28 months along

I apologize a bit for my tone, I realize you are trying to continue to have a rational conversation, and i got a bit amped up at times in my last post. However, I do appreciate this conversation. I am still on the sensitive side regarding this whole experience, even if I'm improving. My highest value is truth, followed by love. So I enjoy hacking away to the truth. I do appreciate to a degree, the candour. It is also good to hear from you. Perhaps hearing your tone of your voice would defuse some of the perceived tone. Have a good evening.

PAWSsurvivor wrote:I apologize a bit for my tone, I realize you are trying to continue to have a rational conversation, and i got a bit amped up at times in my last post.

My highest value is truth, followed by love. So I enjoy hacking away to the truth.

An apology here is an odd thing, don’t you think?

I too enjoy hacking away at the truth. In my profession the study of epistemology and ontology are fundamental. One of the fun points of discussion is asking to what extent such a thing as truth even exists. My guess is that our understanding of what is truth is vastly different.

For instance, what is the truth behind your apology? Is the apology truly for me? Given our discussions you should be relatively certain that I take no issue with your tone. Heck, you have been extremely polite in comparison to others, and I take no issue with their tone either.

If we want to discover truth, I would argue the apology was more for you than me. You felt…you had an emotional or sensed that in your response you crossed some boundary that you have established for yourself. You violated the way you wish to communicate with others. In some aspects you were not kind in your response, by YOUR standards, by the social norms that you have adopted.

And is that not true, that often times when we apologize it is because we feel as if we have transgressed? We infer that based on our behavior someone else must feel bad, so we offer an apology to gain some relief for ourselves.

And to the response that prompted the apology….

First, I’m not trying to be persuasive. The degree to which you or anyone agrees, disagrees or is somehow influenced by my opinions is not why I participate. My opinions are not only for you.

Second, in roughly a decade on this forum you are the first and only one out of the roughly thousand people or more that I’ve held discussions with that expressed fear to click a link. To not post links because a person is anxious is an issue specific to you. It’s a personal accommodation. It is not an issue for the vast majority with anxiety.

Last, there are people out there in worse condition and those in better condition than yourself. As you’ve pointed out, previously you could not have clicked the link. My advice would be that if a person is unable to click a link…if they have anxiety that severe, then they need to stay out of public forums. They need to get serious therapy, probably receive CBT in some form until they are capable of use the public forum as it is intended.

The apology was for both you and me. Because I don’t want to be an angry person right now. Though I’m glad it wasn’t needed.

I’d argue you are being persuasive, because you don’t acknowledge the many questions and underlined pointed I bring out. You ignore them and move on to your own positions. I feel you are not searching or even indulging the questions of truth that I have put forward, but constantly reaffirming your own beliefs and position.

I also agree with issue of the link, that if people are having issues with that clicking that, it’s worth them having support in a proper forum.

I simply don’t believe you about others not having fear. I would wager most people have fear on their health outcomes when it is severe. They can still click a link, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of fear attached. It’s a common topic in my anxiety forum of 300+ people. Don’t go searching for health problems on the internet that don’t exist. If you do, then yes you need to defuse it / acknowledge the truth of what you read, otherwise you will add to your anxiety. But we aren’t doctors, and we are not always in the best state to evaluate ourselves. It’s very easy to catastrophize.

I disagree with the persuasive aspect. If your opinions are for others, why do you jump right in on my own threads in the addictions forum, and mostly ignore all the other ones, people who are in worse states than my own? People who are in great need of help? Why are you not suggesting these points to them? Usually you are the 1st or 2nd person to post on my threads. Why is that?

PAWSsurvivor wrote:I’d argue you are being persuasive, because you don’t acknowledge the many questions and underlined pointed I bring out.

That is not intentional. That is merely a natural result of a long discussion with multiple points, multiple questions and lines of thought. Certain aspects of a thread will stand out, other aspects get lost.

If there is a specific question or point you think I have not acknowledged and you want to clarify or discuss that point, by all means let me know. It can be helpful to narrow in.

Even in this response you have made many points, some of which will not be addressed in this response. That’s just the nature of any discussion. It’s not intentional.

