Posts by Lisa Hernandez3

slymaker9, I think this topic is fantastic—I’ve truly enjoyed being part of the discussion. I definitely plan on staying involved in the future, provided I can actually find the time, since I've met some really interesting people here. We could always move the thread back over to Philosophy ☕, though I think we all like it right where it is. 😍I hope you'll stop by the thread again soon; after all, it's your topic.

Gary James88 said:That would be too much, honestly. Every single group would start demanding their own little corner, which makes no sense—especially since those views don't hold much weight in psychology as a science anyway.

I think I may have misspoken earlier, and I didn't mean it quite so literally regarding the spiritual aspect of the Psychology forum. Tell me, isn't there a bit of a contradiction in why this topic even exists within this specific section? This is just how I see it—and I suspect others feel similarly, as most people participating in the thread seem uneasy with the subject matter: from the perspective of religious teaching or spirituality, if those values are placed above psychology, then it would probably be more appropriate to move the thread to a section that covers such primary or foundational positions. People here don't feel comfortable with it, and I guess that alone is enough of a signal. If the thread were framed to ask people what their religious teachings mean to them, or what role Jesus plays in their worldview, or even religion in general, then we could perhaps discuss whether it's in the right place. But as it stands, the topic preaches from a doctrinal standpoint, whereas psychology is a science that can explain *why* people adopt certain doctrines, rather than debating the doctrine itself.

Or perhaps:

religious teaching >> psychology — no
psychology >> religious teaching — yes

I realize it isn't exactly ideal to talk about the nature of the thread within the thread itself, but there have been enough signals from various participants that something feels off, and some people are feeling a little offended by it.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:Luke 11:24 "When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it heads for arid places seeking rest. When it cannot find it, it says, `I will return to the house I left.`
Luke 11:25 When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and perfectly put in order.
Luke 11:26 Then it goes out and takes with it seven other spirits even more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.

I guess when someone deals with stuff like aggression, paranoia, depression, or those darker impulses, and they happen to stumble upon—maybe by chance or maybe through 1. connecting with people who actually help by having honest conversations and pointing out the issues, or 2. just working through it themselves using books, movies, or even just observing nature and animals—they finally figure out what’s wrong with their behavior and manage to suppress those old patterns. But once they do that, this void starts to appear where those behaviors used to be. Those things were basically the ego's defense mechanisms, the ways they "navigated" life.

So, if those outbursts or depressive episodes were triggered by certain specific things, and now the person doesn't react that way anymore because they've realized it was toxic—well, they're stuck in a weird middle ground. They've stopped the bad behavior, but they haven't quite figured out a new, healthy way to actually engage with life and other people yet.

To me, solving these problems isn't really about chasing happiness; it's more about finding a way to be at peace with yourself. That's why I think pills, therapy sessions, or just talking don't really do much if a person has lost their internal compass.

Self-actualization is really about having the guts to live authentically. Being truthful means loving freedom enough to accept yourself, flaws and all. In that sense, everyone carries their own "cross," but Jesus, who trusts in God and has faith, says that His "burden" is light.

Once a person accepts their negative traits—once they stop building these fake versions of themselves and stop fighting for status or trying to compensate for low self-esteem by begging for validation from others—and they just accept their social standing for what it is, that's when peace shows up. You start trusting the future, and that peace gives you the space to actually achieve everything. It all kind of starts in the mind, with your own consciousness...

We really need to look out for our mental hygiene. It feels like some therapists mostly lean toward sedating people—which, honestly, is just a controlled way of drugging them, similar to how people use alcohol, drugs, or binge eating to cope. There are other ways people try to trap themselves just to avoid thinking, too, like becoming obsessed with work or some intense physical activity. It's all just an escape from the possibility of love. Real love means accepting people as they truly are, no matter what. People who are totally consumed by their goals or terrified of losing things (as if those goals hold all the value in the world) don't really have hope. Hope is what gives you the strength to believe things will be okay. Faith—including faith that there is something looking out for us, like a belief in God—helps too. But the biggest thing would be love, which doesn't set conditions for doing good. It's about living well without the constant fear of being "short-changed"... "love and do what you will."

