Love
Life
Learn
Look
Listen
Literature
Live
Let
Luck
Lime
Le respect
L'understand
Le tolerance
Friday, 2 March 2012
Thursday, 1 March 2012
The New Smith
An investment in a couple of hours of Animal Planet watching revealed to me a phenomenon that I had never paid attention to: all animals have courtship. No, really, ALL. Even bugs and rodents need to impress and go through persuasion in order to be accepted by their chosen females. How amazing is that? The question that comes to mind is what is the practical purpose of it, why did nature instill this behavior in the genetic code? As science has already revealed, it has to do with the self-selection of the best individuals for reproduction. Males will go for the best females, while these will be persuaded to give in sexually only by the fittest males. This answers my other question: why are humans slowly giving up on the courtship.
In the past, courtship was important. As a man, you had to prove bravery, good looks, ability to earn a good living and be generally likable in the community. As a woman, you had to appear fertile, have a good reputation (this was insurance for the future husband that he would be the father of the children), display nurturing skills, possess beauty and, if possible, come from a "good family". This was fairly equivalent to nature's pursuit of selective reproduction.
All that is blurred out nowadays. There is no longer a clear idea about what makes an individual superior or worthy. Money is not a criteria, most people can easily afford a living. Moral values are a cute notion, but almost extinct, in reality. Good looks are everywhere and now more affordable than ever, with clothing, make-up and cosmetic alterations within a short reach. Family history is also considered an antiquated concept and it only comes up in old-money type of alliances.
Amidst all this chaos of guidelines, a new religion is slowly creeping: the pursuit of "how the person makes me feel".
This is really important because it sheds light on all the mysterious break-ups that leave one partner baffled and humbled by the unanswered "why".
The new prototype that emerges in the new era is the funny, easy-going, tolerant, enthusiatic, positive, childlike person. They would have a profession that they are passionate about, but they would not obsess over it or dedicate it countless hours. They are open to new experiences, show spontaneity and creativity in the way they spend their free time. They are honest and willing to communicate. They express their emotions and respond appropriately to the emotional experiences of others. They never criticize and offer advice or opinion only when asked for. They have their own activities and allow others their own space, as well. They support, encourage, offer a shoulder to cry or an arm to help. They are not possessive and display only a complimentary jealousy. On the challenging side, they are independent enough to draw attention and choosy enough to make them desirable. They also need to feel "right" around a partner, so they would not prolongue a relationship with no future.
This new star, the "natural" personality, might be the key to the revival of courtship. Very pleasant men going after very pleasant women and, in the process, hoping for very nice future offspring. Maybe they would not be most suitable individuals to survive in a bare-skin, post-disaster environment, but they would be most suitable for this configuration of the society.
In the past, courtship was important. As a man, you had to prove bravery, good looks, ability to earn a good living and be generally likable in the community. As a woman, you had to appear fertile, have a good reputation (this was insurance for the future husband that he would be the father of the children), display nurturing skills, possess beauty and, if possible, come from a "good family". This was fairly equivalent to nature's pursuit of selective reproduction.
All that is blurred out nowadays. There is no longer a clear idea about what makes an individual superior or worthy. Money is not a criteria, most people can easily afford a living. Moral values are a cute notion, but almost extinct, in reality. Good looks are everywhere and now more affordable than ever, with clothing, make-up and cosmetic alterations within a short reach. Family history is also considered an antiquated concept and it only comes up in old-money type of alliances.
Amidst all this chaos of guidelines, a new religion is slowly creeping: the pursuit of "how the person makes me feel".
This is really important because it sheds light on all the mysterious break-ups that leave one partner baffled and humbled by the unanswered "why".