I simply don’t believe you about others not having fear. I would wager most people have fear on their health outcomes when it is severe.

Agreed that we all have fear. It’s how that fear is managed. For some bravery means calling in an air strike on their own position. For others bravery means the ability to click a link. The chasm of how people deal with fear is extremely wide. Fear for both the warrior and the person facing anxiety over a link is very real. But how they have learned to manage their fears is very different.

I disagree with the persuasive aspect. If your opinions are for others, why do you jump right in on my own threads in the addictions forum, and mostly ignore all the other ones, people who are in worse states than my own? People who are in great need of help? Why are you not suggesting these points to them? Usually you are the 1st or 2nd person to post on my threads. Why is that?

I think you might be a bit focused on yourself here. I’m one of the most active members on the forum and I have responded and do respond to a wide range of posts. Do you have a few examples of those in a worse state? Do you have examples of members that respond to a broader range than myself?

Theres many people on the addictions forum in a worse state than me. Just go look at page 1. There's people posting 13 months 11 months along...7 months along...etc. I went and looked and didn't see a similar response from you. You might argue that it's because I post 28 months, which is a higher number. Well my posts are about how much better I am feeling, even though I still experience symptoms. Other people are depressed, feeling hopeless, and in a much more severe state of symptoms etc. Thats not me. You respond to every single one of my posts. I mean whatever, that's totally fine, I'm glad you are interested. I expect to see you respond to my posts, and it indeed it happens every single time. Why do I have to provide examples anyways of your posting habits? Can't you just affirm or deny my claim? You know how you post. My thoughts are that it's my "PawsSurvivor" handle that really drew you to my posts in particular.

Also not all fear can be measured the same. There are "warriors" who can order an air strike, but can't function outside of the military because of other fears that are may be quite simple for others to deal with. Some people like that, are afraid to be vulnerable or outside the structure of the military. Doesn't make one more brave than the other necessarily.

PAWSsurvivor wrote: Why do I have to provide examples anyways of your posting habits? Can't you just affirm or deny my claim? You know how you post. My thoughts are that it's my "PawsSurvivor" handle that really drew you to my posts in particular.

It is interesting to see how you think my mind must work, e.g. that your handle was the big factor.

When I log on the first thing I click is “unanswered posts”. Next I click “your posts”. And finally, I scroll to the bottom left and glance at “recent posts”. If I see someone that posts regularly or a poster I recognize, I might click to see what they have to say.

That’s it. No big secret. No weighing or considering which posts require more advice or which handle stands out. I don’t click on any category like “addictions” or “eating disorders”. And this means that I often miss posts on these particular topics.

It’s not that your posts happen to draw my attention for some special reason. It’s just one day you posted and when I logged on at clicked “unanswered” your post popped up. Or maybe I saw in recents tokeless had responded so decided to click.

And once you and I had struck up a decent conversation, it makes whatever you post more attractive. You offer up some interesting points to consider and you don’t scream “Troll” simply because you disagree with my opinions or have nothing to offer.

Probably you see different posts because you are focused on the “addictions” category and you have little if any interest in any of the other categories. At least, I don’t remember you participating in discussions related to eating disorders, anger management, etc. Why is that?

Now, I could develop some theory of mind related to your posting behaviors. I could try to develop some story as to why you choose to ignore various discussions but participate in others. I’m not going to, because I simply have no interest in that issue.

Instead, I prefer to ask you about why you believe that you need special accommodations in a public forum. That interests me. I think you are smart enough to take it to the ultimate conclusion, which would be a forum that simply doesn’t function as no one can express an opinion as they try to ensure they don’t post any links for member A, and don’t use the word “disorder” for member B, and don’t say PAWS doesn’t exist for members C, D, and E, and make sure you use non gendered language for member F, etc.

Also not all fear can be measured the same. There are "warriors" who can order an air strike, but can't function outside of the military because of other fears that are may be quite simple for others to deal with. Some people like that, are afraid to be vulnerable or outside the structure of the military. Doesn't make one more brave than the other necessarily.