It could be an interesting topic, but here in America, there are quite a few schools of thought that view mental health issues primarily through a spiritual lens. Perhaps we could open a sub-forum within the Psychology section specifically for that movement—but only if we structure it so all perspectives get a fair shake at discussion without everyone constantly clashing. Personally, I don't really subscribe to any of those specific movements; I tend to lean more toward the scientific approach—though I do try to understand the social circumstances that allow such views to emerge. It’s fascinating, even a bit troubling, to see how certain ideas are recommended even within the context of a secular university in a country like ours, which is supposed to be scientifically oriented. Because I understand the environment that allowed certain branches of science (and certain "scientists" who act more like followers) to take root, I find it hard to truly empathize with this particular subject. Sure, modern medicine is increasingly incorporating—or at least tolerating—alternative methods like acupuncture or homeopathy, but those aren't typically the methods used to suggest you can find peace of mind by, say, accepting your current social status—a status that, let's be honest, is often shaped by political factors and social maneuvering rather than anything spiritual. This feels like it would work better as a seminar focused on religion or spirituality, or perhaps psychology with a heavy emphasis on sociological implications, rather than a general discussion.[/color]

Anyway, regarding Cocaine, I didn't really need such a basic breakdown of the difference between jealousy and envy—that part goes without saying, I suppose. Regardless, thanks.

What I’m actually curious about is how envy transitions into those pathological forms expressed through vendettas—specifically, when we try to sabotage someone's progress or visibility just because they possess certain qualities that aren't their fault, essentially trying to stop them from being a constant reminder of what we lack. I realize this sounds a bit abstract, but it's the closest I can get to what's on my mind, based on some patterns I've observed—which I might have explained more clearly in my previous post.

To clarify my edit: I'm wondering what constitutes the "pathological" aspect in these scenarios versus what is considered normal or simply human behavior. How does it tie back into one's actual personality?

But, like I mentioned, this was mostly just me processing things internally—I'm not looking to start a whole new debate on this specific angle, since I realize it's probably too niche.

Well, you weren't even part of this discussion originally—you just showed up now to troll me specifically.

From the get-go, I’ve been pretty clear about what bothers me here—the fact that the focus is being placed in all the wrong spots. The core question was, "Are there moderators on the Psychology board?" And the answer is, "Yes, there are." That’s what I tried to demonstrate, and that’s what the admin confirmed—and I suppose we can take his word for it. I wasn't exactly thrilled with the subject matter that Paul Green31 used to kick off this thread either, but I don't think the nature of the topic, or the fact that it sat on the Psychology board for a while, says much about the quality of those moderators. If anything, it reflects the users involved—specifically one or more problematic individuals who I suspect have triggered similar threads before. Honestly, most of this could probably be fixed just by telling those specific people to stop doing it. It seems to be an issue for the administration too, not just the mods—the moderators actually did issue warnings and bans (though I'm not sure if they were permanent), but clearly, that hasn't solved the underlying issue. Maybe the only real fix is just telling whoever thinks this is a good idea to cut it out.

Pointing out other threads and the broader systemic issues isn't contradictory to my somewhat tentative defense of the moderators, nor is it trolling. The author framed this whole thing as a wide-ranging issue regarding the Psychology PDF itself, so our discussion naturally became broad. He eventually brought up the issues involving Subabuseov later on, which I assume you don't consider trolling?

As for the "theater" comment—that's a question of vital importance to me, even if I don't see it happening here. It was really just about knowing when to step away from a conversation where we've agreed and disagreed enough, and where the matter is no longer ours to settle. Sometimes, you just need to exit a discussion—even if you have to use some old-fashioned literary phrasing to do it, even if people end up trolling you afterward for it.

I do, however, fully sign off on your last sentence. I'm just not sure how you intended that as a critique of me. I don't accept anything without scrutiny—just like Paul Green31 does—I just tend to approach it with a bit more consideration and nuance.

I'm not necessarily implying you have any connection to this—to be honest, I don't know who you are or what your deal is (for all I know, you could be incredibly honest, just as I might come across as dishonest if someone chooses to see me that way), and anyway, everything here is just speculation on my part (based on certain indicators I decided to point out). Those people I’m highlighting might just be careless users without any actual bad intentions; time will tell what was really going on. I was simply appealing for them to be warned, assuming there is any evidence, so that this whole circus can be shut down with one decisive move—which would hopefully prevent a string of similar incidents down the road.