The new prototype that emerges in the new era is the funny, easy-going, tolerant, enthusiatic, positive, childlike person. They would have a profession that they are passionate about, but they would not obsess over it or dedicate it countless hours. They are open to new experiences, show spontaneity and creativity in the way they spend their free time. They are honest and willing to communicate. They express their emotions and respond appropriately to the emotional experiences of others. They never criticize and offer advice or opinion only when asked for. They have their own activities and allow others their own space, as well. They support, encourage, offer a shoulder to cry or an arm to help. They are not possessive and display only a complimentary jealousy. On the challenging side, they are independent enough to draw attention and choosy enough to make them desirable. They also need to feel "right" around a partner, so they would not prolongue a relationship with no future.
This new star, the "natural" personality, might be the key to the revival of courtship. Very pleasant men going after very pleasant women and, in the process, hoping for very nice future offspring. Maybe they would not be most suitable individuals to survive in a bare-skin, post-disaster environment, but they would be most suitable for this configuration of the society.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
On Casual Sex
I was reading a funny article today. Apparently, the institution of cheating is more blossoming than ever, with social media as a welcome lubricant. You find a couple of websites, post your request or skim through the existing ones, and in matters of minutes you could be on your way to steamy fornication. It's all hush-hush, of course, but that works for both parties because more often than not, they will be just as happily involved (with someone else) as you. It's all about adrenaline, sex and novelty.
Totally understandable. Boredom comes with the package of long-term relationships and we all need excitement - otherwise we wither. It sounds so tempting that I'm not going to waste another minute - I'm gonna jump on my decision making device: the list of pros and cons.
PROS:
1. Variety. No promises, no commitment means I can choose someone new every day. I live in a metropolis, boys turn 18 everyday, this pond is not likely to drain while I'm alive.
2. Excitement. Every new encounter is like a wrapped Christmas present. Just for those very intense feelings of anticipation and I think it's worth it already.
3. Sex. Need I say more?
4. Networking. Didn't see this one coming, right? This open "I'm cheating-you're cheating" kind of interaction opens the door to honesty. Mutual destruction capabilities once established, the two can freely chat about anything - quite therapeutical, in fact. You might think that a relationship which started under such circumstances would not make it beyond the premises, but you would be wrong. It is different from "I lied to you about my life and now I need to hide from you to make sure you don't ruin it for me" sex; it is also different from "You slept with me to get something from me, so now I kind of feel repelled by you" sex. The striking similarity between motives and expectations actually sets the base for a nice friendship. Think about it.
5. Therapy. Escaping the daily routine and hiding from your worries will actually give you a relaxing break. Might even knock out a few years.
6. Get back in touch with your inner child. Fooling around, flirting, giggling, playing, are actually things your child loves to do. Since we spend most of our time as grown-ups or parents, the poor thing rarely has a chance to enjoy.
7. Keep your options open. Sure, you are somewhat happy now, but you never know, right? One of these occasional flings might just turn out to bloom into something else one day.
That was my right hemisphere. I'm soooo convinced, but for the sake of the truce in my head, I will give the floor to Lefty.
So, CONS:
1. STDS. Yes, there are condoms, but they have been known to break. As well, there are conditions that don't need fluids to spread around, they are happy enough with the proximity of the private parts. Explain that to your partner, and to yourself -when that raged conscience keeps you awake.
2. Psycopaths. Serial killers, tortionists, rapists, kidnappers and so on. They know you couldn't have told anyone where you were going and they don't even need to scheme you into going somewhere with them. And if you think you would "know", think again. Some of the most ferocious psycopaths in history were regular joes, looked-up to in their community.
3. Emotional repercussions. Most of women, but it goes for men, as well, have a hard time dealing with the emotional rampage of guilt. If that is not enough, self-loathing and depression may present an unwanted onset as well. Enjoy that!
4. You never expect the unexpected. We are very foolish when it comes to planning. We actually believe that if we think hard and plan in detail, we cover for everything. However, if the universe is in a particular mood, our carefully errected edifice can come down in flames so fast and so spectacularly, that we may even start a new religion afterwards. Extreme examples: your online pal, whom you only know by nickname and lies served so far, turns out to be your spouse; there is a detective on your trail, hired by your spouse, due to your unusual behavior lately; the person showing up at the "date" is a friend of your child's; the person showing up is a relative, friend, ex, co-worker, boss or otherwise work related; you fall into a trap set by a website or a TV show, so next thing you know, you are "live" for everyone to see.
