Building Relationships

The sacrifices of marriage and calamitous divorces

2010-12-27T11:02:00.001-08:00

The following article highlights the terrible, twisted ethics that society bring to marriage. The story follows the life of a celebrity, high profile New York couple who end up divorcing, and in the process breaking up two families. The wedding of the couple - Carol Anne Riddell and John Partilla - received considerable media publicity, but for all the wrong reasons. They are being described as home wreckers and narcissists for the way they have celebrated their 'infidelity' in the media. "The couple fell in love while still married to other people".

This part is hard to believe because most people would challenge the fact that you cannot develop a relationship with another person without cheating of your former spouses. The reality however is that one must acknowledge:

1. Marriage is not a sacrifice - you stay in it only so long as it works, or you believe there is a prospect of it working. The problem is that people don't work on their relationship, so they descend to a point when their collapse is irreversible.

2. Marriage is not a relationship - A marriage is a contract. The values and feelings associated with a relationship are the bricks and mortar. The contractual commitment is the pretense. People who turn a legal document into some sacred parch are deluding themselves.

The idea that these couples went from marriage to marriage is an over-simplification. No one thinks like that; not even 'selfish narcissists' or even 'selfless moralists'. The reality is that people leave marriages because of a crisis in that marriage. People leave because they don't have the skills to resolve the problems. This makes a new relationship more appealing. The fact that both partners looked outside for fulfilment suggests that this was a mutual, consensual decision. The implication that these partners were faking it for the sake of the children. Who would not want to protect their children, and provide a smooth tradition for them.

In the comments section, you can read the vitriol of self-righteous Christians who are all too ready to judge them, and in the process denigrate supposed Christian values. In actual fact, this is not a 'selfish' outcome, its a sub-optimal outcome. Why would a person want to enter a marriage, fail to rehabilitate it, then enter another relationship, which might also fail. This is a failure, its certainly a moral, but how can this be considered in a person's interest. How can modelling a poor, guilt-edged, unrewarding marriage be considered selfish. The problem was that this couple were not selfish enough. They should of got counselling years ago, they should have taken a keener interest in their values before getting married in the first place. But having failed in that regard, then they should of got divorced.

The problem of course is that they made another 'selfless' mistake. They failed to act in their interests by getting married so soon after failing in their first marriage. They are probably destined to repeat the same mistakes. Hopefully by that stage their children will have been grown up. The issue here is learning from your mistakes; and not going from one mistake to another. This offers stability for no one, and one is less likely to make good decisions in a state of transition. I however don't judge (as much as I love to judge) because I don't know these people. Maybe they learnt their lessons from the previous marriage, maybe they got a lot of counselling, and were ready to move on. Maybe they were emotionally estranged from their previous partners, so there was a smooth transition for the kids.

There does seem to be a bit of nominalism in this decision, i.e. That divorce is part of life, so 'smooth transitioning' is the 'new marriage concept', that this is the way to go. This is sub-optimal. It does not always work, but it does work better if there is a healthy self-esteem, good communication, no sense of betrayal, and no one left alone when all is done. So this is a dream situation, because we have high-powered executives, probably good self-esteem, well-educated, wealthy, and they both are living happy-ever-after with new kids. Seldom is this the case. What if there was a disabled child involved, unemployment, a resentful, betrayed vindictive partner and an arrogant, uneducated husband with a penchant for escaping responsibilities, like every good cliche.

If it sounds like I am engaging in some equivocation on the word 'selfish', its intended. The idea that selfishness is doing whatever you want is nonsense. Selfishness is not acting arbitrarily, it is about advancing your life values. The idea that selfishness is acting with no regard or ill-will for others is a altruistic smear. These people have acted with sensitivity or empathy for their kids. Parents who sacrifice their interests for the 'supposed' sake of their kids, will end up doing their kids a grave disservice, because they will be demonstrating altruistic idealism, and in the process that life is about deluding yourself that happiness can come from begrudgingly engaging in hopeless relationships and then castigating others for the choices that you did not have the courage to take. This is the nature of the Christian vindictiveness. Self-righteous moralism.

Such Christians see divorce as inherently flawed. Consider the following poster:

"If the couple had a sense of decency and wished to truly respect the feelings of their ex-spouses, they would have denied themselves the pleasure of having their 15 minutes of fame in the New York Times".

This is very presumptuous and nonsensical because they went to the media together, and their current partners would most certainly be aware. But consider what will happy. The self-righteous Christians will model all kinds of vitriol in front of their kids, so its probable that their kids will be subject to all manner of bullying in the playground because the diminished self-esteem displayed by the children of these 'righteous' Christians.

An ordained marriage celebrant writes:

"Why publish a story that denigrates not only the institution of marriage, but the unceremoniously discarded spouses?".

Where is the evidence of that. This highlights the depravity of the Christian concept of marriage...that they perceive it as an expression of Christian values, i.e. divorced from reasons, causes, intelligibility. They see it instead as mindless sacrifice or servitude for the sake of others (i.e. the kids). Where is the value in that? Well, its in the grace of God, the sacred, intrinsic good of 'blessed god'. Yep, I know, a lot of crap, if you repudiate this nonsensical ethical system, and recognise that there is no god....just a lot of fear and a flawed thought process.

The second part is equally revealing. Why "unceremoniously discarded spouses"? There is no sense that there was anything but regard for their spouses, as they did it together. They did not get divorced with 'shame'; it sounds like they are proud of the conciliation that they were able to achieve. It sounds like they remain friends, moreover because they were both able to move on to other partners.

There is always a resident psychologist who is ready to offer their insights. Consider the psychologist featured on NBC's 'Today Show', who labelled the Vows piece 'the confessional of a couple wracked with guilt'. It is possible they held guilt, but just because a couple or person feels guilt does not mean that the guilt is justified. Guilt can arise because one has a conflict of values. Ambivalent values goes hand-in-hand with divorce, after all most people get married for the wrong reasons....as opposed to the right reasons, which would be the prospect of partners not living up to the partner's expectations.

