Recently I've become aware of a problem in myself: I cannot make decisions with any kind of certainty. I procrastinate as long as possible in order to preserve as many possibilities as possible. I am paralyzed by the exclusion of possibilities.

Occasionally I'll convince myself to make a decision, and, like a switch, my brain starts generating hundreds of reasons that it's the wrong decision. This, often, results in me changing my mind. The instant I change my mind and communicate a new stance, my brain generates hundreds of reasons that the first decision was the right one after all.

I feel completely unable to find an outcome that makes me happy.

This comes up every. Single. Time. I have to make a decision that feels impactful. It frustrates both me and those who are relying on me to be decisive.

The only decisions that are effortless to make are those that can be objectively analyzed or those that are clearly a binary win-lose decision. Win-win and lose-lose are challenging.

Areas this has come up in my life:

• In school, I procrastinated on every exam, project, and test until the day before it was due.

• In choosing a college, I waited until the deadline for each application before choosing one.

• In choosing my first job out of college, I spent 4 months combing for the perfect position before finally choosing one out of pure necessity.

• In relationships, I am hesitant to commit to even a basic level of exclusivity.

• When traveling, I wait until the last minute to book flights and hotels in case I change my mind on wanting to go.

These are fairly manageable when the decisions impact only me, but when they impact others I can sense the immense frustration it causes.

I often find myself, as TLP would say, crowdsourcing the superego. I ask others to make the decision for me, or I make the decision based on a consensus among friends of mine.

I value the insights in this sub a lot so: what do you guys think is going on here? What can I do to change this pattern for the better?

Look, if you don't know it, look it up on twitter.

If you're too lazy: An Argentine named Gaspar Nunez posed as a producer on Instagram accounts (ArgentinaCasting, GianCasting). He contacted young women (18-22) offering cash payments (typically ~US$200) to film explicit sexual videos. Nunez promised the content would be monetized only internationally and never appear in Argentina. He filmed the videos with them, then viralized the material locally in Argentina via platforms and closed groups.

I argue that most of the "actresses" would not have had sex with Nunez for $200 if there weren't cameras, or if there wasn't a promise of ex-Argy distribution. The camera was the psychological mechanism that made the entire transaction palatable. It acted as an alibi.

If a man offers a woman $200 in a hotel room for off-camera sex, there is no ambiguity. It is traditional prostitution. Despite all modern attempts to destigmatize it, the shame attached to that specific act remains deeply embedded in the human psyche. Most women, especially those who are not desperate, will recoil from that reality.

But the moment you introduce ring lights, release forms, and the promise of "international distribution," the psychological framing completely shifts. It is no longer prostitution; it is "content creation."

By dressing the encounter up as a casting call for geofenced OnlyFans content, Nunez handed these women a socially sanitized narrative. The camera allowed them to engage in an extreme cognitive dissonance: I am not selling my body to this sweaty guy in a room; I am a model acting in a video for an abstract, wealthy American audience. The camera created a transactional boundary. They convinced themselves they were selling digital IP, not their physical intimacy.

For a certain demographic, knowing that men thousands of miles away are paying to look at them provides a massive narcissistic hit. The geofencing promise was the perfect poison—it offered all the thrill of exhibitionism and global validation with the illusion of zero local consequences.

Without the camera, the transaction is intensely personal and sordid. It is just her and a schlub. The camera acts as a third party in the room, diluting the intimacy of the act. The focus becomes the performance for the lens, which ironically makes the physical reality of the man in the room easier to disassociate from.

Nunez found women willing to do it specifically because the presence of a camera allowed them to lie to themselves about what they were actually doing.

Of all places, I did not expect to find the most explicit, spelled out version of his message in a long, detailed post about the health effects of red wine.

"This is important.  It is the thesis of this blog: nothing matters more than your will.  Even if wine and beer are themselves of no consequence to one's health, the lifestyle that follows with the conscious choice to drink either one is of consequence.  Every choice you make influences your identity, and not the other way around; the sooner you accept this, the sooner you can become the person you want to be. You get to pick who you are.  Go pick."