5. Change of plan - type A. You realize you want more from the relationship. You fall inlove and decide your casual sex is actually the one - but the feeling is not mutual. You are now heart-broken, depressed and facing either a break-up with your spouse or a long period of double shot of misery. If the sadness turns to riot, you might even threaten them with exposure and make a fool of yourself in the process.
6. Change of plan - type B (from beware). Your "date" realizes he/she has feelings for you. That is particularly inconveniencing for you, since you have nothing of the sort. You let them know, then offer to shake hands and stay friends. End of story for you, beginning of the drama for them. After wallowing in their own misery for a while, they decide to give it another shot. They come, beg, argue, then beg some more. When nothing works, they might even threaten you with exposure. In some cases, it might escalate to violence or even crimes of passion; to make it worse, sometimes the target of a rage attack is not the loved one, but loved ones of the loved one.
7. Pregnancy. All precautions aside, if both partners are fertile, the likelihood is there.
Tough choice, easy choice? Not even a choice? Surprisingly enough, for most people, such a rational train of thought would never take place because the "do" or "don't do it" is ingrained in their personality. It is useful, however, if you have been on the "don't" side, but kind of feel tempted to make a change. Odds are, most "amateurs" will get hurt and deeply regret it afterwards, if they take it to the finish line in the first place. If they decide to stay in the game, it will get easier with time, but they will suffer other types of long term psychological effects. If they make it a "once in a lifetime experience", they will be periodically punched by guilt associated feelings, but they might end up enjoying their family life more. Hard to predict, really, but personal intuition is always the best guide. When in serious doubt, a coach or a therapist might be of great help as well; the worst strategy, however, is to take it to a friend, unless they are mute or otherwise unwilling to give advice and just limit themselves to listening. The other danger of involving someone familiar is that you are disclosing information that can be used against you at some point in the future. We all think that our friends would never betray us, but history has overwhelmingly proved otherwise.
Personally, I believe people should do whatever they feel necesarry in order to be happy and experience life. But just like drinking acid, while new and challenging, might prove to be a fatal curiosity, people should choose wisely what they decide to taste and make sure they are ready to meet the consequences, because they never fail to show up.
Totally understandable. Boredom comes with the package of long-term relationships and we all need excitement - otherwise we wither. It sounds so tempting that I'm not going to waste another minute - I'm gonna jump on my decision making device: the list of pros and cons.
PROS:
1. Variety. No promises, no commitment means I can choose someone new every day. I live in a metropolis, boys turn 18 everyday, this pond is not likely to drain while I'm alive.
2. Excitement. Every new encounter is like a wrapped Christmas present. Just for those very intense feelings of anticipation and I think it's worth it already.
3. Sex. Need I say more?
4. Networking. Didn't see this one coming, right? This open "I'm cheating-you're cheating" kind of interaction opens the door to honesty. Mutual destruction capabilities once established, the two can freely chat about anything - quite therapeutical, in fact. You might think that a relationship which started under such circumstances would not make it beyond the premises, but you would be wrong. It is different from "I lied to you about my life and now I need to hide from you to make sure you don't ruin it for me" sex; it is also different from "You slept with me to get something from me, so now I kind of feel repelled by you" sex. The striking similarity between motives and expectations actually sets the base for a nice friendship. Think about it.
5. Therapy. Escaping the daily routine and hiding from your worries will actually give you a relaxing break. Might even knock out a few years.
6. Get back in touch with your inner child. Fooling around, flirting, giggling, playing, are actually things your child loves to do. Since we spend most of our time as grown-ups or parents, the poor thing rarely has a chance to enjoy.
7. Keep your options open. Sure, you are somewhat happy now, but you never know, right? One of these occasional flings might just turn out to bloom into something else one day.
That was my right hemisphere. I'm soooo convinced, but for the sake of the truce in my head, I will give the floor to Lefty.
