most men.
The third woman, a 30-year- old arts writer and curator, has been having too much fun to settle down."
That's the female mindset refered to by ""The Cosmo Complex"
It's NOT about women who are being unfairly judged for refusing relationship where sex is demanded. It's not about men failing to understand what "beauty" is about. It is about women failing to understand that their physical beauty is a time-limited commodity, and that they should have developed something more (in terms of being truly beautiful individuals) in anticipation of the day when they could no longer "get by" on their looks (and have desirable men's attention whenever they wanted it).
SLW, good points. I was referring only to Anon's post.
But the man bashing in the article reminds me of a guy at my internship. He was there the year before me and I got a lot of his returning patients. They all complained that he was self absorbed and without empathy. He wrote that they all had unresolved attraction to him and had to leave!
For a certain group in America, male bashing, or even better, white male bashing, can be used to deny anything!
While it is annoying, it hurts society by bashing men and keeps the people who are denying their responsibility stuck as children.
But I was referring to one post.
Trey
TMink - "I was referring only to Anon's post."
Trey,
I do understand that you were.
Still, I think what the anonymous poster said has definite merit.
But, perhaps, you and that anonymous poster are not really all that far apart in your thinking.
His (I presume) point about older women not being able to act young might actually dove-tail quite nicely into your point about other (spiritual, or even just being a nice person, etc.) beauty.
Rather than spending years "trading" on their looks, then having to pretend that they're still "hot" as they age, such women would have been wise to have developed personal characteristics beyond their (visual) sexual-marketplace values.
Actually, even those (younger) women who are still overestimating their market value would be wise to do so. Eventually, all those merely-average women who thought they were Oh-so-hot, might realize that those hot, desirable men they deluded themselves into believing that they could land have no other interest in them other than (short-term) sex.
Better they should do as SavvyD and abstain, and perhaps reevaluate their true market value (i.e. consider men with whom they are more "evenly" matched).
"I am blessed by my wife having been divorced. Her previous marriage was to a charming, angry, abusive man who would routinely lose his temper at the drop of a paper clip and start cussing my wife.
So any Cosmo expectations she had were certainly tempered. Good thing for me!"
I don't think I could risk that, though I am glad it worked for you. It would depend on her attitude and whether she acknowledged that her previous preferences were wrong.
And sex 'too early in the relationship' would be any sex before the wedding. Even among Christians, this is becoming a very quaint concept.
The dear little female 'heart', what an amazing vessel of purity and beautiful motives.
But I'm sure that you, Hermes, are just the pick of the litter, right? You have it all, those dumb girls better fly straight if they are to have any hope of landing such a prospect as yourself. And if a girl likes "Grey's", well... she ain't getting to fly the Hermes Airlines. Now there's a sobering thought to keep the entire gender tossing and turning all night.
Trey -- well, you certainly don't suffer from a Cosmo (or Masim) syndrome. I'm sure we're all impressed that you've managed to not be an abusive husband. To quote a brilliant comedian "What you want, a cookie?"
"This is not about men failing to recognize deeper-than-skin beauty in good women, but rather about (aging) women failing to be honest with themselves that their skin-deep beauty (for many of them, the only beauty they ever possessed) is fading - and so are their abilities to COMMAND higher-status men."
Thanks slwerner.
Trey, nice try but you don't know me and seem to speak out of your own selective perceptions when you advise me that a loving spirit is "VERY" attractive. You don't know where I was coming from on my post.
Thus, your response to me seems rather pretentious and patronizing.
lol
If you want "Cosmo Complex" to happen, Anakin, you might want to find more reliable sources than the Daily "studies show" Mail, which is regarded as a rag the world over. No wonder, since none of the article's sources dubiously pinning this increase in narcissism on women can actually be substantiated. Even the matchmaker they quoted limited her observations to a "small group of women".
And Sex in the City was never about glorifying female narcissism, on the contrary, it made fun of it -- with skanky, cartoonish Samantha being a ready target.
Guess you'll have to find some other way to immortalize yourself.
