Deconditioning

You're belief systems cannot influence reality, only your perception of it.

>>17937102

You'd be surprised.

>>17937101

A path is made by walking. Your beliefs about the world are a habit. You establish a new belief system by acting as if you believe.

>>17937101
Learn to use your brain a bit more like a computer. We're all pretty similar so you can use yourself to run a model to understand someone else better and maintain control.

I believe it's called empathy in the real world.

>>17937188
Empathy is not having to do mental gymnastics to understand what people are going through. You either relate or your don't—empathy is not a constant.

>>17937545
I think you should look into cognitive empathy. It can also be worked on and improved.

>>17937803
Cognitive empathy isn't empathy at all.

t. primary psychopath.

LSD

>>17937809
>empathy
>psychopath
Now I know you're looking for mental gymnastics but I think you're doing your tumbles in the wrong direction.

>>17937853
Cognitive empathy is the only kind I have access to. Either it's not real empathy or psychopathy is entirely non-disorderly.

>>17937867
Err...if you're a psychopath this is gonna be tricky I'm afraid.

>>17937879
It's only gonna be tricky if you try to be persuasive while explaining your stance. Just explain it and be done with it. You can't control my interpretation.

>>17937882
I've given you enough to interpret. You have to start putting the dots together yourself at some point.

>>17937905
Oh, no. I'm not OP. I already run my brain in a severely algorithmic capacity just as a psychopath.

I'm saying you're incapable of genuine sympathy.

>>17937914
Don't read me wrong, this is a very limited way of communicating. Emotion carries information and are strong signifiers of the state of things. that's part of the problem here. If you can't cognitively, emotionally and compassionately emphathise you're obviously going to struggle with the full range of human communication.

>>17938000
Not at all. My kind are renowned for being able to fake it. It apparently scares people how little we feel while being able to make all the motions. I'm probably the most compassionate person you've met, not because I'm a primary psychopath, but in spite of that. I care about people so deeply it hurts, but I don't empathize with their pain. I only feel for the concept itself, without sympathizing with what they're going through. Compassion as an emotion is vile to me. When you only act based on some stupid feeling rather than the principle of the matter, that seems backwards and retarded to me. If you don't genuinely care to help people, trying to force yourself to care by adopting fake focus patterns seem artificial and counterproductive to me. Let the people who actually care care. It won't help me to have a thousand unsympathetic idiots trying to "cure" me of my psychopathy/emotionlessness if they don't try to understand what I'm actually going through.

There are times for sympathy, where it pays to think things through cognitively and try to relate to someone else's problems even though you have no idea what it actually feels like. There are times for compassion, where you just need to bite the bullet and show kindness despite the toxic turmoil in the world around you. And then there's everyday life where (theoretically) you're supposed to understand how people feel in a general capacity well enough to not make bad moods worse, not get tangled up in problems that aren't yours and don't personally affect you, behave yourself in public and so on and so forth for whatever cultural customs your society dictates. None of these overlap at all.

You, who advocates for cognitive changes that have no meaning or genuity, you, who dismiss people once you think you've shoved them into the right category/mental condition, you, who think there are inarticulate people among us, you, who judge and shove advice where it doesn't belong, you, solely, are the type
>cont

>>17938000 (checked)
>>17938045 (cont)
You, solely, are the type of person who plays enabler so hard that it causes the social justice movement to think it needs warriors.

You are incapable of genuine sympathy.

OP here, came back to find we've already been derailed by edgy self-diagnosed psychopaths, don't know why I expected any different.

>>17938055
If you didn't bring up empathy then I can assure you that both the other anon and I are willing to leave the matter be.

>>17938049
Dude. You brought up being a psycho not me. All I've actually said is if you want to know about other people you have to empathise and you can work on empathy. Pretty tame I thought. You also said I should just explain without persuasion and I tried, but you're just egging for a fight.

>>17938075
Yes, yes, and yes again. Thank you for playing along. It was tame and there's really no reason for me to go off on you like this in this context. Words like these are meant for someone well beyond you.

>>17938082
OK. That's cool. Pretty interesting anyway.

>>17938108
Thanks. I figured it was worth saying somewhere.

>>17937101
As someone who's been doing what I'd more or less be willing to admit falls under the heading of "chaos magic" for about thirteen years, and has exchanged thoughts with many others in the field, I can tell you this: virtually no chaotes are anywhere near as good as indulging in arbitrary belief as they think they are or want to be, and the ones who excel the most are the ones who learn, admit to, and operate under the very real limits they encounter in this regard. People who keep at it long enough are basically always going to have a baseline "underparadigm" consisting of their own uniquely-developed concepts about how magic works, anyway, and, usually more importantly, a unique inner mythworld that functions as a switchboard of sorts for interfacing with the world at a magical level.

A heavy element of "fake it till you make it" can be involved, but remember the key is not to temporarily be a sucker for something you "disbelieve", but to be able to harness a much wider array of interpretive frameworks into YOUR service than the average guy, without being a sucker for any of them. There is a broadly-held assumption in the world that one belief system must be adopted to the exclusion of others, as though you're entering into the service of a lord who will expect you to prioritize his interests when he comes into conflict with others. There is no readily apparent logic to this assumption, unless one accepts that we must exist as servants of our ideas; if chaos magic is predicated on anything at all, it the opposite of this assertion. [cont. next post]

>>17938474
When newbs have problems "believing in" things that seem absurd to their baseline sensibilities, it is because they are imagining that belief has to involve buying into something, hook, line, and sinker. It does not, and should not even for "normal" people. You are not temporarily granting a random paradigm sovereignty over your interface with the world, to the offense of your more deeply-rooted perspectives, but merely adding it your repertoire; when you are "believing" in it, you are just granting yourself access to its unique perspectives on things, generally for a matter-of-fact end. Think of your perspectives more as friends whom you might turn to for help or advice on particular occasions. It does not make sense to deny yourself the knowledge of a friend who works in automotive if you're having car troubles merely because you wouldn't trust this person to guide you through much else in life.

I will tell you this as well: if you're having problems with getting started on "deconditioning yourself", you live under the aegis of far, far more dogmas than you may realize. It's encouraging that you have not allowed them to weave themselves into a consistent, consciously-held system, but they're there all the same, and you can't avoid having picked up quite a lot of them over the course of your life.