This was followed by the angry intervention of Bob Ennis, Riddell's first husband, who posted on the Forbes.com website that "people lie and cheat and steal all the time, but rarely does a national news organisation give them an unverified megaphone to whitewash it. You could easily try to brush this off as a ... self-serving act by a couple of narcissistic people who for whatever reason have a need to try to persuade people, except for the fact that there are lots of children involved".

This commentary might be vindictive or justified. But what we do know is that relationships are not always clean breaks. He might feel that way in 20 years, or he might already be regretting those statements. The reality is that we are raised with this notion that divorce. It is, but the failure was at the inception of the marriage, not when we get divorced; at least not necessarily. There is no reason to think that people don't fudge that too, but at least they are, by getting divorced, acknowledging their feelings, and that they have a right to happiness, and to be selfish. Let's get rid of the pious, self-righteous, Christian crappy ethic that says that life or marriage is servitude.

You can read the whole story at the New York Times.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Sabotaging one's achievements

2009-07-27T00:53:00.000-07:00

Its interesting how people have this tendency to sabotage their relationships in some desperate attempt to preserve the relationship. They end up sabotaging their goal because of their sense of vulnerability. I can think of a number of instances in which this can occur. Consider the following:
1. Friends: People have multiple interests in people. Life demands that one expands one's relationships, and the nature of those relationships ranges from exclusive romantic relationships to more peripheral goal-orientated relationships. All too often romantic partners can attempt to constrain or sabotage their partner's goals by placing resistance in front of their partner. Paradoxically, they are trying to retain control over their partner, but in fact all they are doing is undermining their value. By sabotaging others, they are merely raising others relative to themselves.
2. Partners: Its common for people to provide judgements on their friends, children or siblings partners. The problem with these judgements is that they are often not likely to achieve their goal, moreover they are often delivered in a way which achieves the exact opposite. The problem is that their judgement is premature; they are not adding new information, or they are ignoring the context. I am reminded of a person who judged their sibling's partner because she was materialistic and pretentious, yet her sibling was the same. He was incredibly insecure. In her case, she was more ambitious. Flawed relationship like these are destined to fall apart, but not if the intent of the interested party attacks the partner who serves as a source of value. In so doing the sibling is undermining confidence in her sibling, inevitably forcing them into their hands.

There are of course numerous ways to deliver your opinion, but there are better ways than others. The better ways are:
1. Anticipate problems: If it is their first relationship, talk about the importance about maintaining some perspective. This is best conveyed through related personal experiences as it shows a shared vulnerability, and a capacity to learn and grow beyond a problem, as well as a capacity to express that vulnerability.
2. Explain human nature: Help them to understand how people act. This is best done before the fact. You want to convey the nature of healthy and unlhealthy people so they see the contrast, and so you don't convey any disposition to tragic outcomes. This ensures you appear objective.
3. Help them to think: People have a self-righteous tendency to impose their opinion on others. Its more effective to give them the tools to think for themselves, so they feel empowered.

If you are openly, readily and resolutely critical of people, you tend to corner them into making the decision which you intended to avoid. If you hoped to dissolve their relationship, instead they will marginalise you and any army you have established to convince them. People don't like to think less of themselves, nor to be ambushed. Of course, in a perfect world, people would be perfectly objective. Whilst that is a desirable outcome, in the meantime, you have to work with a great deal of strategic or diplomatic skill. This is a hard task. It requires a great deal of understanding of human nature, one's own motivations, not to mention a great deal of empathy.
These people often learn, but by imposing your views, they are more likely to realise that much later. It might take a failed marriage before they realise. Even then they might deny the reality of your criticism even after you have been proven right. There is a tendency to shoot the messenger. Such is the nature of retained, persistent, subjective realities.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Love - for good or worse?

2009-05-04T04:08:00.000-07:00

The following video will appeal to many people, and so it did to me on one level, but not in the sense that it was supposed to. Of course no assertion is made. Too few people are courageous enough these days to take a position today, however I will do just that.

The problem with this video is that it implies that love is unconditional or intrinsic. My counter-argument is that she did not love David for those 'incidental' issues, but because of all the other things she did not mention, because they had already been stated by others. Are they not the important things? We never really knew David from her. Just that he was human because he discharged like all other humans who don't retain their better half. Flatulence is not the reason we fall in love with anyone, its the deep seated values they express or believe.
Yet I would argue that a great many relationships are forged on more superficial values, though not the ones raised in the video .
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Which online dating forums are the best?

2009-01-02T19:10:00.000-08:00

I think the best online dating forums are the ones that have themes unrelated to 'personal relationships'. I think there is little reason why you should be paying to advertise your profile on some blog when there are so many social networking web databases which allow you to set up free webpages. Strategies you should consider:
1. Identify your greatest passions
2. Look for the social networking sites that list interests pertinent to yours
3. Use specific aspects of your interest as a keyword and search for partners in your age group

If you dont find any interesting points of contact - dont despair - you can either broaden your criteria, try a different interest to keyword search, or try a different website. You dont need to approach people as if you want to start a relationship...just keep chatting until one person stops. If they dont respond, email them back, and ask them why.
I actually stopped contacting my current GF because I perceived her religious beliefs as an obstacle. Now I recognise that she has a healthy skepticism.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Is dating online safe?

2009-01-02T19:09:00.000-08:00

I have dated alot of people online and I think its by far the best way to relate to people. When I take on a purpose (like dating), I tend to launch myself into it. Thats fine, but I would advice against engaging in dialogue with too many people as you will tend to treat them as a commodity. You will also convey the message that they are a 'commodity' because you will be mixing up people, calling them by the wrong name. They will of course think the worst. If they are an attractive 'prospect' you might blow an opportunity early. Thats not to say you cant turn the situation around, but people are very cynical at first. My choice is to talk to 4 until I have enough information to eliminate some. I will tend to meet the final candidate if they dont have any attributes that dont break my list.
People tend to think online dating is risky...seemingly because its anonymous. That might be true for children who cannot see the age of the counterparty, but for adults I think its easy to judge. Here are some tips:
1. Dont give out personal address info - where you work, live, etc
2. Meet in a public at first
3. Ask probing questions without being cynical or judgemental.
4. Chat in a combination of text and voice mode to gauge the authenticity of the counterparty. Its easier for a counterparty to contrive an artificial story if your correspondence is by email than if by other modes. Chat with Internet Messenger (Gmail, Yahoo, etc) is best because it saves a record of your conversations.
5. Read over your conversations with your counterparty with the intent of doing a sublte integrity check. Anyone that is not accountable for what they say likely has a vulnerability or insecurity that should be explored.
6. Remain engaged, by emapthetic and not to fast to judge.
7. Keep a positive and humoress tone to your dialogue.