Also, TMink -- "You can get hurt and die from [sex]" -- ummm, really? I mean, I guess if you forget the safety word or don't have your partner checked for HIV that's possible. But unless your method of sex differs substantially from mine, I think you're the one drinking the Koolaid.
vysota,
When mentioning TMink's statement that one could die from sex, you said "But unless your method of sex differs substantially from mine, I think you're the one drinking the Koolaid."
I don't think Tmink was referring to one-person sex. Thus your perspective seems different from TMink's.
If you want "Cosmo Complex" to happen, Anakin, you might want to find more reliable sources than the Daily "studies show" Mail, which is regarded as a rag the world over. No wonder, since none of the article's sources dubiously pinning this increase in narcissism on women can actually be substantiated. Even the matchmaker they quoted limited her observations to a "small group of women".
Anonymous,
Chew on this ...
The United States is currently suffering from an epidemic of narcissism. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines an epidemic as an affliction "affecting...a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population," and narcissism more than fits the bill. In data from 37,000 college students, narcissistic personality traits rose just as fast as obesity from the 1980s to the present, with the shift especially pronounced for women.
That is from the Amazon book review for Twenge and Campbell's book (April 2009 by Simon and Schuster) on narcissism - the authors cited in the news piece I quoted.
Good one, Anonymous. That one hurt deep down. Maybe I'll have my girlfriend give me a blowjob, just to, you know, make the pain stop. Do you want to take a bullet for your buddy and explain how one does from sex?
Anikin -- so women are trying to catch up to the men in the narcissism department. Give 'em a break, they do still have a fairly long way to go.
Everyone,
May I suggest that you ignore the troll vysota. He/she/it trolls men's sits with an agenda, throwing rhetorical bombs in the threads. The best strategy is to ignore without a reply of any kind.
SLW wrote:
"such women would have been wise to have developed personal characteristics beyond their (visual) sexual-marketplace values."
We are all wise when we do that!
"Better they should do as SavvyD and abstain, and perhaps reevaluate their true market value (i.e. consider men with whom they are more "evenly" matched."
Agreed. And I think you are correct that I missed Anon's point entirely, I seem to have offended him in sharing my perspective.
Trey
Anon wrote: "Trey, nice try but you don't know me and seem to speak out of your own selective perceptions when you advise me that a loving spirit is "VERY" attractive."
Anon, I thought I was agreeing with you, not advising you. Either I misspoke or misunderstood. Or both. 8)
"You don't know where I was coming from on my post. Thus, your response to me seems rather pretentious and patronizing."
I do not see how my misunderstanding your point or misstating mine makes me either pretentious or patronizing. Clueless, sure, but from my perspective, I was giving you an amen. Sorry it got garbled, but I would like to know what came across as talking down to you as that was nowhere in my heart. I appologize for the offense, but ask your help in understanding it so I can avoid it in the future.
Perhaps if I had written it a little differently my point would have been less garbled.
"Anon, there are INDEED more than one way to be attractive. Physical attractiveness is an easy one to notice, but, as you CORRECTLY point out, it withers in most of us."
Would that have been better? Thanks for taking the time to correct me and dialogue about this.
Trey
Vysota, Jesus died for you. He loves you and wants to save you. He can heal your hurt and anger. I am praying for your salvation and healing. God bless you.
Trey
You tell 'em, Anonymous! Solidarity, brother! Together, with a concerted effort, you (supposedly) grown men can overcome someone who dares to disagree with their self-love! Power to the people!
TMink -- did he die for your right to be a condescending prick? I would hope so. It takes a REAL man to run away from any criticism.
Oh, and no, Jesus didn't die for me. But that's a topic for a different blog.
He died for all us sinners. Maybe especially you! He certainly died for condescending pricks like me. And I took Him up on it, and He has made my life so much better.
He can heal you of your anger and hurt. Angels in heaven will rejoice if you ask Him to forgive you. Nothing about you, nothing you have done, can seperate your from God's grace and love if you ask for it by accepting Christ's death for you. Your entire life will change as you grow in obedience to His word.
He is knocking, and you can let Him in. God give you the strength and wisdom to accept that God sacrificed His son for you, so that you could be acceptable to God. Not on your own righteousness, but based on Christ's sacrificial love.