Everything I've posted here has been from the perspective of an observer and a (sometimes occasional) user of this forum. Knowing that some things aren't quite as they seem when viewed solely through a single thread, I felt I should react. Given how much we've all hung out on this forum over the past few months, I think it was fair of me to speak up—more than enough, actually. As of today, my observations, heaven help me, will end, along with my commentary.

I didn't follow the thread started by Subabuseov, even though I noticed it was extremely popular, so I can't—nor should I—comment on it.

I bid you farewell, and I wish you all a smooth resolution to this situation.

Paul Green31 said:Look, I think it would be a whole lot easier to wrap up this discussion if you could just be more direct and specific—honestly, I’m finding it a bit exhausting trying to read between the lines of posts like yours to figure out what you're actually getting at...😕
The way you’ve bolded that makes me wonder if you think this whole thread was actually sparked by that one spammer's fault—as if it's all just the result of some mysterious spin job pulled off by someone in the middle of the night... I guess maybe that's how you see it.
I’m sorry—I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at.😕

It's a shame we can't see eye to eye on this—really, it is—but even with the best intentions, I just don't think I can bring myself to accept your arguments.
Hey ZgSash—if you could just give me the chance to reply to this post first, that would be great. After that, maybe you could wrap up my part of the conversation? I have a feeling this discussion isn't really heading in a constructive direction anymore, and honestly, I don't see any new perspectives coming our way to keep it going.
🙂

You aren't going to win this argument with me—in fact, I think I’ll be the one finishing it. If you’ll allow a lady to step in, that is. And honestly, I’m glad you finally noticed there are other people participating in this thread; it’s actually the first time you've acknowledged anyone else, though I suppose you chose to do so by using Lisa Hernandez3's name in such a condescending way toward me. But really, I shouldn't have expected anything more than that, I guess.

Let me be direct and get straight to the point.
I suspect that the recent chaos occurring within the Psychology PDF is being driven by specific individuals—or perhaps just one person—who are intentionally spamming the forum out of pure self-interest. I have my own theories about who this might be, as I suspect they’ve even been posting under their original usernames on certain threads, though I can't say for certain—nor do I really intend to make an investigation my business. I don't have enough insight to make any definitive claims; I can only speculate. My only "job" here is to speak up when I feel the truth is being intentionally distorted through dishonest tactics—basically, people causing trouble just to sabotage those who actually want to use this resource properly without all the childish nonsense. It honestly feels like typical adolescent behavior from people who simply can't stand Cocaine's style, which I suppose is a bit too sophisticated and assumes too much for them. To add some context, this mess has ramped up significantly since Ego stepped down from the moderator position over at Psychology. And, if I'm being completely honest—and I truly believe this is the most likely scenario—it seems like this is all being orchestrated by someone who is clearly angling to take over that moderator seat.

I have a feeling that there are a few topics floating around here that were likely cooked up by someone with some pretty shady intentions:

What exactly constitutes "homophobia"?
Thread starter: Godivan Registered December 2009 (banned)
I’ve been personally trying to wrap my head around why the moderators even left this thread open—it’s been driving me a bit crazy, honestly—and the only conclusion I’ve really reached is that they knew exactly whose clone started it. It feels like they just kept it active because they viewed the whole thing as some sort of "literary" exercise or just a joke, rather than anything serious.
There was some explicit hate speech on that thread—it resulted in a red card and a permanent ban for the author:

It seems like the natural reaction for any typical man to feel a sense of aversion toward gay men and contempt for lesbians. Similarly, I suppose the natural response for any typical woman would be an aversion to lesbians and a disdain for gay men.

Post author: Alex Jelinić, registered January 2010 (banned)

- This entire thread was opened under the guise of being a serious inquiry into the definition of "homophobia"—as if it were a legitimate question—where the author initially posed certain logical questions to, well, try to clarify terminology (on a topic that was quite topical on the forum at the time). From there, it just devolved into a total mess, driven mostly by users who had registered during those early months of 2010, eventually leading us to this result, which I might appropriately call A tribute to a massive troll.

Then there is the thread you started here:
I imagine I am The Best
Thread author: KLP, registered April 2010 (banned)

Suicide - the solution to all problems
Thread author: Dino-Admin, registered February 2010
- A complaint was promptly filed on the forum regarding this thread: Suicide-the solution to all problems / bad thread!

