A Misdirection of the DSM and Psychological community in Regards to Sadism? Social Vs Sexual arousals.

[JohnSSM]

If you dont actually see that we are two men, arousing each other, and getting off on it, as we clearly are.  Then I fear you may not understand your arousals and begin to put them on me.  As I Said, before, please dont, but I can see how frail your need for arousal is.  It denotes an insecurity or lack of satisfaction.  

Why are you asking me questions?  Do you need help with some homosexual shame?  I didnt imply any, but do you need to talk about it?  I just mentioned how attracted you are to this conversation, and noted the possibility that you have an attraction to mocking me and hijacking this thread.  It could be based on a homosexual attraction to me.  I cannot throw out that theory at this point.    Is it true?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

If you dont actually see that we are two men, arousing each other, and getting off on it, as we clearly are.

It saddens me to report that you’re alone in ejaculating over this exchange.  

Edited March 25, 2021 by iNow

[JohnSSM]

I dont even know if you are a man or woman, but if you are a woman, can we get together sometime?  I think you like me.  haha...IF youre a man, I dont have that particular instinct, for whatever reason.

[iNow]

Just now, JohnSSM said:

I dont even know if you are a man or woman, but if you are a woman, can we get together sometime?  I think you like me.  haha...IF youre a man, I dont have that particular instinct, for whatever reason.

How is gender relevant?

[JohnSSM]

Im not ejaculating.  But you make a fantastic point about arousals.  Did you think every arousal was sexual?  Of course not, but human subjectivity can make anything feel arousing in any way.  Did you not know that?  So you are either attracted to gaslighting, which is my theory, or you are gay and turning this arousal into a sexual arousal that you cannot admit, arouses you.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, JohnSSM said:

you are gay and turning this arousal into a sexual arousal that you cannot admit, arouses you.

Huh?

[JohnSSM]

I am only attracted to women.  Im straight. So that says alot about how I interpret arousals between men and women.  Are you having fun, proving that you can keep me talking?  Yes, im aware of it. I control it.  But you think you are.  I just get to keep talking about psychology, which is what I love to do, and examine strange humans who hide their true motivations without ever knowing everyone is watching them doing it.  Totally aloof to reality.  I cant be torn away.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Huh?

Do you ever understand plain english?  You question it all time.   Duly noted.

So you are either attracted to gaslighting, which is my theory, or you are gay and turning this arousal into a sexual arousal that you cannot admit, arouses you.

Please read the whole sentence to find the meaning.  

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I am only attracted to women.  Im straight.

Relevance?

4 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Do you ever understand plain english?

Of course

5 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

So you are either attracted to gaslighting, which is my theory, or you are gay and turning this arousal into a sexual arousal that you cannot admit, arouses you.

Are you familiar with the concept of a false dichotomy?

[JohnSSM]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Relevance?

Nothing about this conversation has to do with anything relevant as far as I can tell.  I am using it to examine your behavior.  But go on asking questions.  

What is your goal of the relevance of any of this?  Especially in relation to the OP, unless you just want to break the rules of hijacking without it being acknowledged by you, but I must acknowledge the rules.  Im not anti social anymore.

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Im not anti social anymore.

Again, relevance?

[JohnSSM]

Fascinating.  Do it again.

What do you think the relevance of my comment is?  If you had to interpret it, without my help, which is where you are, what would you think?   Do tell...I must know how you see it.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, JohnSSM said:

Fascinating.  Do it again.

What?

[JohnSSM]

Be honest now...use the little modelling machine you inherited from the universe and figure it out.

Just now, iNow said:

What?

Nevermind that, it has no importance.  I was simply fascinated.  Thats all you need to know.

again, What do you think the relevance of my comment is?  If you had to interpret it, without my help, which is where you are, what would you think?   Do tell...I must know how you see it.

I can learn so much, please, be honest.

Man, some people never learn to model anything on their own.  They spend their time, dedicated to learning some system.  Some systems have such rigid restraints on how they figure objectivity, that could be all they learn about trying to achieve objectivity.  Cuz they never had to model anything on their own.  So how could this person have creative thought, and truly analytical thought when their analytical and creative abilities were never truly challenged by any other system of finding objectivity?  Our environment truly says everything about our perspectives, dont you agree?

