I find that psychological profiling analysis at a glance is...
Often given to the perceptive misgivings of an the observer as opposed to the observed.
Case in point, if you say something that seems psychologically disagreeable with another, they think that your view must be an emotional statement as in, "you are disturbed, or you are mad or angry" which say more about the observer likely which is "I don't believe what you are saying and if I did I might have a hard time coping emotionally". The problem that I offer to the observer is that you are projecting your sentiments, feelings and emotions on the observed. Shit I don't know how many times I have had this argument. :)
In order to understand the world...
this is related to having a higher levels of interactivity with it, yet in having a higher levels of interactivity could very well mean having learned something that you may have suspected true, having been told were true, or having observed a degree of such truth. Obviously if you felt it were sensible neither interacting with parts of the world in mind to any degree of safety or having cared entertained another facet of a given world in a given social sense there is nothing wrong with it, and then neither having cared entertained anything else once having been familiar, such as I am not twenty now as opposed to being forty plus years old. Of course, going through these particular phases in life mean something like, "I grew out of any fondness in discovering what people may or may not be like." That is, even if you need not believe that anything of creepy fascist spy culture out and about in the world, this need not serve as the primary rational justification of choosing to stay in or having gone out and about in a given world, or having said that one might actually be missing out on much in a given world. Anyways, we learn to make due with the things we have in life, and some are forcible put in situations of living under circumstances of confinement for long duration. Obviously, one finds ways of coping and surviving in these circumstances, or one simply doesn't. Which is to say how ever perceptively narrow, it seems, circumstances may seem is given by a measure of 'How do you see the glass? Half empty? Half full?' Of course, there may be any number that could scarcely tolerate and in like kind that one might find less tolerable if having put one's self in another's shoes. That is certainly what gives rise to the distinction of self. There are some that live their very lives in the neighborhoods that they grew up and spend an entire lifetime neither wandering more than a few miles from such. There are some given the freedom of shunning much of the outside world and having lived so much in a defined world that were relatively much insular. Certainly, even given the issue of forced confinement, there are always decisions to be made in so far as empowerment as it is likely true when supposedly confinement is neither so strictly defined.
Ambiguous feedback...
given by one really being interested in another's dissertation on these matters. Amusingly, there is all the biases of point 1 (above) given, where one assumes that by given degree of verbosity that there must be obsessive compulsive disorder (merely having said anything or caring to such), though apparently this could be given to the more common place disorder of the mid western man having believed that one's emotional centers were given in the form of less talk, or thereby any supposed symptom of emotional disarray were shown from any deviance of 'quietude'. :) That is, certain governments love it when they are treated with all the respect of a parent that meddles in the lives of families with all the power to ruin and destroy relationship and given to all power in controlling who is 'fallen' versus 'risen'. They may certainly love it having the excessive power in mediating the emotional psychology of families in so far as faith. It is true when such power is exemplary of a confessional, or having provided psychological consolation in turn to those having felt alienated from a given collective social organism which is defined as more than town but country as a whole. Though today, one should imagine, it is all given to a different degree, all embedded in the synthetic broken social scene, embedded in all the consumerism and commercial enterprise that makes 'America the country that it is'. Of course, there is nothing wrong with feeling 'alienated' so long as return to the notion that 'you have brought this on yourself'. Of course, you might have 'brought' this upon yourself invariably for all sorts of reasons which is very much given by as much reason that you seek 'their' forgiveness, not the other way around even if rising social dissent seems more likely a given and social polarities couldn't be more self evident which seem also to suggest that the collective power and authority of such social collective couldn't also be potentially more arbitrarily invested.
lame...because all of this could in time could potentially be garbled one were ever too successful in saying. Have you considered that your situation is defined as such because it isn't just you? Have you considered that there are as likely broadcasting algorithms to anything and everything you say on a given social networking platform which controls the extent of a potential broadcast and the impact of a given outreach?
Some could tell you how to get a social life if you wanted to, but then, even if you don't care for anything of that being said above, you'd probably not like all the social hoops that you'd have to jump through in getting one. It takes something stupidly energetic in this day and age and given more likely to all the individual rolling a rock up the hill to watch it roll right back down more often than not, that is, assuming you avoided all pitfalls in such process.