And finally, although I am not entirely certain if it was the work of the same individual or individuals:

Are men or women more intelligent?
Thread author: Uzvišeni, registered January 2010
- A completely futile topic—theoretically and methodologically ungrounded, and heavily politically charged (though perhaps not maliciously so; maybe it is just immaturity)

All these threads—even if I am placing this last one in that category somewhat conditionally (since it could just be the result of the author's youth)—are indicators that the Psychology subforum has been taken over by spammers and trolls in the vein of slightly older adolescents (mentally speaking, if not necessarily in age). Through uncontrolled cloning and general nonsense, they seem to be trying to prove that the moderators aren't doing their jobs and, generally speaking, just to mess with the users. Though, in my opinion, the issue isn't really about how two moderators (or the one currently active) approach this, but rather about those specific users who ought to be sanctioned. It’s about identifying who they are and warning them to stop. The emphasis shouldn't be on whether we need to re-examine the moderators' work, but whether we should re-examine the conduct of these users. In other words, specifically: whose clones are these?

Or, to put it a slightly different way, the primary issues facing the subforum are:

- Uncontrolled and aggressive cloning and the opening of threads intended to provoke, used for ulterior motives, or simply to mess with the moderators.
- The creation of threads that lack heuristic value, sufficient weight, scope, or even minimal theoretical grounding, yet attempt to present themselves as abstract or theoretical—these are often a byproduct of the first category, and sometimes it is difficult to tell where they are headed after the initial post; you usually see the true direction as the thread develops or as a swarm of clones descends upon it.

A lesser issue involves threads that are opened too frequently because of the author's personal life circumstances, asking what others would do or think in that situation. That kind of communication, I think, is actually appropriate for the subforum and contributes to a certain sense of community—it is, in a way, the very fabric (the meat) of the board. The only problem arises if a thread is opened for every little thing without checking to see if a similar topic already exists, something which Cocaine—who is "nowhere to be found"—had been warning about in recent days.

I hope I have said enough and that I have been sufficiently specific. And I would love to see Cocaine show up on this thread; honestly, so would I.

Paul Green31, if I were to actually tell you what I really think about this whole situation—specifically regarding how you've gone and planted this thread across such a massive cluster random coincidences—well, I suppose I’d come across as quite rude. I’d end up having to justify my theories on whether these events are truly accidental, or if they link back to those political threads I mentioned earlier, specifically that one known as "spin."

To me, it seems somewhat symptomatic that from the very beginning, you’ve just brushed off everything specifically addressed to you in this thread. You ignored me when I first pointed out that it isn't true that there are no moderators present, and you seem to be ignoring the admin posts in this discussion as well. It makes me wonder—should moderators feel obligated to respond to every single inquiry, especially when it's obvious the issue has already been settled? Furthermore, should they overreact to every outburst from undisciplined users who just clone themselves and start provocative threads, only to then scatter themselves across the message boards, wishes, and comments? Shouldn't they simply justify themselves to the users who claim to be bothered by an unruly user's topic—users who insist on discussing it even after the thread is closed and the original poster has been sanctioned? Or is it enough for them to simply resolve the issue and move on with their work?

Well, I'm back on this thread.

Gary James88 said:Envy and jealousy aren't exactly the same thing. They might overlap sometimes, but they’re fundamentally different experiences.

They aren't exactly identical—though I suppose that's subjective—but if you're feeling up to it, I'd love to hear how you see them.

I think I understand how jealousy can spiral into something pathological, but envy usually seems to "form" around more categorical issues—less about those specific interpersonal or emotional triggers, and more about broader stuff. Under the umbrella of what I’d call "categorical"...😁I mean... I think what I'm getting at is—well, I suppose I'm referring to... Areas of resentment—it’s an interesting concept to dwell on, I suppose.Success, money, career, property, lifestyle—it’s all very well, isn't it? But there is this strange way that rivalry over these "categories" can spiral into a pathological fixation. It turns into this desperate need for revenge fueled by pure envy, even long after you have stopped actually interacting with the person you supposedly "hate." I suppose the answer lies in the fact that the relationship hasn't actually ended—not really. There is this unresolved emotional tether that keeps pulling you back, constantly renewed by every new milestone or success that makes you wonder whether you should be envious of them or not. If we notice them achieving something that rubs us the wrong way, our first instinct might just be to try and sabotage them... even if we haven't been in their orbit for years. Because what does that achieve, really? I guess we are just trying to soothe some deep-seated sense of personal failure—a feeling that this person provoked in us through their own status or achievements—by trying to drag them down to our level.