So, CONS:
1. STDS. Yes, there are condoms, but they have been known to break. As well, there are conditions that don't need fluids to spread around, they are happy enough with the proximity of the private parts. Explain that to your partner, and to yourself -when that raged conscience keeps you awake.
2. Psycopaths. Serial killers, tortionists, rapists, kidnappers and so on. They know you couldn't have told anyone where you were going and they don't even need to scheme you into going somewhere with them. And if you think you would "know", think again. Some of the most ferocious psycopaths in history were regular joes, looked-up to in their community.
3. Emotional repercussions. Most of women, but it goes for men, as well, have a hard time dealing with the emotional rampage of guilt. If that is not enough, self-loathing and depression may present an unwanted onset as well. Enjoy that!
4. You never expect the unexpected. We are very foolish when it comes to planning. We actually believe that if we think hard and plan in detail, we cover for everything. However, if the universe is in a particular mood, our carefully errected edifice can come down in flames so fast and so spectacularly, that we may even start a new religion afterwards. Extreme examples: your online pal, whom you only know by nickname and lies served so far, turns out to be your spouse; there is a detective on your trail, hired by your spouse, due to your unusual behavior lately; the person showing up at the "date" is a friend of your child's; the person showing up is a relative, friend, ex, co-worker, boss or otherwise work related; you fall into a trap set by a website or a TV show, so next thing you know, you are "live" for everyone to see.
5. Change of plan - type A. You realize you want more from the relationship. You fall inlove and decide your casual sex is actually the one - but the feeling is not mutual. You are now heart-broken, depressed and facing either a break-up with your spouse or a long period of double shot of misery. If the sadness turns to riot, you might even threaten them with exposure and make a fool of yourself in the process.
6. Change of plan - type B (from beware). Your "date" realizes he/she has feelings for you. That is particularly inconveniencing for you, since you have nothing of the sort. You let them know, then offer to shake hands and stay friends. End of story for you, beginning of the drama for them. After wallowing in their own misery for a while, they decide to give it another shot. They come, beg, argue, then beg some more. When nothing works, they might even threaten you with exposure. In some cases, it might escalate to violence or even crimes of passion; to make it worse, sometimes the target of a rage attack is not the loved one, but loved ones of the loved one.
7. Pregnancy. All precautions aside, if both partners are fertile, the likelihood is there.
Tough choice, easy choice? Not even a choice? Surprisingly enough, for most people, such a rational train of thought would never take place because the "do" or "don't do it" is ingrained in their personality. It is useful, however, if you have been on the "don't" side, but kind of feel tempted to make a change. Odds are, most "amateurs" will get hurt and deeply regret it afterwards, if they take it to the finish line in the first place. If they decide to stay in the game, it will get easier with time, but they will suffer other types of long term psychological effects. If they make it a "once in a lifetime experience", they will be periodically punched by guilt associated feelings, but they might end up enjoying their family life more. Hard to predict, really, but personal intuition is always the best guide. When in serious doubt, a coach or a therapist might be of great help as well; the worst strategy, however, is to take it to a friend, unless they are mute or otherwise unwilling to give advice and just limit themselves to listening. The other danger of involving someone familiar is that you are disclosing information that can be used against you at some point in the future. We all think that our friends would never betray us, but history has overwhelmingly proved otherwise.
Personally, I believe people should do whatever they feel necesarry in order to be happy and experience life. But just like drinking acid, while new and challenging, might prove to be a fatal curiosity, people should choose wisely what they decide to taste and make sure they are ready to meet the consequences, because they never fail to show up.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Tricks and treats are (not) for kids
Tricks and treats are (not) for kids
Parenting. Let's face it, we all do it. Some people do it per se, with tiny people they call their children, others do it with their pets, friends, spouses, colleagues or employees, while even others do it with their own parents. A branch of psychology actually argues that "parent" is one of our three mind-sets.