------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Why search for partners online?

2009-01-02T19:07:00.000-08:00

Online dating need not be a contrived event where you seek out a romantic partner. I met my partner online. I was looking for a partner, but I would have been just as happy looking for a friend. My counterpartner was looking for investment advice. There is no shame in either approach, though you will be perceived as 'needy' if your thinking is polarised by the goal to find a partner, because they will perceive you as filling a void. Is there anything wrong with that? That depends. If you are looking for a partner who embodies your deepest values - great! If you are looking indiscrimately for anyone, thats bad! No real value is achieved through indiscriminate action.
The great positives about online dating are:
1. Wide audience: You could never hope to reach a greater audience without even uttering a word. People that offer little information in their blog are really wasting time and its a significant opportunity cost. People will say that there is a risk in placing too much information online, but risk is managed, not avoided.
2. Wide choice: You are not a passive influence on the process. You can pick people as well. People will say that 'all guys I meet online are only interested in sex'. Yeh. I was won of them until I met a girl I respected. Be the type of person someone desires, and you stop being just a sexual object. When you earn respect you get treated differently. Go in judging without engaging in any meaningful dialogue and you remain an object.
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How to find a partner?

2009-01-02T19:06:00.001-08:00

The best way to find a partner is to identify the values that are important to you. If you are not sure what values are are important, you can identify them by looking at your emotional response to events and people. You will see a pattern in the activities you pursue, the things you dislike. Generally the stronger the feeling, the more fundamental the value being expressed, appreciated or repudiated. But it also depends on the context, on the significance of the event or person to you.
There is no question that you will find more compatible partners if you know yourself, so invest time in understanding yourself more. The best way of learning more about yourself is to read the types of books that discuss personal development issues. It might be psychology, philosophy or self improvement books. More important than reading is reflecting on what one has read, to the point of critically appraising it. Ask yourslef is there another possibility that might explain the events in your life.
I believe we should never substitute our personal experience for others because people have a dreadful habit of making flaws. If you accept others interpretation of events, you are dropping the context, that is other pertinent information not conveyed that is important to rendering the judgement.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Finding friends

2009-01-02T19:02:00.002-08:00

The opportunities to find friends have never been greater than now. Every day there seems to be a new social networking website to explore. But there is a world of difference between a 'internet friend' and a 'real world' friend. I am not saying there is no substance to an internet friendship, its just that they are not tested over the internet. There are several problems with internet friendships:
1. The counterparty can control the perception you have of them
2. You dont see the annoying habits of the counterparty
3. The confidence of the counterparty might be bouyed by their online popularity, but does it translate into real world friendships.

I dont wish to portay the internet as a 'superficial' medium for finding friends, but I suggest its utility depends on you and your counterparty. If you talk 'fluff' you are likely to attract 'fluff'. If you talk about inspirational, goal-orientated topics, you might meet that type of person. But you still need to consider - Are they travelling at the same speed as you, are they as capable as you, and thus can you ultimately respect them.

There are certain things that I ultimately want to do when I am trying to make friends:
1. I want to describe myself with the greatest possible detail, so they 'get me'. I will be candid to ensure I carry credibility. You can get ideas about the type of things you should say by looking at other people's profiles.
2. I want to connect with people on the basis of shared experience or interests
3. I want to connect with goal-orientated people. It not good enough that people want to describe themselves. What is the point if they have no interest in connecting. Alas, a great many people are not so aspirational. Its not just about having friends. Anyone can have friends, you just have to lower your standards. Its about tossing old friends when you acquire new ones. This is not a betrayal of old friends. It was never supposed to be a prison sentence. You are dropping them because you found more meaningful, more rewarding relationships. This usually occurs because one friend is growing at a faster rate than another. One person is challenging themselves to a greater extent than another.

If you want to get the best possible friends I think you need to master the art of self-promotion. This is not about putting on airs of superiority, of pretending that your life is perfect. Its about being authentic, so people appreciate you for whom you are. They dont need to think you are perfect, they need to be able to relate to you because of shared experiences or values. The extent to which you are the same or complement each others goals is the extent to which you will find value in each others being.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Developing trust

2009-01-02T19:02:00.001-08:00

Trust is a confidence in your capacity to judge your vulnerability in certain circumstances or in certain relationships. The argument is that people and circumstances can hurt us, so we should avoid them. I might be considered a child, but I have never really accepted that people can hurt me emotionally. I was always positive about myself, always trusted my judgement, always had a high regard for myself. So if there was any question of anyone being hurt, it was not going to be me. I was just so damn strong.
As it turns out though, being strong is not exactly the best source of defence. I have a very strong judgement. I could nail most people in a debate, and even more impressive is that, when I am wrong, I will willingly concede the point. This is a rare quality. Its so rare, and so important, that I think it was the fundamental reason for selecting my current girlfriend. The implication is that there is a respect for the facts of reality...that there is no value in faking your circumstances. Perceptions dont matter as much as respect for facts, and I'm not going to make myself vulnerable by engaging in delusions that are untrustworthy.

But I note that people do place their trust in others perceptions because they are supported by other people. Reality is secondary to other people's perceptions of them. For this reason, they think perceptions are king. And there is a certain practicality to this thinking, because the majority of people are distorted. Even people who see the distortion prefer to hang around with 'fakes' because they want to be practical. Its a dilemma for impractical people.

The practicality of faking reality is evident from:
1. Making and breaking friends
2. Buying and selling investments

For a great many years, people have been warning that the stock market is going to collapse. They were not wrong, its just that it took a few years before the distortion of people's reality did not hold water. The myth that inflation was beat, that growth could be sustained indefinitely by the Fed pulling a few levers was exposed as a fraud.

