eugman

• eugmanDec 6, 2011, 12:40 AM

  6 points

  on: How is your mind differ­ent from ev­ery­one else’s?

  One that I realized quite quickly, I have an uncomfortably strong level of empathy. Or more accurately, a strong discomfort towards emotional disharmony in others. The strongest is in strong arguments or social awkwardness. I can barely stand to watch those intentionally awkward scenes in sitcoms and movies.

  I have a preternatural ability to see what others are trying to say. This comes out in two ways. One, if someone is talking to me, and they make an error, my brain will autotranslate. So if they said brother and meant father, I will hear what they meant. Sometimes I don’t notice this translation until they point out an error they made. And then I’ll be able to recall specifically what they said. The other way it comes out is I can spot miscommunication very easily. If two people are having a “who’s on first” moment, I’ll see exactly where the confusion is, and what needs to be said to fix it. It’s awesome and weird.

  Both of the previous items cause me to have a natural urge to resolve any conflict going on, trying to act as mediator.

  Like some here, I think I have mild number synethesia. Mental math sometimes has a visual component, with numbers splitting and merging. Additionally, numbers...um....look a certain way. So the number 15 looks really 3-ish and really 5-ish. It’s also a very sturdy, compact number (because it fits into 60 so well.) The lower numbers also have an aesthetic, usually based on how divisible they are or how common a divisor they are. So, 2,3,4,12,60 are all pretty but 31 or 57 are ugly. Higher numbers blur a bit for me. This may be a heuristic for how easily my mind manipulates those numbers.

  Also, and with the main population I feel like an oddity for this, I derive significant pleasure from completing math problems. I imagine many others here do too.

• eugmanNov 15, 2011, 11:15 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: JimL’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Ah, so let me apologize. I think there was some confusion. Also you hit a bit of a landmine for me. There’s been one person I’ve met who was so invalidating regarding mental illness. Sarah’s sister actually. She basically told us that unless Sarah had something written from a doctor, she didn’t have bpd (“I think you have anger problems”). She also discredited my depression (“Look, I’ve gotten really sad before too”). So whenever it sounds like someone is suggesting mental illness isn’t real I get quite defensive.

  Secondly, I agree that sitting on a couch and talking about how daddy never hugged you is useless. On the other hand, it’s important to at least acknowledge that our childhoods shape a lot of our personality and action-emotion dynamic. I thought you were doing the opposite, trying to suggest the only major influence was personal choice.

• eugmanNov 14, 2011, 12:26 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: steven0461’s comment on: Ra­tional Ro­man­tic Re­la­tion­ships, Part 1: Re­la­tion­ship Styles and At­trac­tion Basics

  Hi, this comment caused me to vote in this poll, in protest of its validity. I do agree actually that sanctions should be made, preferably norm based ones like lessdazed suggested. The protest is what the poll is clear of exactly. Such a poll is representative of the outliers. Specifically, anyone past the threshold it takes to make a vote. If you conclusions are based on that subset of people, then I have no disagreement.

• eugmanNov 14, 2011, 1:06 AM

  4 points

  in reply to: MixedNuts’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Upvoted for making an extremely valid point. I begrudgingly have to admit the possibility that I personally engaged in gross acts of confirmation bias and that all the evidence I have to support my argument is invalid. I’m not quite sure where that leaves me.....

• eugmanNov 14, 2011, 12:48 AM

  7 points

  in reply to: JimL’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I should point out that this was a self-diagnosis, not a professional one. On the other hand, to be considered borderline for the DSM IV-TR, you have to meet 5 out of 9 criteria. She met all of them. Now, I don’t know if I believe that she had a “malady” as you describe it. However, here is what I do believe.

  I believe that there are a constellation of correlated, stable, and self-sustaining personality attributes reasonably referred to as BPD. I believe that they are multi-causal and cannot be reduced to a few simple things, like control issues. I believe that this constellation occurs regularly and consistently enough that information from once occurrence is going to be quite applicable to another occurrence. I think that those traits are extremely difficult to change, or at the very least make it very difficult/​unlikely for the person to sustain the willingness to change that is necessary. I think your implication of highly specific partner preference gives the impression that I am wrong on this last point. It implies such behavior is whimsical and easy to change, if only the person were to wish it.

• eugmanNov 13, 2011, 11:49 PM

  2 points

  in reply to: juliawise’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  It was honestly more for me than for her. Although at this point it’s hard to recall for whose sake it was.

• eugmanNov 13, 2011, 12:52 PM

  6 points

  on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Funny note: because I moved this article to main, my karma is at 248 but my karma gained this month is at 395.

• eugmanNov 13, 2011, 12:20 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: MatthewBaker’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  You may, but I can’t tell you in public for reasons, if stated, would probably have the same effect. Instead I’ll cruelly tease you with a riddle.