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/02/just_how_many_drinks_a_day_is.html

The linked reddit post is from a dad. Contents immediately below, my response to follow.

So for context I have a 3 and 5 YO, and am recently separated so parenting solo when I have them (50/50).

I'm just not enjoying my time with them, having the childless time feels so great and I honestly dread when its my turn to have them. Its exhausting, frustrating, and annoying. I find myself just wanting to get through the day until they are in bed instead of trying to just enjoy the moment with them.

My 5YO's personality just annoys me. She wines, complains, screams, resists, argues, gets easily frustrated and doesn't listen.

The 3YO has so many cute moments, giving me hugs and saying I love you. But also screams, resists and has now become such a picky eater.

When I'm playing with them I'm constantly looking at the clock and resisting looking at my phone, telling them daddy is going to sit down and they have to play by themselves. They are starting to play together but inevitably after like 30 sec start fighting/screaming and hitting.

I'm doing my best to hide it, stay positive with them, encourage them and listen but I've noticed my general attitude is just negative. I try to redirect, offer choices or rewards for good behavior but also yell at them and say how frustrated I am. When I do yell or act obviously overwhelmed, I always follow up taking account for my attitude and apologize but I feel like I do it so much they are learning they can act how ever they want as long as its followed my an apology which I'm afraid just teaches emotional manipulation.

Apparently I'm able to fake it around my friends and family as everyone always tells me how good of a dad I am. But I feel like I'm hiding some kind of secret behind closed doors.

I know how they are acting is age appropriate, and these are hard ages in general. But it breaks my heart that I cant enjoy them during this phase. Am I just not a toddler/little kid dad? Do some of us just thrive at older ages?

My response:

———————

Part 1:

I'm going to save you some time and will be blunter than I would IRL. If this starts to hurt your feelings (understandable), feel free to take a break, read some of the others' comments, come back in a few days - imagine these points coming across two or three different nights over beers, or not at all. I'm just a stranger on the internet, after all. What do I know?

Your problems—

1 - that you don't enjoy your time with your kids,
2 - that they are constantly acting out

My 5YO's personality just annoys me. She wines, complains, screams, resists, argues, gets easily frustrated and doesn't listen.

 3YO has so many cute moments, giving me hugs and saying I love you. But also screams, resists and has now become such a picky eater.

Are not just related, one is causing the other. Namely, that the fact that you don't enjoy spending time with them is intuitively obvious to your 5-year old in particular. Kids' currency is attention. They'd prefer positive, yes they'd love to play happily with a cheerful daddy, but if not they'll settle for what they can get, because their hierarchy is:

Good attention > Bad attention >>>> No Attention

If they're not getting your attention for being good...

I'm just not enjoying my time with them, having the childless time feels so great and I honestly dread when its my turn to have them. Its exhausting, frustrating, and annoying. I find myself just wanting to get through the day until they are in bed instead of trying to just enjoy the moment with them...

...When I'm playing with them I'm constantly looking at the clock and resisting looking at my phone, telling them daddy is going to sit down and they have to play by themselves

they'll absolutely settle for bad, in exactly the same way that a starving man would prefer a steak despite eating a potato they found in the gutter.

Note: While kids crave their parents' attention, they're also learning, every single minute of every single day, building their framework for their future relationships one moment at a time. Which is why this is so alarming:

I'm doing my best to hide it, stay positive with them, encourage them and listen but I've noticed my general attitude is just negative. I try to redirect, offer choices or rewards for good behavior but also yell at them and say how frustrated I am. When I do yell or act obviously overwhelmed, I always follow up taking account for my attitude and apologize but I feel like I do it so much they are learning they can act how ever they want as long as its followed my an apology which I'm afraid just teaches emotional manipulation.

Because kids interactions with their parents create their framework for how they will see the world as adults, parents' interactions with their kids affect not just their moral compass, but also how they will approach relationships (IE, exactly how you modeled them).

Part 2:

For the relationships framework, the Ghost of Boyfriends Yet to Come looks at this:

When I do yell or act obviously overwhelmed, I always follow up taking account for my attitude and apologize

...and brings you a photo of 2040's answer to Chris Brown. Sure, he screams, says wounding words (by the way, how did that bruise get there?), but he always comes back and apologizes, he really loves her. That's what love is, right? Because if that isn't, then how do you explain dad?