Well, I’ve had a chance to sit with my thoughts for a bit during this second part—just some quiet introspection, I suppose—and I think things are finally starting to feel a little clearer now. 😬

Gary James88:

I suppose there isn't much to say here—just some thoughts floating around, I guess. kaže: To truly recognize the value in someone else, I suppose you first have to possess a sense of your own. Arthur Schopenhauer

Well, that’s certainly interesting. 🙂

@ Paul Green31
I suppose I won't dwell on this too much—I've already addressed several of your questions and comments in my previous posts.
The reason this topic "bothered" me is that you seem to be trying to highlight what is actually a significant (albeit broad and complex) issue by just pointing fingers at one or two specific instances—people who, frankly, can't really carry the weight of responsibility or "blame" on their own. Now, just like you, I certainly have an opinion on the phenomenon you're discussing, and that perspective might actually be quite valid, well-articulated, and rooted in both experience and theory. It probably would have been interesting for you to hear it, too, but I guess we missed out because you designed this whole thread to be a sort of public call-out. Not to mention, the call-out was based on some rather inaccurate information regarding someone's absence—so I felt the need to point out that, from what I've seen through specific moderation actions within the threads, I know firsthand that isn't the case. It seems like you aren't particularly interested in using any imagination here—perhaps trying to deduce or respect other people's reasoning before launching a thread like this. I suppose it's just easier to claim someone isn't there or isn't doing their job. 🙂

True, but that doesn't really address the specific question you're asking through this user's example. I suppose this just shows he took advantage of the moderators' good intentions—they were letting his thread stay up to see what he had to offer, I guess. Now that his true motives have come to light, he won't be able to pull that anymore. So, if anything, this proves the system works based on goodwill, even when someone tries to exploit it—which is actually the opposite of your point.

The serious users you mentioned above can simply choose topics based on criteria that suit them—they can judge by the title, or sometimes even by the author, so they know what to expect—not to mention the opening post itself. In short, a serious and focused user already knows exactly what they're looking for and will find it easily enough.

@ Paul Green31
Regarding why this thread has been sitting open for days without any action—well, I suppose you'll have to get that answer from the moderators. I know for a fact that Coca-Cola has been moderating lately (and I know exactly what they've been up to), and since they're active, they can weigh in if they feel it's necessary. There's clearly some sort of reasoning behind the decision to leave the thread up as it is—or perhaps it just takes a little time to reach a sensible conclusion. Personally, as someone who spends most of my time on this site, I tend to support keeping the thread active—not deleted—for the reasons I'll mention below, though maybe moving it to a better section would make sense too.

I suspect this is one of those threads that won't have much of a lifespan anyway. Once the author exhausts their supply of jokes, it’ll probably just sink down through the subsequent pages until it hits the third or fourth page. It's a decent thread for people looking for some casual banter—you know, just messing around. Aside from that, the author seems to have a bit of a need for attention, which, as long as they aren't being a total nuisance to everyone else, I think we should probably support—at least logistically—since they went through the trouble of starting it. I wouldn't say he's causing trouble personally; he's really no different from the majority—yes, the majority—of other users who start threads that don't really go anywhere. His thread, unlike so many others started in a similar fashion, at least has a bit of a spark—if you look at the first post—or at least shows a basic level of literacy and a concept, even if it is purely fictional or literary in nature. If it's bothering people, maybe we could suggest to the mods that it be moved to the Little Literary Corner. Deleting this specific thread while leaving all the other poorly constructed ones alone would feel like a real restriction on free speech, and honestly, it would undermine the whole point of the forum.

In my opinion, more than anything else, the moderators can't really be held responsible for the quality of the content—whether it has potential or not—because that's up to the users. You want a better experience on this site? Then start meaningful discussions and write something worthwhile instead of complaining about fleeting issues in the complaint section. All this fuss over a single thread, especially when there are countless other threads out there that are trolling, argumentative, or just written out of boredom or immaturity, feels a bit silly to me. It probably would have been better to start a high-quality thread there rather than coming here to vent.

