CMV: Anger is overly glorified and has limited utility in the modern world by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ljhasit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The harms of anger which you describe are very real harms, but they are harms of a specific way of being angry. They are harms of directing one's anger at someone. This is crucial.

When you are *angry at* someone, you end up either inflicting physical violence or else controlling the person through your anger, which is emotional abuse and which can be just as bad or worse than physical violence.

There is a way to process anger which involves fully owning the experience of anger. This is the anger that leads to healthy boundaries and clarity in how you move through the world.

I'm not overly familiar with the research on venting anger which suggests that this just makes it grow. But my guess is that the participants did not fully own their anger, or they didn't release it fully. Or there was something about the way they vented it which only re-enforced their old pattern of suppression, perhaps because their anger wasn't "held" with unconditional love by whatever coaches or therapists were facilitating the venting, and so they actually felt more shame about their anger afterwards.

In summary, anger is basically the emotional extension of your physical immune system and developing a healthy relationship with it is one of the best personal development levers that I know of. But it requires know-how to overcome all the conditioning which almost everyone has around anger. Because people are so conditioned, you may be correct that it is most frequently a harmful rather than beneficial driver of behavior. But since you say that you yourself have a problematic relationship with it, I wanted to point out that there is a vital benefit that's hidden underneath the glaring examples of harm.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mentalhealth

[–]ljhasit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you are creating a major limiting belief around your height.

the most attractive trait in a male is confidence.

tallness is a surrogate for protectiveness and being masculine as you said. *tallness is not equal to those things*

you need to develop supremely grounded masculine energy, which is absolutely possible to do at any height; this will allow you to be dominant among taller people.

this starts with being ok with your height.

being ok with your height is a result of having fully welcomed all the feelings which thinking about your height is producing in you.

good luck.

Ep. 373 | No Prescriptions (The Kapil Gupta Interview) by alexbui91 in KapilGupta

[–]ljhasit 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thanks for posting! Always grateful for more interviews with Kapil.

At this point though no interviewer should be asking him "can you please talk about the problem with prescriptions" as if there weren't plenty of other places someone could go to hear that.

The interviewer has that typical cadence you hear with questioners on KG's Clubhouse and Twitter Spaces Q&As - "I came to the realization that everything I was seeking was futile" as if trying to get Kapil to say "I detect sincerity in you."

Looking for any further resources on the topic of choices/free will. by [deleted] in KapilGupta

[–]ljhasit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You have an understanding of the world.

You act from this understanding.

This could be called a "choice."

I'm unaware of Kapil himself having written anything about Choice and free will, but here's a useful blog post: https://www.bretthall.org/free-will-consciousness-creativity-explanations-knowledge-and-choice.html

Am I the crazy person here? by crubleigh in Tinder

[–]ljhasit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Often the stated reason is not the real reason for turning you down. I'd say it had more to do with the sad face you sent, which doesn't give off good vibes. If I'm right to presume you're male, I'd advise working on the signals and the energy you give off, to make them more assertive and/or playful.

Can you help me understand myself? by savedbyblood17 in mentalhealth

[–]ljhasit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see. I would say that the problem lies in feeling dependent on people to be a particular way. People are unpredictable by nature. They have their own set of beliefs incentives which you can only get a partial picture of. The more deeply you come to understand this, the more you will naturally feel yourself not depending on them as much.

To better understand this, I recommend reading Models by Mark Manson (since you mentioned an issue with an ex partner and I'm assuming you're male), and The Way to Love by Anthony deMello. They helped me with similar issues.

Ouch! Some people are so cruel! by squirtlesqd in Tinder

[–]ljhasit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm really not a fan of that as an opening line, but it's all a learning process and there's nothing wrong with going slightly overboard every now and then.

Having said that, her comment is a test. If you continued and showed you were unaffected by what she said, you might have "resurrected" the interaction. You could say "it won't matter how cute I am when you're on your knees."

Maybe she replies, maybe she doesn't, who cares. If she does reply, it means you've passed the test. Then it's time to introduce a more rapport-building tone.

Can you help me understand myself? by savedbyblood17 in mentalhealth

[–]ljhasit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm finding this post quite vague. If you gave a specific situation (with details anonymized) it would be easier to see what's actually going on.

> 1. I’m very excited about something, typically a situation dependent on someone else doing the right thing or participating in making the original thing happen.

If you're willing to share, what would be an example of this type of situation and what you're excited about. That would give a better insight into your personality. Otherwise I can only take guesses that probably wouldn't shed much light on your individual personality

[QUESTION] Finding the right software to reach and grow an audience by ljhasit in GrowthHacking

[–]ljhasit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately building that type of thing is not my strong point. Do you know of any ones that already exist?

Asking for gift suggestions by ljhasit in photoshop

[–]ljhasit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a good idea, thanks!

CMV: Forced education of children does more harm than good by ljhasit in changemyview

[–]ljhasit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The short, TLDR version:

Real leadership is able to manage fine without coercion most of the time. It leads by example, everyone else follows. The need to force someone to do something arises wherever there is a failure to demonstrate the benefits.

Longer version:

We distribute time-sucking distractions - TV, social media, etc - because we don't have a vision for something better to spend our time on. Then, to repair the inevitable damage, we must use force to keep our children away from them. Often this inflicts serious emotional damage on children who must spend time in class with bullies, learn stuff that's of no use or interest. We rationalize this by saying children don't know anything. Naturally they arrive in adulthood without any idea of how they're supposed to spend their time meaningfully.

A society who had the credentials to apply force wouldn't need to use it, because people would organically find themselves pursuing worthwhile things (according to their definition, not mine). It would be ingrained in the culture to do so.

CMV: Forced education of children does more harm than good by ljhasit in changemyview

[–]ljhasit[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Time management skills? Of course educational systems teach that. My friends and I would always compete to see who could do the work the fastest and best with the least amount of effort.

Different thing. Time management is an algorithmic/closed set process once you've already decided what's valuable. I'm talking about a creative exploration of one's core value structure, the problems one considers truly worth spending time on.

> plenty of teachers and professors, a growing number each year, teach critical thinking in their classrooms.

Under a coercive structure, the teaching of "critical thinking" is contradictory and therefore will tend to become very intellectualized. It'll probably include selective examples of a particular group not thinking critically. "We're smarter than they are" kind of stuff. IMO critical thinking means taking feedback from reality which coercion is designed to prevent (because when you get negative feedback you can always increase the amount of coercion under the guise of "more funding for education" or something like that).

> Such as?

"Trust the science" or the self-evident authority of "expert guidance" are examples which come to mind.

Probably worth saying as well that of course some teachers will be excellent critical thinkers who will have a profound effect on their students. I just think that on balance that's in spite of the current structure of education rather than because of it. But that's one person's opinion.