Father, work on Vysota, thank you for bringing Vysota here, help us to show Vysota love and care, help us to not return hate and venom in return, melt Vysota's fear and resistance, you made Vysota, and you made Vysota for your glory. Bring Vysota back to You as Your forgiven child. In the name of your holy Son.
Amen.
LOL. You think Jesus reads this blog? You don't think he has better things to do?
Also... "hurt and anger"? Homie, you're projecting (Freud, take pity on his soul). I'm neither hurt nor angry. I'm frustrated, but unless Jesus is going to thread the needle of the wire bonder for me I doubt your prayer will have much impact.
And you're still too chicken-blank to answer my posts. Jesus may have died for you, but he certainly has failed to give you any guts.
You would have to ask a question before I can answer it. 8)
And while Jesus no doubt does not read blogs, He reads hearts and hears prayers. I just wanted you to know that I am praying for you. I want you to know that there is hope and healing for you if you will accept it.
God bless you vysota, I am praying for you.
Trey
I asked you several questions, TMink. One of them is: how do you go about dying from sex? You claim, and I quote, "In reality, sex is like over proof rum. You can get hurt and die from it". How do you die from sex? Also, a new one: where does your claim of "hurt and anger" come from?
Go for it. I'll wait.
Grrr, I hit the wrong key on the puter and sent the post to hyperspace! Let me try this again.
http://www.cureresearch.com/s/stds/stats.htm
About half way down you will find the death rates for various areas of the world from non-HIV STDs. The numbers are much higher if you include HIV, but in much of the world, the primary mode of infection for HIV is not sexual. There are lots of other good sites with hard stats that you can find if you wish..
As for the hurt and anger, your posts strike me as so angry and insulting. That was your point, right? Anger is typically a secondary emotion in response to fear or hurt. Are you particularly angry with Christians and men? Did Christians hurt you? I am so sorry if we did. Or was it men that hurt you more?
Thanks for answering my questions too. I have work respondibilities that will take me away from the computer for a few hours. But I will remember to say a prayer or two for you. What is your relationship with God like?
Talk to you later and thanks for the good tone of the last post. And thanks for waiting. I look forward to reading your answers.
Trey
Ah, so you did mean STDs. Yes, STDs kill. They do, however, kill very very few people. Your link puts the number of non-HIV deaths in the Americas (i.e. the entirety of the 2 continents) at 2,000 in 2002. The population of the 2 continents is over 900 million. That would make for two ten thousandths of a percent. Frankly, it's less safe to go the the beach. You're much MUCH more likely to die of the flu (http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html) and that's before the whole H1N1 epidemic. Bottom line: ANYTHING is deadly. Hell, you can die from a collapsing sand hole (http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/attacks/relarisksand.htm). 2,000 annual deaths in almost a billion person population is a joke. Sex is less deadly that many many other forms of fun. Yes, everyone should get tested before they start having sex with a new partner, or else use protection. But, frankly, your hobby (beer) is orders of magnitude more fatal than sex.
As for "fear or hurt" -- I'm sorry Trey, but you're giving yourself a wee bit too much credit. I neither fear you nor do you have the capability to hurt me. I appreciate your attempts at psychology, but have you ever considered that I simply get annoyed when people make blatantly false statements? Have you ever considered the idea that idiots like Anonymous simply bug me? Have you perhaps thought that calling a spade a spade is not anger? As for Christians or men -- no, neither have hurt me. But please don't assume you or anyone on this blog (myself included) is a representative of either the entire gender or the entire religion.
My "relationship with God"? I don't believe in god. Thus my relationship with it is the same one you have with Zeus, Odin and Bugs Bunny. I've read several books where he's a character, though.
You pray for me, I'll think for you.
Trey,
You didn't offend me at all and no apology is needed. My comment was focused on the delusions of women in a select group i.e. those who refuse to acknowledge that their aging diminishes their physical attractiveness. That's the only thing I wanted to bring out in my initial post. Merely acting as if one is 25 doesn't make a 45 year-old 25 again.