The same distortions can be evident in relationships if they are not founded on something that is real. Its only if its real can you trust it. Even if someone is real, but give way to temptations to be practical, I can still witness a change in values unfold, that I can see the slide in values, and if I am vigilent in my judgement, I can know when to refuse to make myself vulnerable. Thats the control we have. Though there is a tendency to loose perspective in a relationship, and accommodate the person. To see virtue in sacrifice, patience, tolerance. This is not helping your friend, its enabling them by giving them your tacit approval. The best way to deal with these issues is to remain engaged in the relationship, but to give it some space, so you are less vulnerable, and have improved perspective.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Negative stereotypes

2009-01-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

Everyone has the capacity to engage in negative stereotyping. The idea that we can filter out assertions or relationships, or diminish the standing of a whole group, race or religion by virtue of their appearance, ethnicity, religion, or in fact any attribute we deem to be negative.

The reality is however is that the problem is not stereotyping, the problem is a lack of thinking. Stereoyping is in fact the interim step towards the creation of new knowledge. When we stereotype, we are actually trying to form new laws or principles to explain how the world is. This is a positive thing.

Unfortunately most of us receive no explicit instruction in how to think from our parents. Instead we develop wisdom passively. We accept 'recieved wisdom' because it comes from some authority, whether its the thinking of our president, or the popular wisdom of our social group. The most courageous thing a person can do is to express a personal opinion. More courageous is expressing one that alienates you form your social network. Fortunately with the internet we don't have to be so remote from people whom will accept us for whom we are - if we know how to promote yourself.

Its unfortunate that the negative impact of stereotyping has caused people to withdrawal from self expression, particularly critical thinking, as it is self-criticism that actually prevents people from acting settling with negative stereoptypes. By that I mean, a negative stereotype is one which is not open to revision, that exists as a dogma. The problem is not that a person thinks 'All black people are thieves', the problem is why he needs to believe that. Such a person accepts this premise because they place perceptions above reality, because they derive a false sense of pride by accepting a relativist notion that they are superior to black people because they have isolated a certain 'subjective' opinion (taken as fact) to support their view, whilst evading any facts or opinions which might contradict their view.
So the problem is not sterotyping, its that people think so little of reality, that they would evade or discount new knowledge that would alter their view. They do this because they lack self esteem. They lack self esteem because they dont trust their capacity to think. They dont trust their capacity to think because it was never a valued skill whilst they were developing their mind. In fact in the playground, the smart kids were beat up. People just wanted to get along.

When you understand that, you will understand that legislation to stop discrimination will not help, it will merely drive it underground, only to surface as a different set of rationalisations. Thats not to say that the public perception of blacks has diminished - it has. It has not because of the legislation, which might otherwise have been perceived as charity. Blacks have been standing in the US community because of the education - moral, scientific and statistical info that went with it.
Consider that the political process - which is fundamentally based on popular perceptions - can so little to help the plight of blacks or other minorities. Recent examples include Australia's previous Howard government, which subtly used 'immigrants overboard' as a 'vote catcher', creating fears of an immigration invasion. These fears were created with respect to the Mexicans as well. The idea that our borders are so porous, that these people present such a grave threat.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

A shy guy's guide to relationships

2009-01-02T18:50:00.000-08:00

I was a very shy kid growing up. I would not say I lacked self esteem. On the contrary, I had a strong sense of personal worth, but I lacked any external support. My parents were less than supportive, employers lacked any interest, and I had trouble making friends. The problem being a kid is that you dont know 'why' people dont apppreciate you. So as an adult you end up dealing with a lot of baggage. The issues that I came to realise:
1. My parents didn't know how to provide support because they didn't have a clue how to be parents because of the poor role models that their parents were.
2. I think I was not much fun as a prospective child friend because I didn't express myself. I really needed to take some risks.
3. I think I was very self righteous, externalising responsibility for my plight, I put up walls, I had an idea of the type of friends who would suit me (the popular ones), as opposed to the ones that shared my interests. I wasted a lot of time trying to be one of the cool kids, condemning myself to being a 'wannabe'.
4. I never really developed any strategy for finding friends, in fact I was doing everything wrong if I hoped to make friends. eg. I would focus on work at work (saying to myself it was unethical to socialise at work), I would not talk to people (telling myself I didn't like small talk, when in fact I preferred goal-orientated action). Years later I would become increasingly frustrated with employers, that I resolved to become independent. I became a trader, which meant that 96% of the population could not relate with me, 99% couldn't meet me. If you look at my range of sporting pursuits, they too are pretty anti-social.

Notwithstanding that, I was courageous enough to talk to a Japanese girl in Sydney, and enter into a relationship with her. I found this relationship incredibly interesting. Apart from being the first one, the nature was very different from experiences with Australian girls. I resolved to focus on meeting Asian girls, and Japanese girls in particular. Needing validation, I of course focused on sexual conquest like a great many other men, though thats not without trying to develop an intellectual relationship. The implication was that - I got my validation - but eventually I would outgrow these women. Why? I realised that most Japanese girls are nesters, all too willing to please, but not willing to grow. That of course is a result of their penchant for collectivism.