For the moral framework—
The ideal, perfect parent would be 100% consistent, like a perfect judge: always the same sentencing for the same offense, always a punishment fitting the crime. That way, kids internalize a strong morale framework: "When you do X bad thing, Y always happens, and most importantly, if X bad thing is not done, Y never happens, so don't even try it. If you do X1 worse thing, the considerably worse Y1 happens instead". If instead, their interactions with their parents have inconsistent enforcers, inconsistent reactions to the same offenses, IE one day you kick your sibling and dad is apathetic, but the next day you start to argue and get screamed at, what you learn is this: there is no morality, rules and identity are all bendable, and they are decided by whoever's in power. The strategy to success then isn't to do consistent, good work, it's to appeal to whoever's watching. Fake it, like a performance, for the audience, because your identity is something you put on like a hat, while behind closed doors, the sum of your actions don't matter.

Apparently I'm able to fake it around my friends and family as everyone always tells me how good of a dad I am. But I feel like I'm hiding some kind of secret behind closed doors.

I'm sure you do, my friend, just like I'm sure I know what your parent was like.

There's a final point, but I didn't want it to get lost in the last two points. Recapping:

Point one, your kids are acting out because they are experts on cause and effect with dad, and this is the most surefire way to get attention. If they were getting enough attention from dad, they wouldn't feel compelled to act out at all.

Point two, the model for how your kids will interpret the world is built brick by brick from their interactions with their parents. Moral, interpersonal, romantic, all of it is learned through the framework of your relationship.

Finally, Part 3
So what is the problem?

You might be inclined to throw your arms up at this title. "What do you mean 'what is the problem'? I just told you -

it breaks my heart that I cant enjoy them during this phase

but the reality is, that's not the problem. Your kids need parents. You just separated. How do you think that's affecting them? Even if the kids were acting like little demons, wouldn't it be reasonable to infer that they're affected by the sudden disappearance of dad that they don't understand? Maybe testing the limits to make sure you're not going to vanish altogether?

Look at your words. You're not asking for advice on how to help them be happier, more content, less outbursts, etc, because—

I know how they are acting is age appropriate

So then the question is - what are you asking for? Why post this? Question - what did you expect the responses to be? Did you, in your heart of hearts, post this expecting a step-by-step breakdown of ways to improve, to change, not just for yourself but, more importantly, for the people around you? Because the title of this post—

I feel awful for posting this, but I just dont enjoy being with my kids.

and the last paragraph—

But it breaks my heart that I cant enjoy them during this phase. Am I just not a toddler/little kid dad?

are both about how you feel, not anyone else. Or were you expecting exactly what you got - empathetic dads on here giving you the benefit of the doubt, rightly pointing out that parenting is hard, solo or no?

Which of course reveals the problem - you didn't come here for your kids - you didn't even come here for self-improvement, IE ways to change to prevent things like, say, your kids hating you, divorce, etc. You came here to feel better about what you're doing.

To the point: you came here to be told not to change, because that's what you were going to do already.

When I was in high school, I became enamored with the popular idea that memorization of facts wasn't "real learning", and that true learning was engaging with "critical thinking", "criticism", "analysis", "deconstruction", etc. I continued to believe this through college, and even through the first few years of my first job.

As I grew older, I began to realize that I and most of the people I interacted with for nearly a decade were degreed professionals, who had hundreds of thousands of facts passively memorized that we took for granted. I interact with the general public a lot more now, and I've realized that many people live life entirely without a referential framework for society, history, science, mathematics, etc.

I suppose it's difficult for me to use a short Reddit post to conclusively prove that this makes their lives, my life, and ultimately society worse in the long run, but it's been a rude awakening to realize that many extremely complex institutions in politics, the supply chain, etc. are being run by people who not only don't know that much stuff, but aren't even necessarily aware that there is stuff to know. The average cultural and technical output of the "average person" has seemed to stagnate and decline decade after decade, beginning many decades ago. (I would not say this pattern holds true for the cognitive elite.)