It is not a mistery why we need to teach, nurture, advise, guide, warn, explain and nag. It's because we can, because we feel a kick in our guts to do it and, at times, because it brings us great enjoyment. It's true that Newton's principle regarding action and reaction only saw shape around 1687, but people kind of noticed there might be something to it much before. Much, much before, think homo sapiens and his little cave, where he and Mrs. Homo Sapiens were smiling over a little stony crib. Right there and then, they understood that they will need a new tool in dealing with the cooing cub: an algorithm.
This is the true story of how parenting styles emerged. Strategies joined together under a unitary umbrella of approach, designed to build the most fit individual, in respect to the standards of the community. The difference between trends lies in the punishment/reward set of tools employed and in the configuration of the parent-offspring relationship. One example of extreme education was the spartan model, where emotion was stripped as much as possible from daily interactions and development was focused on the physical and mental build-up to create fighting machines. They were warriors, so that's what they would breed. Amongst proeminent means of education, hystorians account for deprivation, strictness, violence, humiliation, starvation and tough discipline.
One of the first scientists to analyze the main fashions in child upbringing was Diana Baumrind, who found 3 main parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. The double "A" may sound similar, but they go east and west. The former employs strict discipline and control, with little to no feed-back or room for negotiations; still visible in some households nowadays, but surely on its way to extinction. The latter involves a two-way type of communication and focuses on helping children understand, evaluate and make decisions on their own; parents still claim authority and will intervene when necessary, even with sanctions, but will explain themselves in doing so. This is the prevalent style in modern homes and is largely endorsed by the scientific community.
The last type is the permissive: the purposeless, visionless, chaotic "do whatever, just don't bother me" style. Abundant in the lower, poor, uneducated households, though not scarce in other walks of life as well, this model is typical for very busy or distracted parents. The key word is "ignore" and interactions are almost exclusively dictated by practicality.
Theories aside, the 20th century found parenting improving, but still frustrating for all parties involved. With little knowledge on psychology, most parents were struggling to find the best methods for coping with their offspring.
1969 was a great year in many ways, but for parenting, it brought about a breakthrough. Dr. Nathaniel Branden's study on self-esteem revealed to the world that performance, success and achievement were dependent on a high level of self-esteem. More so, a great mind, but with low confidence appeared to be a direct train to mediocrity. For parents, it was a simple, straightforward advice that could actually help. To achieve such purpose, one tool was especially promoted: praising.
Praising became the new religion in modern child nurture. More abused than properly used, it emerged not only as the new black in familial environments, but also as a comfortable "I did my best" for parents' conscience. However, things didn't change much. Yes, parents got off their progenies' back, in a sense, and emotional environment somehow sweetened, but success didn't become ubiquitous and overall performance didn't improve. To make matters even foggier, a peculiar phenomenon reached the experts' ears, and so light on praising was finally shed.
It appeared that in a popular school for endowed children, teachers and parents alike were baffled by a chronic difficulty of some above-average pupils in tackling mundane tasks, such as writing with a pen or learning fractions. Further observations revealed that these children systematically refused to put effort into overcoming the challenges and preferred to abandon them altogether, while arguing that they were just not good at them.
A team of scientists, lead by dr. Carol Dweck conducted a study which showed that the roots of the problem rested in the habit of praising. It was a question of "how", which had not been previously addressed. The findings redefined complimenting both in terms of quantity and quality.
For one, generic praising that makes reference to the child as "smart" or "intelligent" creates a halo effect, where he/she feels self sufficient and magically almighty. It appears to the person that work is not necessary and anything can be achieved with ease. Failing to happen so, the child will label the challenge as "not for me" and move on. At stake there is also the consolidated good image of the self, which creates internal self-defense mechanisms as well.
That is not to say that praising altogether is wrong. Actually, dr. Dweck's conclusions encourage it, with amendments. To begin with, child complimenting should be activity-focused and even if there isn't a particular achievement, effort should be rewarded as well. To notice the resilience and the impressive physical effort displayed during a game, even if the team lost or the child hasn't scored, makes the compliment sound sincere and plausible. As a positive side-effect, such observations from a parent or a teacher tend to become reference points and the child will likely strive to meet them even further.