The biggest change to the quality of my relationships occurred when I realised exactly the type of women I wanted, and found her. But more important than that was firstly recognising my own nature, understanding myself. Growing up I had focused on understanding others, that I had over-invested in others. Now it was about me....but in a way that was empathetic. I resolved to not disengage from relationships, and not downgrade a relationship without giving the person the opportunity to grow. In the process I was building my own capacity to relate, as I had previously learnt a great deal about quitting. Starting over again could be exciting but it was always AGAIN, planning but never quite implementing. It seemed to be the boring stage, but really I just wasn't making a challenge out of what needed to be addressed.
-----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Social Networking forums

2009-01-02T18:49:00.000-08:00

Now more than ever we are being offered opportunities for social networking. There are all types of web-based social networking databases you can consider. Some of them are global in reach, whilst others might be local. Regardless consider the following:
1. Fitness Singles – see www.FitnessSingles.com – this is a new one, which allows you to describe yourself and search for people interested in the same activities as you.
2. GetALife – see www.getalife.com.au – this one is targeted at Australians. It has about 35,000 members.
3. TokyoTraders – This is a social group that involves traders in Tokyo. They have a good party in Roppongi several times a year. See www.tokyotraders.com.
4. YouTube – This is a good website for posting your video imagery. If you had never thought to produce video imagery, you might look at the new range of digital cameras. Many of them are equipped with a video recording option. They have much better pixel density and sound now, and some have umlimited recording capability, unlike my original Sony P1 digital camera. See www.youtube.com
5. MySpace – This is another popular social networking site, though I think its not as good as Facebook or YouTube in the social networking stakes. See www.myspace.com.
6. Facebook – This I think is currently the leader in the social networking area, though I’m sure it will be outdone in the years to come. See www.facebook.com.
7. RSVP - There are other sites which you have to pay for like www.rsvp.com, though I guess these will start to look market share, or otherwise they will be forced to offer revenue models based on advertising, or activities (like GetALife).
8. Friendster – This is a popular site as well suited for social networking. See www.friendster.com.

Building family networks

2009-01-02T18:48:00.000-08:00

Recently someone sent me an invitation to the following website that lets you display your family tree online family tree - see www.tribaljunction.com/login.php. The applet was a little difficult to use, and the concept is a little rough around the edges. But the idea of connecting with family will appeal to many, though I cant help thinking the idea of connecting with family is becoming a little dated when we now have the opportunity to connect with people who share our interests as opposed to people who share our gene pool. Though much will depend on how nurturing your family network has been, or has the potential to be.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

What should you expect from friendships

2009-01-02T18:45:00.000-08:00

One of the things I have learned about friends and in fact all relationships that you nurture - is that relationships play a large part in determining how successful you are going to be. For that reason I say to you, if you are not getting the following elements in your interaction with friends, then you are not optimising your life. If this is the case I wou;d suggest you can do the following:
1. Enlist your friends in a life challenge - They might not be as courageous as you so try to restrict yourself to one task or aspect of reality at a time.
2. Sacrifice your less meaningful relationships and focus your attention on those relationships that give you the most challenge
3. Drop all friendships if you have a habit of being a door-mat, a pleaser or shy in the company of existing friends. I think a great many people stay in relationships which are less than satisfactory because they don't think they can find any better. I was shy when I was 20yo, and had never had any great friendships, that is with people I could relate to. I often stayed in them despite being the object of mocking. It wasn't until I made a conscious decision to leave those friends and forge my own friendships that I developed successively better ones. With each step I raised the realm of possibilities. In the last 7 years I can say that I have contributed to the betterment of my partners as well, and that is reflected in the sustained relationship I had with them. In the previous relationships I just didnt know myself as well.

Before you can embrace challenge as a relationship goal, you must ensure that you are already enlisted, otherwise you will appear as a hypocrite. That is not a bad thing per se - its a growth opportunity. When someone calls you a hypocrite for reproaching them, you can concede or argue the point. Hopefully reason will prevail - if it doesnt then both parties will diminish their relationship. There will be an opportunity cost. Conflict is only a threat to those that dont respect the facts of reality, those that are unwilling to acknowledge what is.

So what can you expect in a legitimate relationship:
1. Respect based on a broad appreciation of your value - this breeds trust
2. Safety based on shared experiences, which is a basis for shared vulnerability and honesty
3. Consideration of the other parties interests, on the basis that the relationship is of greater value than other value derived from it
4. Empathy based on a sound understanding of the the counterparty, requiring a willingness to listen and to understand their context. It does not mean blind aceptance or approval, but understanding.
5. Support to the extent that people share goals or embracr each others interests. I have recognised that some people are very closed in terms of defining their shared interests, whilst others mesh all facets of their lives. Women tend to be the later, men generally more restrictive. I think this to some extent accounts for the greater dynamic in women's conversations.

You might expect character values in your relationships but I want to discuss these aspects separately since I believe they form the basis for relationships based on constructive & destructive relationships, whether manipulative, deceptive or abusive.
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Should you get a pet?

2008-07-30T20:30:00.000-07:00

When I was a child I had 3 pet dogs. Being one of three boys, we teased these dogs to the point that they would often find a way to get out of our fenced compound and follow my scent to school. One of the dogs bit a postman and was put down. The was a cute boxer with his tongue sticking out. I guess he didn't expect him to bite his ankle. One of our two labradors was hit by a car, the other was put down because it kept getting out of our compound and coming to my school.

I loved my family pets, even if we mistreated them by teasing them. We would get under a blanket and maul each other. This would get them, to the point of biting, at which point we would hit them for biting. Maybe we deserved it if we incited their animal instincts. Not sure otherwise why they were like that.

After the age of 14yo I no longer had any pets. I think once I started learning philosophy and developing human relationships, I lost interest in pets. Why have a relationship with a pet when you can have a relationship with a human being. If you can have a loving relationship with a pet, can you not have a greater relationship with a human. Some will say there is nothing preventing a person from having a relationship with both humans and a pet(s), but the law of discrimination means that you are either interacting with a pet or a human. You might share a love of pets with another person, but you can really only relate to one at a time. Just try talking in 2 languages at the same time. Distracting right?
Some might make the argument that pets (and I mean dogs) fill a vacuum left when their partner is out at work. This argument has some plausibility, but it makes me ask why this 'home-stay' partner has spare time to engage in a secondary relationship. Why are they not out working as well. Well I guess if they have a child then they might have a more satisfying relationship with a child. Nope, I dont have a child, but I know that children will from the age of 3 years old exceed the intellectual capacity of a child.
Why then do people buy pets? I think its because they have low self esteem. Pets do not pronounce judgement, they do not usurp one's authority, though they may question (bark) it. Dogs are pleasers and always looking for attention. They are there when you want them. The question is - Should a person want them? Shouldn't one challenge those insecurities, seek out better human relationships, if one's experiences have been so bad that you feel threatened by others. Maybe if people are threatened by others opinions, maybe its because you actually know you are wrong but want to evade the knowledge.
So why get a pet? I can think of no good reasons except security, but I can think of a great many problems that relate to pet ownership. Consider the following:
1. They cost money - your partner has productive capacity, most pets do not
2. They require attention, washing, playing, feeding, caring, whether you like it or not
3. You can't just take pets anywhere, eg. restaurants, beach, dates, etc
4. Pets can be loud, barking all the time.
OK they can offer security if that is required, but then a great many pets (including dogs) dont even do that. If it was just about placing some food in a fish bowl, no problem. But why the bother when there is so much more to be had from having a human relationship.
A child has a number of the say drawbacks but the long term benefits are so much greater. Its a 4 year period of bed wetting compared to 12 years of subserviance from a dog that knows you are better than him. Why don't pet owners see it?