You are talking about brave as some fixed yes/no characteristic, as in a person is brave, rather than a person does something brave. I wasn’t saying a warrior was brave and the person that can’t click a link is not brave as in some fixed trait across all behaviors. I was only pointing out the difference in the action. There is a huge gulf between the act of calling in an air strike on oneself and managing that fear, versus the fear of clicking on a link because it might contain something scary to read.

Of course there are people that manage their fear across most situations better than others and we will understandably see them as “brave” in the sense of who they are, not just their actions. For instance, Sul Ross fought in 135 battles in his life. Even if he was at the same time afraid of spiders, I think that irrational fear would not necessarily negate the perception that he was a brave man.

And that is what you face, an irrational fear. And this irrational fear has you asking for special accommodations so that you can navigate public conversations without experiencing any discomfort. And you attribute this irrational fear to smoking weed for 3 months over two years ago, right? Or has that belief changed?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

PAWSsurvivor wrote: Why do I have to provide examples anyways of your posting habits? Can't you just affirm or deny my claim? You know how you post. My thoughts are that it's my "PawsSurvivor" handle that really drew you to my posts in particular.

It is interesting to see how you think my mind must work, e.g. that your handle was the big factor.

When I log on the first thing I click is “unanswered posts”. Next I click “your posts”. And finally, I scroll to the bottom left and glance at “recent posts”. If I see someone that posts regularly or a poster I recognize, I might click to see what they have to say.

That’s it. No big secret. No weighing or considering which posts require more advice or which handle stands out. I don’t click on any category like “addictions” or “eating disorders”. And this means that I often miss posts on these particular topics.

It’s not that your posts happen to draw my attention for some special reason. It’s just one day you posted and when I logged on at clicked “unanswered” your post popped up. Or maybe I saw in recents tokeless had responded so decided to click.

And once you and I had struck up a decent conversation, it makes whatever you post more attractive. You offer up some interesting points to consider and you don’t scream “Troll” simply because you disagree with my opinions or have nothing to offer.

Probably you see different posts because you are focused on the “addictions” category and you have little if any interest in any of the other categories. At least, I don’t remember you participating in discussions related to eating disorders, anger management, etc. Why is that?

Now, I could develop some theory of mind related to your posting behaviors. I could try to develop some story as to why you choose to ignore various discussions but participate in others. I’m not going to, because I simply have no interest in that issue.

Instead, I prefer to ask you about why you believe that you need special accommodations in a public forum. That interests me. I think you are smart enough to take it to the ultimate conclusion, which would be a forum that simply doesn’t function as no one can express an opinion as they try to ensure they don’t post any links for member A, and don’t use the word “disorder” for member B, and don’t say PAWS doesn’t exist for members C, D, and E, and make sure you use non gendered language for member F, etc.

Also not all fear can be measured the same. There are "warriors" who can order an air strike, but can't function outside of the military because of other fears that are may be quite simple for others to deal with. Some people like that, are afraid to be vulnerable or outside the structure of the military. Doesn't make one more brave than the other necessarily.

You are talking about brave as some fixed yes/no characteristic, as in a person is brave, rather than a person does something brave. I wasn’t saying a warrior was brave and the person that can’t click a link is not brave as in some fixed trait across all behaviors. I was only pointing out the difference in the action. There is a huge gulf between the act of calling in an air strike on oneself and managing that fear, versus the fear of clicking on a link because it might contain something scary to read.

Of course there are people that manage their fear across most situations better than others and we will understandably see them as “brave” in the sense of who they are, not just their actions. For instance, Sul Ross fought in 135 battles in his life. Even if he was at the same time afraid of spiders, I think that irrational fear would not necessarily negate the perception that he was a brave man.

And that is what you face, an irrational fear. And this irrational fear has you asking for special accommodations so that you can navigate public conversations without experiencing any discomfort. And you attribute this irrational fear to smoking weed for 3 months over two years ago, right? Or has that belief changed?