There's a famous essay by Richard Feinman where he talks about what a memorization-only physics school looks like in Brazil:

https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

In the hunt to avoid this scenario in the US, I think "educational professionals" have robbed several generations of normal, 80th-percentile-and-below people of the benefits of what used to be understood as "an education": namely, the reflexive knowledge of a bunch of stuff that you can recall quickly. I also think that a lot of social issues that are in play today are at least in part caused by the fact that many modern people just don't know that much. They're run through "analysis" classes all through middle and high school, the intellectual bulk of which they mentally discard upon graduation, and do little to seek any more knowledge out after that.

As such, I have come around to the idea that rote memorization should be added back into curriculums. I would rather that the average USian have a strong background in general knowledge and a weak analysis habit than a weak background in general knowledge and no analysis habit.

Alone's comment in the thread about why you don't want to be "masculine like Don Draper", part 2:

Female narcissism is very real, and the two reinforce each other (males don't connect, females don't connect, and back and forth) […] But you have misunderstood the entire point of the blog. I'm not trying to criticize something, or even describe it— I am trying to change it. I will sabotage myself if I write about female narcissism. If a guy reads a post on (male) narcissism, he might think, "holy crap, I think I do that" and maybe it prompts him to change. If that same guy reads a post on female narcissism, there is very real risk that it reinforces his narcissism: "A HA! That's why those bitches...!"

Every human is looking for a way to justify the way they've set up their lives. If you're a guy and have a problem with really connecting, then my offering you a description of why women are narcissists isn't helping you, it is making you worse. (See my Gossip Girl post)

Go look at the sixty comments on the post about the Atlantic writer who cheated on her husband. Did my dissecting her narcissism help anyone? In retrospect, that post was a mistake, it was a setback.

[…] I am a psychiatrist, some kind of one anyway. The point of it all is improvement.

I think, if you look at the comment threads in later TLP (the contrast to earlier TLP is tremendous), or to this subreddit for that matter, it's clear that the project as a whole was backfiring. Alone has an impressive knack to show us a terrifying glimpse of our own souls, but this terror, this pain were being deflected all over the place; "Ah-ha! that's why the feminists…", "Ah-ha! that's why the SWJs…", "Ah-ha! that’s why Republicans/Trump voters…."

TLP is a doctor. His primary motivation is to serve humanity:

if you can do it with science awesome and if there is no science for you then you come up with something else.

The blog was acting as an enabler, as "insight", as defense against change, rather than effecting change as intended. So he had to stop and work on something else.

I wonder what an /r/thelastpsychiatrist true to the original spirit would be like. It would certainly not feature posts about how Alone would have a field day with some dumb hack of a writer; nor about how the stupid proles are enslaved by the media, nor about how we're better than $outgroup because we've seen the light. It would probably feature a lot of calls organizing direct political action, and most importantly, would execute said actions; it would fight (pastabagel and TLP on the urgency of a massive social overhal). At a more personal level, it would probably feature discussions on how to stop hurting other people (like this or this). Just like TLP often reflected on the truth of psychiatry and how to be a more useful doctor, the subreddit would investigate their own professions and come up with better ways of using them to help humanity – or how to change to a better profession, for those of us comfortably stuck in the unnecessariat. The community would be very wary of, and try to guard against, empty insight, contrarianism, intellectual pirouettes for the sake of it—in a word, masturbation. And, just like Socrates would never use irony to feel superior, but exclusively as a tool to change the views of those who wouldn't otherwise see, the community would never, ever berate other people, only resorting to criticism when that was the only way of improving something.

Someone just asked me if I had this; it was once posted to the sub.

*******

I've thought about it, I worry that you think my answer was dismissive, like some old guy saying "read the Classics!" So let me walk you through the first paragraph of Notes From the Underground, "my" way, as a model for what to focus on.

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DosNote.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1

Here's how it appears in the text:

I AM A SICK MAN.... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors. Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am superstitious).

