Phi for All

Thanks, and remember it has nothing to do with the Fresh Prince of Des Moines.

I can neither confirm nor deny that this is the case. I am legally obligated to point out, however, that Mr Smith won't be "jiggy" with any more discussion of his alleged secret identity.

"Negative emotions daily", are you talking about yours, or your father displaying negative emotions towards you? For the rest, again it seems like a perspective issue. It's perfectly normal for parents to channel the activities of their children in ways they deem beneficial, and it's perfectly normal for those children to interpret that as "controlling", and a refusal to "let me live my own life". It's great that you're focused on making your future better, that's also very normal (if not as prevalent as it should be). Welcome to Humanity 101. We're very, very good at assessing what's right and wrong about others. We see others and their dealings as patterns, and we can pick out parts that don't fit, or would fit better elsewhere. We don't see ourselves in those patterns quite as well, though, probably because we aren't constantly sensing ourselves the way we sense others. We SUCK at fixing ourselves, but that's why we have other people. Friends and family are good resources for feedback on ourselves, and it's important to have folks who can look at our situations and extend their understanding to us, in much the same way you do for others. My guess is that you told your dad that you want to be a professional rapper, and that goes against the more reasonable path he thought would give you the most opportunities. But regardless, I would still advise you to explain to your father that you understand the importance of making the right choices at a critical time in your life, and right now you're approaching it with far too much negativity and hostility, and you're worried it will mess up everything. Ask for his help in restructuring the way all of you are behaving, to make it more of the positive thing it should be. How did your father feel about your joining, was that a big drama? In any case, I don't see how dad has as much impact anymore. Order is good, and you may be feeling the friction between your love of order and the flow of creativity. Our muse rarely watches the clock. If that's the case, to make changes you just have to schedule them. This lets you set up small steps that move you forward. Then they go from changes in routine to full-fledged goals. Instead of specific instruction, continue to seek information, especially about yourself from other people. What you're really looking for here is what everyone wants, a best-case scenario. You want what you do to go well and smoothly, so you can take pride in it. Get more input about yourself from those you trust, and you'll be able to give yourself specific instruction. Please define "mental disdain".

If you're trying to be funny here, you missed the mark. If you're serious, you're far too sensitive to discuss science with. Our #1 rule here is civility. What makes you think it's in any way appropriate to be so rude and dismissive? AFAICT, every answer you were given was done so with respect.

Looking for validation is like thinking you have to have a novel to be taken seriously as a writer. Your stance is like sitting down as often as you can and working through the process of writing. Which is more likely to make you a novelist?

OK, sincere honesty. Your use of all-encompassing words like "constantly", "completely", "based off nothing", and "no reason" tells me you have a bias that you're confirming wrt your family. Be honest, people rarely do things for no reason, and we also tend to pick out those moments that vex us and put them in the ever-growing pile of negative points our biases create. You see only the times when your sister does something you think you'd get nailed for, and not the times when she's a good kid too. You're 18, you're at that point where you want to be seen as an adult, so those younger than you are automatically pretty childish. You're drawing important distinctions between adult and child behavior, but your sister isn't at that stage yet. You can draw distinctions, but you shouldn't judge your sister by the standards you hold for your older self. I split up your paragraph because these first three sentences seemed different than the rest. The above makes it sound like you're blameless, and confused as to why you aren't getting better treatment. This part is different. It acknowledges there may be reasons for these problems. I'm skeptical that you "know exactly why he thinks what he thinks and does what he does". I know you have an idea about it, but quite frankly, if you really knew that, you could fix it. If it was a specific incident that caused mistrust, you could work out how to avoid similar mistakes. If it's something to do with a personality clash, it will be fixed when you move out to college or the military or with friends. I think you're taking on the wrong job. Making your father realize anything is less important than working with your parents to tackle this next phase of your life. If you've set up your relationship as a) Dad wants me to do something with my life, and b) I want to write rap music, then you've created a problem where the only solution that wins for everybody is you become an overnight success at 18. My mother would have called that "a tough row to hoe". Maybe instead, you figure out what other pursuits can help your music. Even rappers benefit from knowledge, so going to college is probably something you and your father both agree on. Musicians, especially song writers, need inspiration from life, from people and situations, so anything productive you can do is going to help your music and probably make Dad happy as well. Do you get the sense your father is tough on you because he wants you to be a good person, or is he pressuring you to do something you don't want to do because it's what he thinks is best for you?

Then philosophically, it's still a gimmick. If you always drive north, you'll never visit the south. Honesty can be sincere without brutality.

Awesome! Writing anything teaches you a lot about yourself. Rhyming patterns are just icing on the cake.

I call it "The Parent Rap". Double entendres are cool!

Hey wait a minute! Don't try to spin it! You put the stroller in the trunk with your baby still in it! Rap seems to be more popular than 60s folk protest songs, but then all music is more popular now that so much is digital. Is rap more influential? Like all protest songs, the folks who should be listening shun this type of music.