My point is context. 90% of the people posting on addictions have a disregulated nervous system. And part of that disregulation includes thinking patterns, which to a degree, are being influenced by their nervous system's disregulation and are to a degree outside of their direct control. The deeper someone is in that hole, the more they need of accommodations to help them. Later on, as they feel better, they can handle less accommodations and engage in more argumentative / honest discussion. I'm fully aware this is a public forum. I'm also fully aware of how many people here are in pain, and many aren't seeking professional help. So when I write to them, I'll exercise some restraint in the language I use. I know how sensitive their thinking patterns are. They need to learn how to relax while being in a completely unrelaxed state. It's not easy. Accommodations can help trick the nervous system into calming down. I know it's seems counter-intuitive, but it's no different than talking in front of a crowd and imagining everyone else in their underwear. The lie suits a purpose. At least for awhile, until the brain catches on that the lie is no longer needed.

I've said continually, that while weed was the trigger, the residual anxiety is my own to deal with. I mean I can't disclude something happening as a result of using weed, but it doesn't matter anymore. There are proven methods to calm a disregulated nervous system, and i'm going down that path.

My rationale for what to use in a public forum is this. Is it truthful, is it helpful, is it , is it inspiring, is it necessary, and is it kind? It abbreviates as THINK. I don't think sending google links to health articles which project future pain and suffering, is necessary on a forum where health anxiety is 90% of the main concern. I don't need to ask anyone on here if that's their problem in order to figure that out. It's quite obvious.

Which is why I have and I keep saying, Uncommon is not the right place to recover. People can come here after they have a modicum of safety in their nervous system again. This forum is for people wanting intellectual discourse of an academic / debate oriented nature on the topic of addictions. It's not for the people clawing their way towards peace in their nervous systems. They don't need that kind of back and forth as they work on calming their systems down.

I don't participate in the other forums because they don't interest me / I don't feel they offer anything right now.

I'm glad to know you enjoy our intellectual back and forth.

I'm glad to know you enjoy our intellectual back and forth.

Yes, I do enjoy it.

PAWSsurvivor wrote:My rationale for what to use in a public forum is this. Is it truthful, is it helpful, is it , is it inspiring, is it necessary, and is it kind? It abbreviates as THINK. I don't think sending google links to health articles which project future pain and suffering, is necessary on a forum where health anxiety is 90% of the main concern. I don't need to ask anyone on here if that's their problem in order to figure that out. It's quite obvious.

And what do you think happened before public forums? What do you think happened before the Internet, before the telegraph, before letters written by hand? What do you think happened when people lived in hunter/gatherer tribes and they were nomadic? What do you think happened before mental health systems and the scientific method?

Do you really think 200 years ago that humanity was somehow more “accommodating” when a person had smoked a bit of peyote and feared they may have damaged their health? Or do you think kindness was displayed differently, but telling the person to stop being an @sshat and get their friggin head straight NOW, because the hunt is on my friend!!! Life is hard, war is coming, and the community needs you!

In other words, is the fact that you have the luxury of time part of the problem? Is it that you have grown up in a culture and time that is for lack of a better phrase, “too comfortable” or “too weak” that WE, which includes me, end up wasting our time manufacturing problems that only exist in our heads?

I heard this last week and made me think of this conversation. A person had a tattoo of a tiger on their arm. When asked, they said it was a tattoo to remind them that there is no tiger. They explained that hundreds of years ago we had actual, real threats to our health lurking about ready to pounce. But today, in the modern world we manufacture tigers.

Many philosophers have made similar observations. We are a species that for some reason can never accept that there few actual tigers. And I’m not discounting that since the dawn of humanity people feared issues with their health and/or feared sickness and death. That has always existed. But we live in a time where we have lost perspective, no?

I think you recognize that you have lost perspective. I think you recognize your fears are irrational, but it doesn’t matter. You can’t help but fear the tiger that doesn’t actually exist. By most metrics you are healthy and will continue to live a healthy life relative to most. And one day your health will take a turn and like every other person you will die.

I guess, it is odd to me that out of all the things that you want to turn into a tiger, it is the idea that a link that provides information on mental health is what you have chosen. At what point do you think it is better to let the tiger exist?

Before public forums? I don't know. I don't think any of us with this disorder this extreme would have done very well in a war. Perhaps they would have been cast out or left for dead. Or maybe some Shaman would have taken them in. Sure telling someone to get on with life might have been kindness back then. Also back then fixing illness with leeches was considered kind. So was corporal punishment for children. I don't think we should hold the same definition of that word as we did 200 years ago. Isn't that a logical fallacy of some kind?