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Do tell...I must know how you see it.

No thank you

[JohnSSM]

Yes, you have never been willing to share any of your thoughts, about the OP, the thread or anything else.  Did you want to achieve the intimacy of understanding, or was your only purpose to destroy any possibility for intimacy by closing your outflow of expression?  Cuz thats one real easy way to do it.  Humans figure it all out before the age of 2.  Its a very elementary approach to destroying intimacy.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

Its obvious I have more power than you in this discussion. 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Genuinely curious. How so, and even if true, why would that matter?

 

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

there is no functional reason why a psychopath might derive pleasure from hurting others. They have no rebellions towards others.  

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Kinda depends on how one defines “rebellions,” yeah?

 

[JohnSSM]

Oh yeah, it also drives all personality disorders.  Just a coincidence, I suppose.

[iNow]

Just now, JohnSSM said:

Oh yeah, it also drives all personality disorders.  Just a coincidence, I suppose.

What?

[JohnSSM]

Have you ever tried to explain to a 2 year old, why it is not ok to hit someone for using their toy?  They may not want to listen to your explanation of why it is not ok, because they do not want to be intimate right now, they want their toy and they are angry.  They know intimacy will lead them to a place where they have to accept other kids playing with their toys.  And they dont want to.  

It all applies here if you know how to apply it.

But you'd have to have a deep knowledge of human behavior to actually be able to confirm it understand it and use it.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, JohnSSM said:

Have you ever tried to explain to a 2 year old, why it is not ok to hit someone for using their toy?  They may not want to listen to your explanation of why it is not ok, because they do not want to be intimate right now, they want their toy and they are angry.  They know intimacy will lead them to a place where they have to accept other kids playing with their toys.  And they dont want to.  

It all applies here if you know how to apply it.

But you'd have to have a deep knowledge of human behavior to actually be able to confirm it understand it and use it.

What?

[JohnSSM]

Just now, iNow said:

What?

You have no idea how to interpret and understand that paragraph?    Why are you in a psychology forum?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, JohnSSM said:

You have no idea how to interpret and understand that paragraph?   

Incorrect

[JohnSSM]

Why do you refuse to share the ideas you have?

You cant hide it.  haha.  I mean, this entire time, since I proved you wrong on the specifier argument, you havent expressed one idea about the OP or Topic.  How do you explain that?  Or I should ask, do you even have the ability to try to explain it?  I dont believe so. I will believe it when I see evidence of it though.  I promise.

You can make me believe in you, all you have to do is express what you know.

So now you claim to have personal knowledge of what that paragraph meant, but still needed to ask me what it meant?  Fascinating.

How do you live with the shame of being wrong about the specifier argument?  You apparently lack the integrity to say that you were wrong.  I know you believe you are smart.   Everyone who reads this will think you have no idea about psychology (if they know much about psychology).  But yet, you stay to harass me, as I harass you to stick to the OP.   I asked nicely,  you didnt respond, which is anti social, by the way, a disorder of thinking by the way, based on delusions by the way.  So now I harass you for an answer to the OP and to get back to the OP.  You knew this behavior was coming from me.  So now that I have honestly debated you into a puddle of "i cant seem to express myself at all, but still claim to have knowledge of psychology" i think it's apparent that I hacked your ability to rebel, with honestly and knowledge and reduced you to, what? what? what? what?  That is exactly what has happened.  Model the whole thing to learn about yourself and how you look to others.

Dont feel bad or beaten.  I do this for a living, and that would just be another anti-social feeling.  Bad and beaten.  You have no reason to feel that way.  I am an expert on psychology.  You are an expert at "nope, what? nope, what?...the king!  You have something to be proud of there.  Dont overlook the positive side of anything.  Humans, are delusional enough!  Use it.

And if you dont think therapists and counselors don't go a little crazy trying to deal with disordered people who ask for their help in understanding themselves, only to hear that their education is crap when they dont hear what they want to hear.  Talk about contempt!  Yes, we do understand how people work.  We are paid to understand how people work.  People come to us to learn how they work, and they deny what we know!  And some clients simply refuse to explain themselves.  They know they are disordered, they know that I know that since they came to me with issues, but they refuse to talk about their feelings.  And that is the only way to sort through the disorders.  Ugh.  No one here is in therapy.  If they stay to hear and ask my opinions, I can give them to them without worrying if they can handle the truth of psychology.  Its not easy. But there can be no lawsuits here, which is why i dont have to use kid gloves when discussing disorders with anyone, whether they have them or not.  Its a science, there is an approach and it does work.