I agree with you that good character is the most attractive trait, to me that's without question.
We're cool. :)
"Anger is typically a secondary emotion in response to fear or hurt."
I can't believe you actually call yourself a psychologist, Mink. This is just counsellor-lore, long refuted by studies of "meta-emotion".
vysota wrote: "Sex is less deadly that many many other forms of fun. Yes, everyone should get tested before they start having sex with a new partner, or else use protection."
That is a very different thing, you are talking about sex as sport which leads to eternal death and damnation. That is far worse than physical death. A lifestyle of sin separates us from God and who He wants us to be. That is from God's word. He knows, He made us and the universe!
"I don't believe in god."
That is OK, He believes in and love you. And I believe that He is working on you, calling you to Him. You will see it in little and big ways in the coming months, things you overhear, things you read, things you think. God is calling you to repentence and salvation. The way He called me and others here.
I will continue to pray for you, and I really appreciate how your tone got more conversational and less insulting. Thanks!
Trey
Other Anon, I do indeed call myself a psychologist. Much more importantly, the State calls me one! I can call myself thin, but the scales laugh at me!
Post some links for me to evaluate your point about meta-emotion as I do not see how that way of thinking applies on the face of it.
Thanks.
And is it necessary to insult me when you disagree with me? I think we should practice interacting in a Godly fashion due to the purpose of this blog. Would you please give it a try?
Thanks.
Trey
Trey,
There is the link between HPV and certain cancers too. I also just wanted to say that I appreciate your desire to be respectful to others.
Sex in the City may have been meant as a parody or satire (or not) but the women I know who are fans of that show do not see it as such. They see the behaviors on the show as something to be glorified.
Trey -- I will not debate theology with you other than to say that sex is not what sends one to hell. Your religion teaches that non-belief in Christ sends one there. Whether one chooses to participate in recreational sex is entirely immaterial to one's salvation.
As for your statements about "little things" etc., as a psychologist, you should realize what you're telling me. You're telling me, basically "if you hear anything, think it's from god". Well, sure. I can interpret anything I hear / see / experience as evidence of god. Or of fairies. Or of aliens. Any little coincidence can be written off to a deity of your choosing (Allah, Zeus, Jesus, Perun...), but that's simply a trick of human mind. If you look for patterns you will find them where there aren't any, simply due to mathematics of life.
As for praying for me, knock yourself out. If it makes you feel better to do so, I have no objections. Many before you have done the same. Enjoy!
Learner -- you're right about HPV link to cancer. That's why a vaccine has been invented to sever that link. It's now widely available to anyone who wants it.
you're right about HPV link to cancer. That's why a vaccine has been invented to sever that link. It's now widely available to anyone who wants it.
The HPV vaccine, like any vaccine, cannot sever the link between HPV and cancer. It can lower the incidence of certain strains of HPV (not all strains are covered by the vaccine, BTW, only 4 are and they account for about 70% of cervical cancers) which may in turn lower the incidence of certain types of cancer. But, the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine for decreasing the rate of HPV has yet to be determined.
I would also caution women to be aware of the possible side effects of Gardasil. One of my students had a seizure following the administration of her first dose.
"Other Anon, I do indeed call myself a psychologist. Much more importantly, the State calls me one!"
Not the state where you practice. I looked you up and you weren't in the licensure directory.
"Post some links for me to evaluate your point about meta-emotion as I do not see how that way of thinking applies on the face of it."
I'm not going to do a lit review for you that you could have done for yourself, but I will quote this from a marital training manual from the Gottman institute:
"I do not think that the research evidence supports the idea that "underneath" anger is fear or sadness. The human body is not constructed that way in terms of the basic emotions. I think they have no inherent relation to one another. Davidson and Fox's EEG research establish very clearly to me that anger is processed primarily in the left frontal lobe along with the positive affects, whereas whereas sadness and fear are processed in the right frontal lobe. Drawing on Schnierla's and others classical research on approach and withdrawal, they call the right-frontal emotions "withdrawal emotions" (fear, sadness, disgust) because they are involved with people withdrawing from the world, and left-frontal emotions as "approach" emotions (happiness, amusement interest and anger), because they are involved with people engaging the world. Anger is clearly physiologically distinct from fear, disgust and sadness. It is different autonomically (eg. the hands get hot in anger and cold in fear). It is also different in terms of frontal EEG activation. Anger is localized in the lieft frontal lobe, while fear and sadness are localized in the right-frontal lobe. And anger is very different in its ecology as well, if we rely on James Averill's extensive diary study of anger. So I do not believe that anger is fundamentally anything but anger."