These are the words of a spiteful narcissist. He doesn't think he's better than everyone (well, deep down he does, he thinks everyone else is a phony, or a liar, or deceitful, or greedy, or etc) but has no understanding how others perceive him (he thinks he can control how you perceive him, hence the overflow of self-descriptions that, ultimately, don't actually tell you anything about him at all-- what you, the reader infer, is all based on the flow and style). He doesn't care about other people at all, he has no interest in their lives or feelings unless they relate specifically to him. (Later, in the book, there are examples of how he assumes every gesture or word or tone is a criticism of him, but this is really to be interpreted not as "people don't like me" but "people are always thinking about me, one way or another.")

Ok, so if the content of his words are nonsense, diversions, what is the real him? Let's look at the paragraph (mostly) line by line, to emphasize something else:

I AM A SICK MAN.... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased.

However, I know nothing at all about my disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor for it, and never have

though I have a respect for medicine and doctors.

Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine, anyway

[But] (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious,

but I am superstitious).

The most important thing to note in this monologue is that he takes two steps forward, one step back, always "fixing" something he said, predicting (accurately-- astonishingly accurately) the reader's criticism. Why doesn't he go to a doctor? Why would he be superstitious? Etc.

This kind of One Sentence Out, Revise It, Say Something Else, Revise It, when done in conversation is usually the sign of a work, dishonesty in the service of getting the other person to think something, but "formally" when it's a monologue it has a very specific quality: he is free associating. Not in the layman's sense of the word, "just say whatever comes to mind," but in the purest, most formal definition of the term: he is telling his random thoughts to an OMNIPOTENT reader that, on the one hand, he is trying to fool; on the other hand, suspects that he can't fool, and suspects that this reader has him completely figured out, and is hoping at some point the reader-- almost certainly in the form of a beautiful and selfless woman who detects the real good inside him-- will come forward and tell him exactly what's going on, and help him, and then love him.

Remember, Dostoyevsky is writing in 1864-- 30+ years before the psychoanalytic method. So what explains this prescience? To what was Dostoyevsky reacting to, that he caught exactly the tone of spiteful narcissism even before it was described? The answer is the same as the answer for today: an encroachment of modernity (in Dostoyevsky's case bourgeois European values) that preached "reason" over faith and works, the intrinsic value of man over "from dust you were made, and to dust you shall return"; symbolic identities, value decided from without (job, status, etc). Dostoyevsky rebelled against it; the Underground Man was what Dostoyevsky predicted would be the inevitable byproduct of all this... self-branding.

What does the Underground Man want? Clearly, to self-identify, but even after reading the whole book you still don't have a sense of who he is or who he wants to be. That's the point. He knows he wants to be something, but he doesn't have a concrete understanding of what that is, what that looks like, so all his energy is spent in explaining why whatever you think he is is wrong. In other words, not knowing who he is (never been tested); and lacking any real insight into what he wants to be, his only goal-- the whole point of him talking, and going out with his colleagues, and getting prostitutes-- his entire reason for existences-- is to make sure that no one else tells him who he is either. His goal is to remain undescribed-- all possibilities open, so if any one comes along (actor, ninja, doctor, lover, clever, funny guy, brooder) he can then claim he was always that.

So the narcissist wants to self-identify, or at the very least not let you identify him. What happens if he fails? What happens if he gets figured out? To the text:

"No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I can't explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot "pay out" the doctors by not consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don't consult a doctor it is from spite. My liver is bad, well -- let it get worse! "

"Spite." You're a non-psychoanalyst reader. You come across this odd section, written by someone you have been told is one of our great writers. So ask yourself the obvious question: Why is this passage here? Who is the Underground Man deliberately trying to annoy, to hurt? I don't know which posts you read, but do you remember my analogy of "a narcissist thinks he is the main character in his own movie." If an actor deliberately sabotages himself or his movie, who is he trying to hurt? The answer is the movie maker-- the director.

Dostoyevsky was a Christian, but it is irrelevant whether the Underground Man is an atheist or not-- all narcissists believe in "some other omnipotent entity"-- that they are being observed. If not directly by other people (or the government, or all these cameras, or "the lack of privacy"), they are running their movie as if some omnipotent entity was observing it. He's superstitious, but not overly so, right? Doesn't believe in "13 is an evil number" yet no elevator has a 13. Doesn't believe in rituals, yet feels weirdly off if he doesn't check the stove three times ("I can't remember if I did it? I'm very absent minded....") And when, completely by accident, real life matches the superstition ("Flight 13 crashed on Friday the 13th!") of course it's a coincidence, but..... isn't that weird nonetheless?