I agree with the manufacturing of problems. But that was in my past, and ironically, I thought researching the problem would lead to a solution which instead only further built the problem. Un-manufacturing the problem is the goal now. I don't think I'm manufacturing new problems. All my measurements are showing progress.

I think again, this is where there is a gulf of experience between us. Most people recovering from an intense anxiety disorder would understand how unserving it is to read a link like that, even though their subconcious mind is screaming at them to read it because maybe there's an answer there. I would never have feared a link like that pre-anxiety. Once I was in the anxiety hole, everything scared the crap out of me. It's hard to describe what it feels like to have an experience like this. Even my experience two years ago, I remember it was hell on earth, but it seems almost like a dream now. Like it almost never happened. I can't remember the feelings of visceral pain, fear, and sensations, but I do know it was awful and real.

You need to remember, I did click on the link, and I did face my fear of reading a damning health outcome for myself. I did that so much in the beginning when I thought I had a stroke, seizures. etc, except back then I wasn't able to challenge the article because my symptoms were so intense and so very real. I'm glad I don't worry about what I read like i used to. But it felt like you were setting a trap. Here click this, let's see what happens. I can let the paper tiger exist, why even bother looking at anyways? A person without anxiety wouldn't even be interested at all in such a link. It would seem pointless. Just like I don't go on the anger management forum. It doesn't have any use / relevance to me.

Going back to your point, 200 years ago, no one would have sent anyone a google link for their anxiety. So considering that was your example, why would you think it's a good idea now?

Here's a link for you that might explain it better than a "Dr. Google" link. A new term. Cyberchondria. Another term for anxiety. https://theconversation.com/if-dr-googl ... elp-125070

PAWSsurvivor wrote:Before public forums? I don't know. I don't think any of us with this disorder this extreme would have done very well in a war. Perhaps they would have been cast out or left for dead. Or maybe some Shaman would have taken them in. Sure telling someone to get on with life might have been kindness back then. Also back then fixing illness with leeches was considered kind. So was corporal punishment for children. I don't think we should hold the same definition of that word as we did 200 years ago. Isn't that a logical fallacy of some kind?

I agree with the manufacturing of problems.

No it is not a logical fallacy. Your second point proves the first. You agree with manufacturing problems. You agree with manufactured tigers.

200 years ago the tigers were real. That doesn’t make it some logical fallacy. Rather it is an interesting observation made across time, that in the absence of actual tigers, our species will manufacture imagined tigers.

At what point is it kind to indulge, to accommodate the manufactured tigers of any given individual?

There are many adult children out there that the big tiger in their life is that you address them by zi or zur or some other pronoun. Otherwise the tiger eats them.

Your struggle to read a link in a public forum is a manufactured tiger. You think society should make such an accommodation for your fake tiger, for your irrational belief. I’m telling you NO! Not only for you, but for the health of the rest of the world. The rest of the world doesn’t need to play into your fake tiger delusion to “be kind” by your standards. It’s not kind. It’s the opposite of kind.

What are you so strongly oppose? What do you mean by health of the rest of world?

desperate788 wrote: What do you mean by health of the rest of world?

I mean that the rest of the world doesn't need to "accommodate" every irrational manufactured tiger. It isn't kind to others, it isn't kind to the community, and it isn't kind to the person seeking the accommodation.

It is similar to a child believing there is a monster under the bed whenever the lights are turned off. It is an irrational fear, a manufactured tiger. Because the child struggles, we accommodate for some time, buying a night light so the child is not in pure darkness. Eventually the child no longer needs the night light.

Graham is not a child. He wants a night light to deal with the monsters under his bed. He has manufactured tigers and wants the rest of the world to accommodate him. He thinks it is kind for people to make that special accommodation for his manufactured tiger.

It is a difference of opinion.

you are talking so symbolical. ı cant understand you. aii ı can recaill is enter sandman metallica song case was a child there either

desperate788 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDPyMD_CLgc

what do you post in response to this?