Frequency turned out to be a factor, as well. Too often, it loses value. Repetition on auto pilot comports the risk of underserved compliment which, if spotted, disqualifies the author for the future. To be carefully considered is also the addiction one might develop. Associating any achievement with receiving a compliment might create adapting problems in less comfortable environments, where praising may be scarce, if ever.
Dr. Dweck suggests verbal rewarding be done on topic, when appropriate, when deserved and fear not skipping one, every now and then. As in everything else, moderation leads to best results.
Parenting. Let's face it, we all do it. Some people do it per se, with tiny people they call their children, others do it with their pets, friends, spouses, colleagues or employees, while even others do it with their own parents. A branch of psychology actually argues that "parent" is one of our three mind-sets.
It is not a mistery why we need to teach, nurture, advise, guide, warn, explain and nag. It's because we can, because we feel a kick in our guts to do it and, at times, because it brings us great enjoyment. It's true that Newton's principle regarding action and reaction only saw shape around 1687, but people kind of noticed there might be something to it much before. Much, much before, think homo sapiens and his little cave, where he and Mrs. Homo Sapiens were smiling over a little stony crib. Right there and then, they understood that they will need a new tool in dealing with the cooing cub: an algorithm.
This is the true story of how parenting styles emerged. Strategies joined together under a unitary umbrella of approach, designed to build the most fit individual, in respect to the standards of the community. The difference between trends lies in the punishment/reward set of tools employed and in the configuration of the parent-offspring relationship. One example of extreme education was the spartan model, where emotion was stripped as much as possible from daily interactions and development was focused on the physical and mental build-up to create fighting machines. They were warriors, so that's what they would breed. Amongst proeminent means of education, hystorians account for deprivation, strictness, violence, humiliation, starvation and tough discipline.
One of the first scientists to analyze the main fashions in child upbringing was Diana Baumrind, who found 3 main parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian and permissive. The double "A" may sound similar, but they go east and west. The former employs strict discipline and control, with little to no feed-back or room for negotiations; still visible in some households nowadays, but surely on its way to extinction. The latter involves a two-way type of communication and focuses on helping children understand, evaluate and make decisions on their own; parents still claim authority and will intervene when necessary, even with sanctions, but will explain themselves in doing so. This is the prevalent style in modern homes and is largely endorsed by the scientific community.
The last type is the permissive: the purposeless, visionless, chaotic "do whatever, just don't bother me" style. Abundant in the lower, poor, uneducated households, though not scarce in other walks of life as well, this model is typical for very busy or distracted parents. The key word is "ignore" and interactions are almost exclusively dictated by practicality.
Theories aside, the 20th century found parenting improving, but still frustrating for all parties involved. With little knowledge on psychology, most parents were struggling to find the best methods for coping with their offspring.
1969 was a great year in many ways, but for parenting, it brought about a breakthrough. Dr. Nathaniel Branden's study on self-esteem revealed to the world that performance, success and achievement were dependent on a high level of self-esteem. More so, a great mind, but with low confidence appeared to be a direct train to mediocrity. For parents, it was a simple, straightforward advice that could actually help. To achieve such purpose, one tool was especially promoted: praising.
Praising became the new religion in modern child nurture. More abused than properly used, it emerged not only as the new black in familial environments, but also as a comfortable "I did my best" for parents' conscience. However, things didn't change much. Yes, parents got off their progenies' back, in a sense, and emotional environment somehow sweetened, but success didn't become ubiquitous and overall performance didn't improve. To make matters even foggier, a peculiar phenomenon reached the experts' ears, and so light on praising was finally shed.
It appeared that in a popular school for endowed children, teachers and parents alike were baffled by a chronic difficulty of some above-average pupils in tackling mundane tasks, such as writing with a pen or learning fractions. Further observations revealed that these children systematically refused to put effort into overcoming the challenges and preferred to abandon them altogether, while arguing that they were just not good at them.