@ mistywolf17
Well, I'm basically giving you the same answer I gave Paul Green31, overall.

Paul Green31 said:The thread is honestly pretty ridiculous—it’s almost becoming a nightmare for the Microsoft moderators. It’s clearly just trolling and doesn't belong there at all.
Not to mention, the user's signature is eight lines long.
So, it seems like there aren't any mods active on Psychology, because I don't see how this could sit there for five or six days without anyone stepping in.

And what kind of action would you even want to see? As someone who uses that PDF, I find the thread a bit tedious now—mostly because the author doesn't really have a chance to develop it without being predictable and repetitive, which is already happening—but objectively speaking, this topic isn't any more "trolly" than many other threads on that platform that lack substance or potential (you know, those topics limited strictly to personal experience, or ones opened just for emotional venting or hoping to spark controversy without much actual argument). The author might still be able to save this one with some witty remarks, creativity, or good writing; whereas those other threads—like that one about intelligence differences between men and women—can only be saved by direct intervention or the sheer goodwill of other participants.

And frankly, these comments suggesting that a moderator is missing feel a little childish to me—not to mention quite unprofessional. You're making this point using a thread that is actually quite benign—sort of a literary take where the author, more or less skillfully, pokes fun at a modern psychological phenomenon (even if it's somewhat contrived)—essentially talking about themselves as the subject without really offending anyone.

Also, let's not spin the facts here; as a regular user of that PDF, I know for a fact that similar moderator actions have taken place on it in recent days.

Dana Morales64 said:First off, I’ve had a few people reach out via DM lately—asking for advice, looking for tips, or just wanting to chat. I’ve reached back out to some of them too. There’s no issue there; honestly, I enjoy meeting new people. If you’ve read my posts, you might have walked away thinking I’m some arrogant, self-important jerk—but that isn't the case. Maybe I come across as a bit detached at times? Sure. I value my solitude, but I also genuinely enjoy being social. As for that 90/10 ratio I mentioned earlier—it wasn't meant to be some grand statement about humanity. I was strictly talking about the people in my immediate circle.
Regarding the girls who were hitting on me—I turned a few of them down right off the bat because they just weren't my type. I was blunt about it; basically told them they didn't stand a chance with me. Honestly, I’ve been on the receiving end of rejection plenty of times myself, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. Why should it be any different now?
The thing is, I need my downtime—period. Even if it’s just an hour a day to myself—and honestly, people who try to barge in on that really get under my skin. It feels like a direct violation of my personal space. As for whether someone is a genius or not, I don't go around judging people right out of the gate. Whether I think someone is sharper or a bit slower than me, I'm never going to mock them for it. That's just not how I operate. What I actually care about—and what I truly can't stand—is superficiality. That has nothing to do with intelligence, though. Why would I ever make fun of someone just because they might not know as much as I do? If they're a decent person, there's no issue. But if they're shallow? Then I'm done. I have zero tolerance for superficiality. Sure, we can hang out while things are easy and everything is fine, but the second real problems roll around, I'm out. I don't do "fair-weather" connections.
Look, the person who prompted me to start this thread isn't exactly a bad individual—not by any stretch of the imagination—but they’re just incredibly grating. They simply aren't my cup of tea, which means there's zero chance of them ever being a friend of mine. I have no interest in hanging out with people who make me feel like I’m constantly under interrogation; why would I want that? I prefer people where everything feels easy, relaxed, and spontaneous. I’ve never been the type to force a connection or chase people down just to feel included—honestly, not a chance. If I get the vibe that I’m not truly welcome, I just step back. When I meet new people, I try to let things develop naturally, without any underlying sense of obligation. That’s the only way a real friendship actually forms. Being pushy or trying too hard? It always backfires.