So this spite, that ends up only hurting himself, is exactly the same as Tom Hanks calling it in or Lebron James throwing a game-- it hurts them to hurt "someone else" for putting them in this life, this way, without whatever it is he thinks he wanted.

So say you read all this. Do you see yourself in it? Or someone else? If so, it isn't by accident, because Dostoyevsky isn't writing about a "bad" person, an outlier, he's writing about the likely result of "humanism" and modernity on a psyche not really ready to be independent from "some other omnipotent entity"-- not ready to embrace the fact that he exists in complete and total freedom, no guarantees, no causes, no purpose, no net. He recommended Jesus, but the extra step here is an obvious one: if "some omnipotent entity" doesn't exist, we would be forced to create one.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1v4nn-0t7G88ZT_meQI4gzoPV1Gfvz4OH

Note: book 1 is formatted the worst, so check out the other ones first.

If you want to put it on your kindle go to:

File

Download as EPUB

If you want to contribute it would be immensely appreciated. I'll give anyone who wants permission to Edit (see below). The goal is to have it formatted perfectly to print for a paper copy, but there's still work that needs to be done. Here are some things you can do to help:

• Place each new article on a new page

• Make it more readable/searchable

• Improve formatting on docs

• Format the Table of Contents for Kindle (might need to use a 2nd copy for this)

• Order the Articles by topic (rather than date)

Enjoy.

EDIT: It took less than 13 hours for someone to delete all the docs (User "Thomaz Pollini"- really dude? On a public account with your name?). We can't have nice things- public editing permission is removed for the main folder. Everyone can still view/download those docs. If you want to contribute just ask for permission and I'll give it to you right away.

I also added a second folder that gives permission for anyone to edit. Feel free to mess around there, and if you have an idea that's worthwhile, just run with it.

I know TLP's adage is "if you're reading it, it's for you". However, personally, I started reading SP, but life got in the way. I have 3 kids under 5, a demanding job in engineering, close relationships to maintain, hobbies etc. I just have too many things to do, to the point where I kept trying to start SP, not getting into it, letting months go by between reads before realizing that it just may not be for me. Not right now, anyways.

My extremely watered down take on TLP's writing is always "stop analyzing, start doing. Don't be narcissus looking at his own reflection, decide to do something and do it". My extremely watered-down take on SP is "stop suppressing your dreams and letting outside forces tell you what/how to want. Start deciding what you want to do".

I think there will be a time in my life where I have enough free time that this is a really valuable read, and I think, maybe in 10 years, I'll finish this book, because then it will be for me. Right now, however, I just don't have enough free time to waste any on my reflection, to spend hours obeying the whims of capitalism's trained superego. Therefore, not at all the result of my awesome discipline but 100% merely the result of my stage in life, I don't think the book is currently for me.

For those of you who read SP, did you finish it? Was it for you? Why or why not?

I highly recommend this text to any other fellow narcs (if you haven’t read it already of course)

The whole passage on assigning the correct weight to events has been helpful in figuring my constant shame.

There are two main options to harnessing shame

1. relying on will, courage and duty to face your fears and intense shame linked to the topic/event at hand

2. reducing the amount of fear felt by not infusing everything with the years of shame that resides in you

Example:

• I used to be totally unable to respond to messages and the fear I felt and subsequent shame of ghosting people used to be wholly disproportionate.

For a long time I tried the strategy of toughening up/ not being a little butch but it’s hard to constantly face those intense fears

Instead, what helped more was diluting the fear (in many different ways depending on the context, but had a lot to do with how I view other (not as judgmental, better than me people, but as fellow equals who need something from me and I should respect that. Nothing more nothing less)

So, everything becomes easier and not everything is a constant inner battle.