  She said to me “Honey,
  I’ve got something to share.”
  But something was taken
  and can’t be repaired.

• eugmanNov 13, 2011, 3:45 AM

  10 points

  in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  It’s rather complicated I’m afraid.

  So, that was the main issue. And that’s what I tried to convey in the post, not to characterize a user as stupid. I’d be more than happy to change it or make a footnote, but I’m having trouble picking out what precisely to change.

  That being said, I’m sure there’s a lot of emotional leakage going on. When it comes to the subject, I’m guessing I’m suffering from the horns effect, so I apologize to everyone for that. There are a number of confounding factors that makes it difficult to extract the main issue.

  My only primary issue with nicotine was the health concerns with smoking regular cigarettes. If she had stayed on the e-cigs (which she talked me into mind you), I wouldn’t have been so upset about that. I did however have a fear that even using vaporized nicotine, she might relapse to cigarettes.

  The cannabis is complicated. First, I had made a devilish bargain with her on the pretense she would quit. Second, it felt like she needed it to socialize with most of her friends who were also smokers. Third, her dealers and their friends were unscrupulous people and I was constantly concerned for her safety. Fourth, since she was a chronic user, it was frustrating because when she was high I felt isolated and alone. But she expected me to always be “on” and available to help her at a moments notice so the asymmetry was infuriating. Fifth, I was frustrated about how much of a giant money sink it was. And finally, it was impossible to get any validation on any of these things. That’s what I mean by her putting drugs first. It was a lifestyle and in integral part of her identity, so if I was hurting because of it, it was taken as an attack on her identity.

  It was the first and last items that really stung me the most.

• eugmanNov 13, 2011, 3:24 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I’ve decided to just change the title to simplify things. If anyone has any better suggestions for it, let me know. Instead of awkwardly trying to fit in an explanation, I thought it better to just remove the reference. I think this post deviated from my original vision quite a bit.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 12:30 PM

  1 point

  in reply to: snarles’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  This is correct. I realize this may differ some from the strict definition but I feel the same tools were used, conscious or otherwise. Thus, the information is relevant in case someone ever consciously tries to manipulate you in the same way. Also, intentionallity is a spectrum. You may be a consciously trying to manipulate but feel justified and not view it as manipulation, as was probably often the case with her.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 5:58 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I read the link. It was spot on and I feel like I should be really really angry.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 5:50 AM

  5 points

  in reply to: Jack’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Yes I did. I spent nearly all my time with her and she didn’t trust me alone so that sort of thing happened on it’s own.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 5:49 AM

  10 points

  in reply to: RobertLumley’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I would too. Since there isn’t a post-sized crater in the ground that I was expecting, What should I do about that? Is the protocol to repost or just have an admin move it?

  And thank you for the compliment. I took quite the emotional risk in making it so I’m glad it was worth it.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 5:47 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Unabashedly, yes. However, the healthy view would have been to see the issues in both of us simultaneously. That was the bigger issue.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 3:25 AM

  14 points

  in reply to: MatthewBaker’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I’ll read them both when I get a chance. I had gotten her some e-cigs but she quit those after a while. I’m willing to admit that one can use many substances in a safe rational way. However, I take issue when those substances are far more important than your relationship with your fiance. I know I shouldn’t dictate someone else’s life, but it always felt like drugs came first and I came second and I wish she had been upfront about that from the beginning. (Yes, I am quite bitter about this)

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 3:04 AM

  12 points

  in reply to: scientism’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I didn’t know where I stood from one minute to the next. I could go from being her closest friend to her most hated enemy, and back again, in the space of one conversation. It was bizarre and incredibly addictive.

  Take this. Now make this person someone you love so deeply you’d die for them. Your most intimate relation that you trust with secrets you wouldn’t tell anyone else. There are not words in the English language to properly describe this sensation.

  But it was an interesting experience. Almost like joining a cult.

  I hate to exaggerate, but the similarities are disturbing. For example, see love bombing.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 3:00 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: Desrtopa’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  This is very good advice. Difficult too, as my natural inclinations lead me to play therapist very easily.

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 2:58 AM

  3 points

  in reply to: Raemon’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  My first thought, the scariest thought, is that there is no point. Looking back it’s hard to see a clear point. Instead it was a chain built link by link. A gradual descent into hell. But then I thought more and I had tried to break up before, so one of those times. The first of which was a time where she wanted me to basically exclude my father from our wedding if he wouldn’t support us. Other good choices would be one of the first times I was bawling on the floor or physically stopping her from committing suicide (although it was likely gesturing).

• eugmanNov 12, 2011, 2:55 AM

  1 point

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  That’s quite the compliment, but I’ll take it. The best part is this is my natural mode of thought: highly non-sequential.