Reframing anger to be sadness or fear might sometimes work as a therapeutic technique, but it is just as likely to backfire, (especially with men). Why? Because it's patronizing and dismissive (and therefore the worst response!) to pat someone who's angry or irritated on the shoulder and say, "there, there, it's OK to feel sad, nothing to be afraid of, support is here, etc.". I think your exchange with vysota illustrates that perfectly.
Catwoman,
Not the state where you practice. I looked you up and you weren't in the licensure directory.
Hmm....so you are calling Trey a liar. I guess you know his legal name and the state he practices in? By the way, I believe he has already made it clear his name is not "Mink".
And, patronizing and dismissive is the worst way to be? Interesting....
Whether one chooses to participate in recreational sex is entirely immaterial to one's salvation.
Dunno where you're getting your information from, Vysota, but this is 100% wrong.
Novaseeker -- I read it in this book called "The Bible". Your local library might have a copy.
Other anon wrote: "and left-frontal emotions as "approach" emotions (happiness, amusement interest and anger), because they are involved with people engaging the world. Anger is clearly physiologically distinct from fear, disgust and sadness. It is different autonomically (eg. the hands get hot in anger and cold in fear)."
This is all accepted neurology. What you are missing is the role of the amygdala. The amygdala is a very primitive part of the brain, it is present in reptiles. It is also VERY powerful, initiating the fight or flight response, or getting angry or afraid in response to perceived threat. It is both closer to the visual and auditory and aroma centers of the brain and a faster responding part of the brain. It preceedes the slower, more thoughtful frontal sections of the brain. This more complete neurological understanding supports what I said. But I am always open to your thoughts and appreciate your response.
Here is a nice link that covers this in laymans terms for anyone interested. Check out pages 17 through 21 or so.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zE2X_xiq_OoC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=amygdala+anger&source=bl&ots=77uTNud-G2&sig=4fzjDH63JQo1FgZZlmrfUOX3_qU&hl=en&ei=c4W7StHSCZPcNf_szccL&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=amygdala%20anger&f=false
Wow, that was a LONG link.
Other Anon, it is more accurate to say that I appreciate the thoughtful and discursive portions of your response. The insults and putdowns are a little confusing though as I have interacted with you in a completely respectful manner. Do you generally have difficulties in growing combative and insulting with people that graciously disagree with you?
More in the next post.
Trey
Continued:
There is a neurological theory for that too! Our prefrontal orbital cortex, or POC, is currently understood to be the nexus of our attachment ability. It develops from 20 weeks gestation to 9 months post partum. It controls a couple of interesting things and has very specific environmental needs.
This part of the brain develops best in a calm pregnancy. It also requires a calm and attached infancy in order to develop. The sad and chilling aspect of this is that the POC does not develop after 9 months to a year of our lives. It is done.
It seems to regulate our ability to attach to others and our ability to calm and soothe ourselves when upset as it mediates the information from the amygdala. It is part of the brakes on our panic and anger.
So people whose mom's were stressed and who grew up in emotionally impoverished environments are compromised in their ability to care for other people and their ability to think while they are upset.
The sociological implications are vast. Single moms are more stressed. Their children are more likely to be neurologically compromised. Growing up in a single parent home is the best statistical predictor of poverty and being incarcerated.
A poorly performing POC also makes people have great difficulty conducting a civil disagreement. Here is a link about research on impulsive aggression in people with borderline personality disorder and the POC. The interesting part is around page 5. And sorry for the huge link.
http://www.mountsinai.org/img/vgn_lnk/Regular%20Content/File/Research/Mood%20and%20Personality%20Disorders%20Research%20Program/imaging_genetics.pdf
Not that I am a psychologist or anything. LOL! Yes, you are calling me a liar, and yes you are wrong. What do you hope to accomplish by saying otherwise?