Relating with any living thing provides a value, a form of nourishment. We rejoice in the idea of being surrounded by living things, whether green plants, flowers, pets and humans. The question is why we would engage in any relationship which has less capacity to satisfy us when there is better relationships to be had? I am not precluding pet ownership as a legitimate activity, just questioning the 'primacy' that some people give it. Some people invest more consideration in their pets than their children. Why? Because kids talk back. The reality is that adult relationships demand more of people, and rather than stepping up to the challenge, I dare say some pet owners are avoiding a critical responsibility. I believe a great many parents get pets to distract kids, to give them something to do, so they are less of a burden on them. I believe a great many parents send their children to private school so that they will be less of a burden on them.
I am not attacking the love or value of a relationship with animals - I am reflecting on the lost consideration of children, who have the potential for a great deal more love than a pet. Notwithstanding that, you will like this video. Love you animals, but appreciate your human relationships more because they have much greater potential to make you happy. This means learn to love yourself more such that incidentals are not elevated out of proportion.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How do you know when you have Mr Right

2008-02-06T08:13:00.000-08:00

The other way to pose this question is - How do you know when to settle with a partner? The answer to this question will partially reflect the issues I have drawn upon in the previous posting.
1. Diminishing returns: Otherwise stated - you need to ensure you have had adequate life and in particular intimate relationship experience. If you are on a growth part, then each relationship should be demanding a different part of you, and when you sense a diminishing sense of 'discovery' in new relationships, its fair to say that you are ready to settle.
2. Financial preparedness: I personally dont see the need for getting married unless there is a financial incentive like a tax rebate. Its a person issue but I'm not interested in a government sanction of my relationships, though I would be more inclined to get married if I had children. If 'settling' means having children, then you would need to give some thought to adequate finances to raise children.
3. Growth attributes: There is no question in my mind that life entails growth in every facet of life, and our relationships are no exception. It is therefore important that your partner embraces growth as you do. I also dont think to safe people is a stable relationship because one is bound to seek 'growth' lest they become bored. The question is likely to become 'constructive growth' (self improvement) or 'destructive' partner deception (extra-marital affairs).
4. Compatibility test: There needs to be a great many fundamental attributes upon which you agree. I have found that character attributes are the most important, and people that give primacy to how a person smells are really adopting the philosophy of a mindless primate with exponentially fewer neuron connections. If you agree on the fundamentals, of which a respect for objectivity needs to be among them, I believe you can debate or resolve the rest to a point of satisfaction and mutual respect. Over time you can establish confidence in the relationship by establishing a good track record of resolving differences. Sadly alot of partners evade discussion such important issues. Clearly poor communication skills are an obstacle to reconciling your values to establish your compatibility.
5. Complementary test: There are also those ways in which you are different, though I would argue those differences need to be points of respect, not points of division. For example, my GF impresses me with her ability to execute, for me its my capacity to think. We complement each other in that respect, so itsa a point of mutual respect.
6. People Awareness: You need to know yourself and people well enough to make informed judgements about people. I have met people who have a totally misguided understanding of other people. eg. A person helps another person. They interpret it as altruism, I see a selfish motive. Nothing wrong with selfish if its honest and transparent, but in this case there was evidence of manipulation.
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How do you find Mr or Mrs Right

2008-02-06T07:24:00.000-08:00

Reading a blog on JapanForum.com a girl was asking "How do you know when you have found Mr Right". This is a question that most people go through. But I want to pose another question first - "How do you find the right partner" - whether boyfriend or girlfriend.
I think there are 4 great obstacles to finding Mr or Ms Right (or Mrs for the really hard up). These obstacles are:
1. Rash judgements: Quick judgements by people can be a problem for people who are inclined to lack self-esteem because they need the relationship more than they actually identify with the person. That is a problem because they are not going to be respected by anyone healthy, and they are likely to be abused or under-challenged by anyone unhealthy. Mind you - they can be opportunities for learning. People also make rash judgements in the sense that there standards are too high, or more correctly their perspective is too narrow. Its true that you can make legitimate quick decisions about a person because they possess a fundamental character flaw, but generally there is no reason for such rashness. There is a context in which certain behaviour you might observe is understandable or appropriate. The reality is that no one is deeply hurt by making rash judgements unless they display a deep-seated tendency for doing so. The reasons they might do that are: (i) they rationalise that they have high standards, (ii) they are so insecure that they need to put others down to elevate themselves or (iii) They might have very narrow concepts of whom they might want to associate, and often these are materialistic drives.
2. Lack of self awareness: People dont know themselves have little ability to sell themselves in any way that would draw the interest of others. The implication of not knowing your value is that you dont feel special and you dont carry your head high. The greatest obstacle to self awareness is a lack of support from family, friends or teachers. Such encouragement can be a powerful motivator in directing people towards goals if it has any sense of reality. Not feeling special makes people feel that they can't differentiate themselves in the 'relationship market', in which case they will come to see themselves as 'common', and this will affect their partner choices. They are inclined to become a 'price taker' and then once in a relationship they are inclined to suddenly develop 'standards of value, after a period of tolerance or curiosity, then they are inclined to dump the partner in favour of a more promising prospect.
3. Lack of a strategy: You might ask whether meeting people has to be so contrived that you need to have a strategy. Well, you dont want to meet just anyone. If you suffer from any of the latter issues, you might be inclined to settle for too little in partners. Having a strategy helps you target 'your type of people'. It need not prevent you from seeking relationships elsewhere, or in fact acting without regard for a partner. Your strategy need not be complex, but I would suggest the 'originality' might in fact differentiate you from others. But then again dont be weird!
4. Lack of objectivity: I have found that a great many people have a high sense of vulnerability or hype-sensitivity to value judgements or criticism, and thus feel inclined to reject the messager. The problem with doing this is that it can demonstrate no sense of (objective) reality, and it invalidates the person making the criticism. Critical thinking is erroneously regarded as vindicative, when in fact its just honest observation. People should be validated for making it, and the targets of it should be willing to accept that they are not perfect, and be willing to engage with people, to at least establish who is misguided. This is a fundamental philosophical flaw in relationships that leads to manipulation and stagnation in relationships. Relationships are not a static thing, you need to grow them or people lose interest or respect for the counter-party. Life is about growth. A relationship is based on 'preserving security' its destined to die, unless both partners embrace a 'living death'. The greatest obstacle to objectivity is a thought process that places others opinions above one's own judgement. People that do that tend not to filter input with any rational process. Instead its a fight-or-flight response.
------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