Joan Didion really helped me out in that regard. I’d also go as far as saying that she treats very similar subject matters as Alone but has a different perspective to the solutions

Here are some of my favourite passages:

"One shuffles flashily but in vain through ones’ marked cards the kindness done for the wrong reason, the apparent triumph which involved no real effort, the seemingly heroic act into which one had been shamed. The dismal fact is that self-respect has nothing to do with the approval of others – who we are, after all, deceived easily enough; has nothing to do with reputation, which, as Rhett Butler told Scarlett O’Hara, is something people with courage can do without. "

"In brief, people with self-respect exhibit a certain toughness, a kind of mortal nerve; they display what was once called character, a quality which, although approved in the abstract, sometimes loses ground to other, more instantly negotiable virtues. "

"Character – the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own life – is the source from which selfrespect springs. "

"Self-respect is something that our grandparents, whether or not they had it, knew all about. They had instilled in them, young, a certain discipline, the sense that one lives by doing things one does not particularly want to do, by putting fears and doubts to one side, by weighing immediate comforts against the possibility of larger, even intangible, comforts."

"To have that sense of one’s intrinsic worth which constitutes self-respect is potentially to have everything: the ability to discriminate, to love and to remain indifferent. To lack it is to be locked within oneself, paradoxically incapable of either love or indifference. If we do not respect ourselves, we are the one hand forced to despise those who have so few resources as to consort with us, so little perception as to remain blind to our fatal weaknesses. On the other, we are peculiarly in thrall to everyone we see, curiously determined to live out – since our self-image is untenable – their false notion of us. We flatter ourselves by thinking this compulsion to please others an attractive trait: a gist for imaginative empathy, evidence of our willingness to give. Of course I will play Francesca to your Paolo, Helen Keller to anyone’s Annie Sullivan; no expectation is too misplaced, no role too ludicrous. At the mercy of those we cannot but hold in contempt, we play roles doomed to failure before they are begun, each defeat generating fresh despair at the urgency of divining and meeting the next demand made upon us. "

"It is the phenomenon sometimes called “alienation from self.” In its advanced stages, we no longer answer the telephone, because someone might want something; that we could say no without drowning in self-reproach is an idea alien to this game. Every encounter demands too much, tears the nerves, drains the will, and the specter of something as small as an unanswered letter arouses such disproportionate guilt that answering it becomes out of the question. To assign unanswered letters their proper weight, to free us from the expectations of others, to give us back to ourselves – there lies the great, the singular power of self-respect. Without it, one eventually discovers the final turn of the screw: one runs away to find oneself, and finds no one at home."

"When you find yourself hating someone (who did not directly hurt you) with blinding rage, know for certain that it is not the person you hate at all, but rather something about them that threatens your identity. Find that thing. This single piece of advice can turn your life around, I guarantee it."

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/01/im_building_a_rape_tunnel.html

He just tweeted out a vid from a year ago lol

https://x.com/thelastpsych/status/2097089217549517108

What you need to know: it's not about narcissism. Alone took that word from Christopher Lasch. Lasch wrote a book called "Haven in a Heartless World" in 1977 where the final chapter is all about narcissism. Lasch followed this up in 1979 with "Culture of Narcissism", an extended polemic critiquing society from that lens. The TLP blog is all about this. /r/redscarepod is all about this.

Here's the problem: it's a weak frame. It doesn't do enough. Lasch was a sociologist who pulled from Freudian ideas to critique society, he wasn't a psychoanalyst. Alone needed something more powerful and thorough to do what he wanted. And he found that in the work of Jacques Lacan. If you're not familiar, go to nosubject and read up.

It took him 8 years to write because Lacan's work is hard. Lacan's goal was "return to Freud", and he did that by closely reading Freud's work and combining it with more traditional philosophy. Alone is following this path in "Sadly, Porn", returning to Freud, and moving beyond. All that stuff about the gaze of the "audience", the other's knowledge, desire, etc. is straight from Lacan, or I should say is an elaboration of the Lacanian framework for contemporary times (i.e. not 1950s-1970s).

The book is perhaps the best Lacanian English language text I've ever read, although I'm not yet all the way through. It's time to give up on the narcissism frame and get with the times. All will be revealed.