Even with basically good kids, it's hard for a lot of fathers to let go of any control they feel might be beneficial. "My house, my rules" is a seemingly rational and sensible stance, but only if one acknowledges all the important aspects of the lives under that roof. I don't know your father, but I'm close to similar situations, and it's likely your father knows you're a good kid, but doesn't realize his job in that regard is long over, that he was successful. He may need to acknowledge that he did a great job raising a smart kid, and that when let loose and given the opportunity to decide, you'll make your own choices based on your upbringing. They may not always be correct, we all make mistakes, but your choices won't be wrong. Does that make sense? Free advice, you decide if this has a chance of working. Have you ever written anything like this down for your father? Take the time, use the right words, express how you feel about making your own choices. Don't rant at him, don't accuse him, just lay out the way you see yourself living from now on, making your own decisions based on the person you're becoming, which is based on the child your parents raised. Let him know that he did a good job because you're a good kid, and you want to move on to being a good man now, but you need his help, you need him to give you more opportunities and freedom. It's important to have the chances to make mistakes, to fall down and get back up again, and it's really hard for many parents to sit back quietly and watch it happen. If you don't get enough experience solving problems, you get fixated on the problems themselves, instead of the solutions.

You refer to "established science" in the same paragraph you refer to "mystical experiences", but that doesn't mean the two are in the same context. You deny any attempt to refute your support of these concepts by simply waving your hands ("it has nothing to do with anything that is 'bollox'). It's clear you've bought into the video woo because it confirms biases you already have towards the subject, and you've lost all objectivity. You make too many leaps from conjecture to conjecture, and I find it lax and unmeaningful. Furthermore, you constantly allow yourself to move the goalposts, claiming that if people don't believe this way, they didn't do it right, they didn't have the complete experience. That's a really lazy, cognitively biased way to address any phenomenon.

My main grievance with them is that I like to step from one patch of firm ground to another equally firm patch. That way, I can be sure I'm headed in a reasonable direction down a path made of evidence. It's pretty easy to analyze a written statement that way, making sure from the start that the science and reasoning are valid, and stopping along the way to make corrections as needed. Too many misconceptions often signal that an idea doesn't have a good foundational understanding of science, and why read beyond that when an idea isn't based in science? Videos tend to steamroll over the viewer, taking them for a ride, making assumptions along the way with nodding heads as evidence (Mystical consciousness is real because it's called by many names). It's difficult to quote them, and I feel like I'm being duped into watching the whole thing when I would stop reading someone's written argument and request clarification as soon as I found a mistake.

*sigh* Let me show you again. It's right there on your screen. I said: And then you quoted the above and replied (I can't believe I have to draw your attention to this conversation we already just had): See the strawman I mentioned? Everyone else can. Can you admit it wasn't a reasonable reply to what I said? Especially when you NOW claim:

You still haven't told me why you threw this reply at me, in response to me explaining how science describes the natural world. You say it isn't changing the goalposts, so maybe it's just a simple strawman? Anyway, I didn't try to ascertain whether there's a god(s) or not, nor did I claim science was, so it's you who made the assumption. I'm going to stick to single subjects with you, since you like to steamroll over questions that challenge your arguments in an effort to avoid them.

OK, you're a side-stepper. Someone who moves the goalposts whenever a superior point is brought up. I find it tedious and unhelpful. You ranted about atheists mistakenly defining god(s), I corrected you, and now you're galloping off into the weeds again. This is a science discussion site. We don't use two popular definitions of supernatural. If science can observe it in some way, it's natural. If it doesn't meet those standards, it's supernatural. I'm not sure why this eludes you, or why it's such a point of contention.

Whoa, that's HORRIBLE reasoning! Who said anything about whether there's a god(s) or not? It's the purview of science to observe the natural world and offer tested explanations. Science isn't trying to define god(s), it just that god(s) are outside of what science describes as the natural world, aka supernatural.

This is actually one of the few times there's a simple answer. Science describes god(s) as supernatural simply because they defy observation and prediction, two foundational tools of science. All of them. It's not an atheistic definition. Science describes what the natural world appears to be doing, and gods don't appear in the natural world. Pretty simple. By the way, one can be an atheist without rejecting anything. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the existence of a god if one decides to become observable. In that way, I think I'm actually much more open-minded than you.

Pretty sure you mis-overheard them. Languorous Wink Yank?

! Moderator Note Yes. This conversation needs to happen in person, with a qualified professional. Any rational discussion about it will quickly offer the same advice Strange did.

Achilles has been permanently banned. His need for abusive controversy overcame his need for learning science.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html That's wrong. It's 11 deaths in 100 births, and it's the worst rate in the entire world. So what was your point here? Where are you getting your research?

! Moderator Note In the future, if you have nothing to support an idea, perhaps the idea isn't ready for discussion here, especially in a mainstream section. Also, please don't start with a mainstream question if you're intending to propose a pet theory. We need to keep mainstream science separate from guesswork for the sake of studying students. Thread moved to Speculations, since it's strayed from the original question.

Are we there yet? What's the difference between a duck? If you eat yourself, will you become twice as big, or disappear completely?

If you spend all your time focused on the problem, you have no time to think of the solution. Big problems almost never get suddenly solved by large, sweeping strategies. Tactical baby steps take chunks out of the problem and make it more manageable. And don't fall into the "visionary" trap. It will lead you into the "you can't plan art" trap, which sets you up for the "must remove all distractions" trap, which dumps you right into the "nobody understands what I'm trying to do" trap. The journey IS the goal.