“Why men get moody’

2007-12-10T00:53:00.000-08:00

This posting is in response to an utterly nonsense article posted at SMH Online Blogs. See http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/asksam/archives/2007/12/why_men_get_moody_1.html?page=fullpage. A more pertinent article would be ‘Why do writers give credence to every piece of scientific nonsense?’ Because taking any topical issue that will have a universal audience will sell advertising. Because journalists are often recruited without critical thinking skills. Because critical thinking is perceived as negative. Trite articles are regarded as entertaining. They don’t marginalize people…they are popular.
OR another theme to explore "How does utter nonsense research get financed". You guessed it! Governments and the idiots that run them.
In the meantime my girlfriend is left wondering why we argued last night. So darling, I wrote this post just for you….and anyone else who wants the question answered! Love you! Want to make up sexy!
Response
Men are moody for reasons. So are women, though they are hyper-sensitive with regularity because of PMS. Men too can become hyper-sensitive if they have accumulated a lot of accumulated stress (tolerance), but there is an incident-weighted cause, as opposed to the biochemical factor for women. The extent to which men will be generous (or tolerant) of a women’s idiosyncrasies depends on:
1. Success: The extent to which a man is happy with their level of achievement for the day, and the extent to which that question is currently playing on their mind. Succes is important to men. Don’t bitch to men when they feel inadequate.
2. Understanding Priorities: The extent to which, and the way that women interrupt with a man’s priorities will lead to moodiness. We all have a hierarchy of values, and our partners rank highly, but we expect them to understand our needs as we should understand and respect theirs. If we don’t, then that is a daily stressor. The duration and timing of our disruptions will cause stress, the amount depending on the context. If women show no understanding, no flexibility, they will get a moody reaction.
3. Respect: The extent to which we respect our partner and their values will be an important factor. Not all relationships are the same. A person who values their partner for superficial reasons (ie. As a trophy) will quickly get stressed out by them. Our level of respect will depend on the extent of or commitment to the relationship, the extent to which we know them, and are capable of understanding them.
4. Physical condition: This is the only factor I can agree with the article on. If you don’t get a balanced diet or enough sleep, then this will increase your irritability.

My ‘distinguished counterpart’ Jed Diamond (the author of the book) argues that moodiness is "a state of hypersensitivity, frustration, anxiety, and anger that occurs in males and is associated with biochemical changes, hormonal fluctuations, stress, and loss of male identity". Nonsense. This of course is an argument that arises from a philosophical view point – in fact the appropriate philosophy for a vegetable (say a carrot). And that after 40 years. The problem with this definition is that he does not differentiate humans – male or female – from plants. Yes we are biochemical, but we are more than that. We are conceptual, we have a much more complex value system, we have choices, we reflect on our self worth.
Wow, such brilliant insights, and it came from my general knowledge and took me just 30mins to write. Didn’t need to interview 10,000 people or conduct 40 years of research to pretend I know something like this empiricist with no respect for conceptual science. Hmm…sounds like some country is wasting a lot of money on dubious academic studies.
The reason we get dubious science like this is because many scientists have an utterly tragic philosophical undercurrent to their thinking. Its why psychologists often have different ideas, and the journalistic world just treats them like different theories, as though they have equal merit, as if there was no objectivity, as if scientific inquiry was an illusion. Its actually amazing how intelligible and easy wisdom comes if you have the right philosophical base. What seems as complex theory to one person is self-evident to this critic of the over-paid, unaccountable establishment.

Internet relationships

2007-10-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

I recently read a statistic that suggested that 1 in 8 people develop a relationship from the internet. Its amazing how scornful or cynical people can be about meeting others on the internet. Really I think there is no better way of meeting people if you use the medium in the correct fashion. Here are several tips:
1. Universal tips
a. Know thyself – You can’t sell yourself unless you know yourself
b. Know what you want – right down a list of core & non-core attributes you want in a girl, and expect to be surprised
c. Experience – Expect to have a number of GF/BFs before you settle. Unless you have some pretty amazing role models around you, most of us have lax standards because we just don’t hang around inspirational people. I think when your learning curve starts flattening out you can start thinking about getting serious. I would suggest partnering with people from different countries. It broadens the mind.
d. Engaging – Don’t be too quick to cross people off your list. Don’t dismiss people because they don’t have an attribute you want, explore whether they acknowledge it, whether they are prepared to change. You might serve each other that way.
e. Purposeful – Both partners need to be value-driven rather than safety-driven, otherwise one of you will loose interest
f. Analyse – I think you have to ask the hard questions if you want to really understand people. If they are defensive, and are turned off, that is useful information.
g. Constraints – Don’t place any location or arbitrary constraints on a relationship from the start. You might think you don’t want a GF in another country, but don’t close off opportunities until you know more. You might change your mind if she were special enough. You will be surprised how your lives will mesh or how interesting your life could become if you make a change.
h. Partners – You are looking for a partner who serves every aspect of your life. If they are in anyway holding you back, negotiate to resolve those issues. It’s a risk-reward assessment whether you break up. Are they worth it?