I can see that I need to add you to my prayer list as well. Please brothers, let us all pray for vysota and the other Anon.
God bless and keep them, may our Saviour make Himself known to them, to show them His love and desire to heal them the way He healed us. Father please grant us all more love and patience and goodness, fill us with your Spirit and help us to conduct ourselves in ways that honor You and witness to Your love and transforming power. Thank you God for these two of Your children, bring them close to You, guide us in the ways of love toward them. For only You are good, and only through Christ can we please You. In Jesus name.
Amen.
Trey
The insults and putdowns are a little confusing though as I have interacted with you in a completely respectful manner. Do you generally have difficulties in growing combative and insulting with people that graciously disagree with you?
Catwoman is like that. She's patronizing and dismissive in the worst way. Just overlook her arrogance.
"What you are missing is the role of the amygdala. The amygdala is a very primitive part of the brain, it is present in reptiles. It is also VERY powerful, initiating the fight or flight response, or getting angry or afraid in response to perceived threat. It is both closer to the visual and auditory and aroma centers of the brain and a faster responding part of the brain. It preceedes the slower, more thoughtful frontal sections of the brain. This more complete neurological understanding supports what I said."
No dice. You're basically declaring all emotions as one and the same. Anger is not "typically"
"a secondary emotion" in response to fear or hurt, as you said. It is far more primary than that -- when you feel frustrated when you can't find your car keys, is that because you're more hurt or afraid? Perhaps in some situations, but for the most part anger is a primary emotion that stands on its own. Jesus did not turn over the tables in the temple because he felt hurt or afraid, he was angry, and righteously so.
Cut and paste all you want, Trey, but what you are claiming about anger is just modern psychobabble.
"I guess you know his legal name and the state he practices in?"
Yes. His surname is not Mink, but starts with the same letter. No one with that surname is in the directory as a licenced psychologist (but there is one who was turned down for that licence).
Modern neurology is not psychobabbele. This stuff is based on brain scans.
I disagree about Jesus clearing the temple having no basis in hurt or fear. I believe He may very well have been hurt for His children who were being taken advantage of by the money changers. I think He weeps for the abused. I think it breaks His heart.
And I think it makes Him mad. So there we agree. I can also see your point that He may have acted out of righteous indignation. God is entitled to that, you and me, not so much. But I will consider that point.
But other anon, why are you fixated, and so wrong about my professional status? It is weird and a little creepy. I think you have posted more about my job on this blog than I have. That is weird and creepy too. And goodness you are certainly angry. Hurt too I bet.
God bless you, I hope you feel better. You continue in my prayers, though it would be easier to pray for you with something other than Other Anon to go by. God knows you though, so I rest secure in that.
Trey
"But other anon, why are you fixated, and so wrong about my professional status?"
Why are you claiming that your state calls you a psychologist when you aren't even licenced by them?
Other anon, can I have you call the state so I can get out of my professional tax? They are so sure I am bona fide that they send me a bill every year. Two bills in fact. And my malpractice insurance is a few dollars more than that. So I wish those folks were as sure of my professional status as you.
You are either trying to insult me, embarass me here on the blog, or are delusional.
Random, bitter people on the internet do not matter enough to insult me. Confuse me, sure, insult me, it just does not work. I believe that the people on this blog can discern our fruit and make their own decisions as to my veracity. They know the fruit of the spirit and the fruit of the flesh and the Holy Spirit will guide them. I will trust that. And I am sorry if you are ill. Really.
I am sorry you are so upset, I wish there were something I could do for you. I remind myself, and others here, that you are a child of God, so God bless and keep you. But I see no point in discussing anything else with you. It does not go anywhere. Know that you are in my prayers and that God loves you when nobody else will.
Trey
I believe that the people on this blog can discern our fruit and make their own decisions as to my veracity.
Bingo
Post a Comment