A team of scientists, lead by dr. Carol Dweck conducted a study which showed that the roots of the problem rested in the habit of praising. It was a question of "how", which had not been previously addressed. The findings redefined complimenting both in terms of quantity and quality.
For one, generic praising that makes reference to the child as "smart" or "intelligent" creates a halo effect, where he/she feels self sufficient and magically almighty. It appears to the person that work is not necessary and anything can be achieved with ease. Failing to happen so, the child will label the challenge as "not for me" and move on. At stake there is also the consolidated good image of the self, which creates internal self-defense mechanisms as well.
That is not to say that praising altogether is wrong. Actually, dr. Dweck's conclusions encourage it, with amendments. To begin with, child complimenting should be activity-focused and even if there isn't a particular achievement, effort should be rewarded as well. To notice the resilience and the impressive physical effort displayed during a game, even if the team lost or the child hasn't scored, makes the compliment sound sincere and plausible. As a positive side-effect, such observations from a parent or a teacher tend to become reference points and the child will likely strive to meet them even further.
Frequency turned out to be a factor, as well. Too often, it loses value. Repetition on auto pilot comports the risk of underserved compliment which, if spotted, disqualifies the author for the future. To be carefully considered is also the addiction one might develop. Associating any achievement with receiving a compliment might create adapting problems in less comfortable environments, where praising may be scarce, if ever.
Dr. Dweck suggests verbal rewarding be done on topic, when appropriate, when deserved and fear not skipping one, every now and then. As in everything else, moderation leads to best results.
Motivation
According to all reliable sources, I grew up as a person that lacked motivation. I was smart, witty, fast, but otherwise useless, since nothing could predict the length of my attention span over one particular point. Some called me lazy, some just shook their head in disappointment. I was devastated myself that I was so superficial, yet I could not grasp control. I grew up as a victim of my own mental paralysis.
Things changed, to an extent, later on in life, but not decisively. It would be more accurate to say that I have educated a sense of determination and self-discipline onto myself, but that inner drive - never showed up.
It's not that I don't have ambitions, because I do. As well, energy and can-do attitude, desire to learn and dreams of achievement. Yet, when I loosen the leash, unfrown my eyebrows, I see a creepy do-nothing self that takes hold. She's tasteless, colorless, insipid and ugly. She wastes time and likes nothing. Who is she? If that is the real me, the core that I am struggling to cosmetize with "let's go"s and "let's do"s on a minutely basis, than how long can I keep up with that? Is it a lie? Am I self-delusional?
I think of it as a crippled limb that needs rehabilitation. Maybe I was born with poor wiring in the motivation-responsible area of my brain, but I don't have to live with it. The brain is like one of those transformer robots, constantly reshaping, so I will count on that. I will continue to impulse myself artificially in hope that one day it will become a habit. Then I will write a book about it and help everyone in need overcome this handicap. How's that for motivation?
Things changed, to an extent, later on in life, but not decisively. It would be more accurate to say that I have educated a sense of determination and self-discipline onto myself, but that inner drive - never showed up.
It's not that I don't have ambitions, because I do. As well, energy and can-do attitude, desire to learn and dreams of achievement. Yet, when I loosen the leash, unfrown my eyebrows, I see a creepy do-nothing self that takes hold. She's tasteless, colorless, insipid and ugly. She wastes time and likes nothing. Who is she? If that is the real me, the core that I am struggling to cosmetize with "let's go"s and "let's do"s on a minutely basis, than how long can I keep up with that? Is it a lie? Am I self-delusional?
I think of it as a crippled limb that needs rehabilitation. Maybe I was born with poor wiring in the motivation-responsible area of my brain, but I don't have to live with it. The brain is like one of those transformer robots, constantly reshaping, so I will count on that. I will continue to impulse myself artificially in hope that one day it will become a habit. Then I will write a book about it and help everyone in need overcome this handicap. How's that for motivation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)