2. Internet tips
a. Use dynamic modes of communication because they don’t give the counterparty the opportunity to think answers out beforehand, and you have a chat history that you can search (on Google mail)
b. Integrity check – review your chat dialogue with your counterparty to determine if they have integrity. If you stop any inconsistencies
c. Disclosure – Don’t disclose personal details that would allow a person to determine your personal address. Search for your name on the popular search engines to check whether your details are listed.

My experience was really positive aside from the fact that I ended up talking to this girl 7 hours a day and neglected my work, so lost a lot of money. She was not exactly the type of girl I expected but I persisted because I saw some very strong points. I think the internet is a powerful match-making medium if you use it the right way. I read profiles to determine the qualities that I liked and disliked, which allowed others to find me, or me to find them.

Staying engaged

2007-09-22T21:46:00.000-07:00

A fundamental value of life is achieving your values, and establishing relationships with people - no matter how profoundly important or superficial. Enlisting the support of others is the most compelling approach to achieving success. Some people see enlisting others to achieve your goals as 'using people', but there is nothing wrong with it if:
1. You are honest with people about your intent - they are not manipulative
2. Those relationships serve all vested interest groups - they are good for everyone

Most of us develop our relationship skills during adolescence. Sadly for many of us, we dont learn the explicit message that relationships offer a powerful means of achieving our goals. For this reason, we might be inclined to see relationships as an end in themselves...but of course nothing is an end in itself. Anyone who suggests there is really just hasnt identified their ends. The alternative end or goals are:
1. Non judgement - the sense that you might loose self-respect, whether it be from self-realisation or as a result of others perception
2. Loss of value - the sense that you might loose from a relationship, eg. a material loss

It is fair to say that people who have a strong ego but lack the validation of self-mastery or achievement will exhibit a greater degree of urgency with respect to achieving their goals. Hopefully they will remain respectful to the interests of their counter-parties or associates. It is common however for the counter-party to fail to appreciate the need for validation of these people, and indeed rebuff them as selfish, pushy or even manipulative. This is a misinterpretation which highlights a tendency for people to form judgements based on a lack of knowledge. Sadly people generally have a poor understanding of their own needs, and a poor understanding of other people's needs is a consequence of that.

Clearly the best chance people have for developing meaningful, goal-orientated relationships with others is to:
1. Know thyself - your values and your goals
2. Know your counter-parties
3. Interpret your counterparties values and goals to determine their level of commitment, historical performance, integrity
4. Make a judgement about their capacity to meet your needs
5. Negotiate a relationship

By negotiating a relationship I mean that you should never close a relationship unless a person doesn't respond to your needs. There are several possibilities:
1. Neediness: A counterparties need for validation is so great that it overrides your needs, leaving you unfulfilled. The best strategy is to tell the person how you feel, why you think its a problem, what you think the cause is, and then seek their feedback. They might not be willing, able or ready to change, but in a sense you have left the ball in their court, so you can continue with your life. I dont see this as disengagement, rather as engaging on your terms, and your communication should convey that.
2. Disrespect: A counterparty doesnt treat you with respect, leaving you feel demeaned, misunderstood or unappreciated. The best approach is to ask them to explain their actions with respect to concrete events to dtermine how they interpret their or your actions.

There is a tendency I think in the community for people to detach themselves from these relationships. Whilst I think a person should not place themselves in danger if they feel threatened, nor over-invest in other people's lives, I do see a value in constructive engagement, for being straight, for displaying empathy, and attempting to understand. I also see no problem in conveying that you are only prepared to do so much, spend so much time, or help so much. The problem with detachment is:
1. You might be misjudging the counterparty
2. You are causing confusion by not offering feedback - inevitability delaying any possibility of recovery
3. You are undermining the self esteem of the person (alienation)

The problem is people have a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes their self-interest, and helping others is often just not on the page. There are several reasons for this, but they largely all derive from a lack of efficacy in dealing with personal issues - whether theirs or others. This is actually an opportunity to correct the problem, but actually most people are inclined to avoid the confrontation. I would suggest that the reason is that parents did not develop these skills during childhood by in fact remaining aloof and not being engaged in their children's lives. Another motive is a social value system which places others on a hierarchical peeking order, where people are only interested in relationships which advance their standing in the community. These people dont see others as offering a sense of efficacy, but rather as pulling them down in their 'social standing'.

At the end of the day the intention is to:
1. Serve your own goals - this requires discipline and focus
2. Remain open to broader possibilities of achieving value
3. Advance those relationships in your life that serve
4. Remain engaged with people even if you dont enlist them in the achievement of your higher goals

There is no question that such a strategy will cause some resentment among others, if they see that you diminish your time for them in favour of others, but there are several positives from this strategy:
1. You are conveying the reality that your own interests are supremely important to you
2. You are conveying the possibility of a higher relationship in future
3. You are conveying the fact that you have a hierarchy of values
4. You are acting as a role model for your values, and if you are effective/successful, that in itself should be a powerful motivator (education) for them, and thy might eventually come to understand the nature of their own resentment or jealousy.

The tendency in society is to not apply this strategy but rather to:
1. Disengage: Rationalise that you have some very important things to do - to disengage
2. Evasion: Rationalise that you cant develop the relationship, eg. A sit aunt in town
3. Hypocrisy: Affirm that you really like them, but act in a different way.

People use these tactics because it suits them as a short term strategy for serving their interest, but in the long run it just causes confusion, ill-feeling and prompts the counterparty to 'feel the victim' because they see the lack of truthfulness. People will tell me that the 'direct approach' does not work. But realistically it can only work if a large number of people do it. But there are a great many spin-offs if people did this. If people acted with integrity and empathy I have no doubt that the insidence of psychological troubles would decline.

But its not just about how we relate to people, its also about the values we convey. The reality is that society regards religion (Christianity and Islam) as credible moral systems despite their impracticality. This contradiction can only undermine the efficacy of people's thinking, their self esteem and thus their psychological well-being.