The very fact that this has been moved to speculations, proves there are very few psychology experts in the moderators list, or the members list.  One may only think this is OP is speculation, but its not.  But someone who didnt understand Einstein at all, would call his ideas and equations speculations.  Right?  SO if there are psychological experts with a deep knowledge of personality disorders and all the associated theories, I ask you to please give your opinion on my topic.  Show where I speculate against mainstream psychology (only as represented by the DSM, in this case), without providing evidence that they have mis-speculated themselves.  If you understand the OP at all, that was the very point.  Does the DSM represent all opinions in psychology?  Nope.  But it is what Im using as a measure of truth, not a definer of truth. The DSM measured the truth wrong.  I explain it all in the OP.  

On 3/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, iNow said:

There’s more than just a hint here of argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy to be avoided. Just because you’re not personally aware of work in this space doesn’t mean it’s not being conducted. 

You accused me of this, in your first response to my post.

"Just because you’re not personally aware of work in this space doesn’t mean it’s not being conducted. "

It applied to you, not me.  I never accused you of it.  And you proved it yourself.  Its called projection in the mainstream of psychology.  I call it a solution to help you deal with being you. Such interesting stuff.  Am I wrong in my analyzation?  In order to express that, youll have to express your thoughts and feelings.  Cmon pal!  The little engine that could.  I used to keep a poster of it in the kids room to inspire them to express themselves too!  Psychology works.

Man, that was a bad faith, projection of self image onto me, in order to make me look like you.  

Jung would say, there is something you dont like about you, and you wont face it, so you project these behaviors onto other people, and it gives you reason to shut them out and dislike them, and it takes the burden off of you to solve your own problems as you convince yourself that they are everyone else's problems.  I dont really quote Jung anymore.  The man had no access to modern brain scans.  He was at a disadvantage to understand things as I do, and other people who study neuropsychiatry.  His models of the brain are an amazing achievement as he did it all with subjective observations of others, and himself, of course.  But now his models are mostly useless or we have real concepts of psychology that show they were incomplete or based on a lack of info that we have now.

Edited March 25, 2021 by JohnSSM

[studiot]

4 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

I believe you are helping me to understand gaslighting.  Giving me more experience to feel it and examine it like a scientist.  Do you know what this means to me?  Amazing.  Thank you

Actually, thank you.

For introducing me to a new term I had never heard of.

I take it that is what you are doing here in particular to a group of individuals.

Quote

Wikipedia

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment

 

[JohnSSM]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Actually, thank you.

For introducing me to a new term I had never heard of.

I take it that is what you are doing here in particular to a group of individuals.

No, not at all.  I have all the evidence that I am being gaslighted right here in this thread.  If you examine and dont think so, Im ok with that.

Should I direct you to the part of the conversation where he tries to gaslight me with a lack of knowledge about psychopathy, ASPD and the term specifiers within the DSMV?  I mean, i have all the proof i need.  If you cant see it, what can I do?  Debate it with you?

Shall I direct you to the many posts where I politely asked him to address the topic or OP, and can you find any comment where he actually did, after I disproved his knowledge of psychopathy?

But thanks for showing me the definition of gaslighting.  If you understand it and I did it, it should be easy to point out. Do you wan to offer me your proof of my gaslighting, or do you gaslight like the other guy who denied gaslighting?

To be honest, your comment is gaslighting.  You didnt come here to learn or discuss the op.  You came here to claim that Ive been gaslighting.  So prove it. It's provable.  And I can prove that you just gaslighted me, if you wish.

My topic and my thread was not meant, nor intended to "light the flames of fury and frustration in others" in order to control them.  I have views about the DSM and how it handles personality disorders.  My logical conclusions were not a form of gaslighting, and neither is me, debating my idea.  Its gaslighting when you enter a thread, present a doubt, offer proof that is then disproved, and still hold onto your doubts which was just disproved and try to pretend it wasnt.