Often given to the perceptive misgivings of an the observer as opposed to the observed.
Case in point, if you say something that seems psychologically disagreeable with another, they think that your view must be an emotional statement as in, "you are disturbed, or you are mad or angry" which say more about the observer likely which is "I don't believe what you are saying and if I did I might have a hard time coping emotionally". The problem that I offer to the observer is that you are projecting your sentiments, feelings and emotions on the observed. Shit I don't know how many times I have had this argument. :)
In order to understand the world...
this is related to having a higher levels of interactivity with it, yet in having a higher levels of interactivity could very well mean having learned something that you may have suspected true, having been told were true, or having observed a degree of such truth. Obviously if you felt it were sensible neither interacting with parts of the world in mind to any degree of safety or having cared entertained another facet of a given world in a given social sense there is nothing wrong with it, and then neither having cared entertained anything else once having been familiar, such as I am not twenty now as opposed to being forty plus years old. Of course, going through these particular phases in life mean something like, "I grew out of any fondness in discovering what people may or may not be like." That is, even if you need not believe that anything of creepy fascist spy culture out and about in the world, this need not serve as the primary rational justification of choosing to stay in or having gone out and about in a given world, or having said that one might actually be missing out on much in a given world. Anyways, we learn to make due with the things we have in life, and some are forcible put in situations of living under circumstances of confinement for long duration. Obviously, one finds ways of coping and surviving in these circumstances, or one simply doesn't. Which is to say how ever perceptively narrow, it seems, circumstances may seem is given by a measure of 'How do you see the glass? Half empty? Half full?' Of course, there may be any number that could scarcely tolerate and in like kind that one might find less tolerable if having put one's self in another's shoes. That is certainly what gives rise to the distinction of self. There are some that live their very lives in the neighborhoods that they grew up and spend an entire lifetime neither wandering more than a few miles from such. There are some given the freedom of shunning much of the outside world and having lived so much in a defined world that were relatively much insular. Certainly, even given the issue of forced confinement, there are always decisions to be made in so far as empowerment as it is likely true when supposedly confinement is neither so strictly defined.
Ambiguous feedback...
given by one really being interested in another's dissertation on these matters. Amusingly, there is all the biases of point 1 (above) given, where one assumes that by given degree of verbosity that there must be obsessive compulsive disorder (merely having said anything or caring to such), though apparently this could be given to the more common place disorder of the mid western man having believed that one's emotional centers were given in the form of less talk, or thereby any supposed symptom of emotional disarray were shown from any deviance of 'quietude'. :) That is, certain governments love it when they are treated with all the respect of a parent that meddles in the lives of families with all the power to ruin and destroy relationship and given to all power in controlling who is 'fallen' versus 'risen'. They may certainly love it having the excessive power in mediating the emotional psychology of families in so far as faith. It is true when such power is exemplary of a confessional, or having provided psychological consolation in turn to those having felt alienated from a given collective social organism which is defined as more than town but country as a whole. Though today, one should imagine, it is all given to a different degree, all embedded in the synthetic broken social scene, embedded in all the consumerism and commercial enterprise that makes 'America the country that it is'. Of course, there is nothing wrong with feeling 'alienated' so long as return to the notion that 'you have brought this on yourself'. Of course, you might have 'brought' this upon yourself invariably for all sorts of reasons which is very much given by as much reason that you seek 'their' forgiveness, not the other way around even if rising social dissent seems more likely a given and social polarities couldn't be more self evident which seem also to suggest that the collective power and authority of such social collective couldn't also be potentially more arbitrarily invested.
lame...because all of this could in time could potentially be garbled one were ever too successful in saying. Have you considered that your situation is defined as such because it isn't just you? Have you considered that there are as likely broadcasting algorithms to anything and everything you say on a given social networking platform which controls the extent of a potential broadcast and the impact of a given outreach?
Some could tell you how to get a social life if you wanted to, but then, even if you don't care for anything of that being said above, you'd probably not like all the social hoops that you'd have to jump through in getting one. It takes something stupidly energetic in this day and age and given more likely to all the individual rolling a rock up the hill to watch it roll right back down more often than not, that is, assuming you avoided all pitfalls in such process.
No comments:
Post a Comment