Well, look at that—you've described yourself a bit more sympathetically now, actually. Although, I doubt there are enough people that persistent to bother you every single day or threaten your personal freedom. Probably not. And I suspect the guy was lonely, as others on this thread suggested; he clearly wanted to socialize with you all. But why did he go so far as to chase after you while you were out cycling, and why did you all wait until he was exhausted before finally shaking him off 😬? I'm not sure. He goes a bit too far in humiliating himself, and maybe you guys weren't clear enough with your answers before you hopped on your bikes, or perhaps you just enjoy a little bit of teasing, or something else entirely. In principle, I agree that you can't force anything—you shouldn't chase people (literally or figuratively), nor should you let people walk all over you. On the other hand, it's probably not great to be arrogant either, and maybe it's worth reflecting on why someone might view you as a "bad" or "stuck-up" person (if that's indeed the case). For instance, you mentioned that superficiality bothers you—but maybe you'll pass up a beautiful girl because she seems superficial at first glance, when she might actually just be nervous or insecure. It might be similar with the guy in your story. Even if, based on your description, he's the type who lacks self-respect, I might still tolerate him for a quick coffee if he isn't rude to me. I know a guy who fits your description perfectly—he invites everyone out for coffee, acts all touchy-feely with everyone, is a bit of a closeted gay man, but essentially he's just a gossip and a troublemaker. I went to grab coffee with him once, and afterward, he kept trying to corner me for more meetings every time we crossed paths. We exchanged numbers (mostly because he pressured me into it) and he'd reach out about various "business opportunities." I tolerated him and stayed polite, but I never initiated anything, and honestly, I prayed he wouldn't contact me. Well, he eventually moved on and found other people, I guess. Again, in these social interactions, sometimes people don't mean harm—in his case, I think his nature is just inherently dishonest and gossipy—they just make poor decisions or approach situations the wrong way. Sometimes we might misjudge someone entirely because of hearsay, because we relied on surface-level traits, or because we were perhaps a bit haughty ourselves—and later realize we were just too lazy to think more deeply. Still, regardless of those possibilities, I personally prefer to trust my intuition and decide quickly if someone is worth my time, but I wouldn't want people to think I view myself as superior to them right from the start. That's what bothered me about your earlier post.

That’s all I have to say—and please excuse the length of this post. I suppose I'm just rambling because I can't quite seem to organize my thoughts properly. Good luck to all of us, both in how we deal with others and how we handle ourselves. 😁

Dana Morales64 said:If I analyze this situation, apparently I'm the villain and he's the victim.🙄 But it’s not going to happen that way—I am not going to let myself feel guilty over this. Even if you have a point in some places, it is what it is. And let's be clear: I am not the kind of person who wastes time justifying myself to anyone. It's just not worth it. There are very few people I actually make an effort for—truly rare ones—and those are my idols, the people I consider better than myself and learn from. I have a high opinion of myself and, frankly, I think 90% of people aren't even worth my time. I know, I sound conceited, but at least I'm being honest. Maybe to some people, I'm just a bad person.

It is what it is? Hmm. Well, fine. At the end of the day, I suppose your stance is fair in the sense that you make it very clear to people quite quickly whether they even have a chance at being your friend. I assume you're the same way with women who approach you? There is something I actually like about that—within reason, obviously—because it keeps things straightforward, without all the dragging things out or playing games. Assuming, of course, that's actually how it works. But the question lies in your method. See, the issue isn't what you ultimately decide to do (like letting someone know you aren't interested in socializing and cutting contact), but rather *how* you go about doing it—whether it's handled with grace, elegance, and dignity, or if it's just... low. It leads to this somewhat funny irony where you, someone who strives for excellence in everything, don't actually offer any excellence in this. And that whole bit about only caring about 10% of people while the other 90% is trash—well, we all find that about 10% of our surroundings interesting, and the other 90% falls away because they just didn't catch our attention. But if you truly treated that 90% the way you treated this guy, you'd probably be considered socially questionable or potentially aggressive—just poorly adjusted, I guess. So, I still suspect you just enjoy making these bold claims and waiting for the fallout from a safe distance—like right here on this thread. You hit "Post Reply" or "New Topic" and then, well, who cares? But that shouldn't really be how it works. And if it gets even more ridiculous, it turns out you didn't actually know how to handle yourself with a pushy individual, you just reacted however you felt in the moment. Meanwhile, the consensus here was that *he* was the one who didn't know how to behave... (though that doesn't mean the guy wasn't actually annoying in his own right, or acting that way toward you and your friend for some reason).

I guess I'd be curious to see how you'd react if someone on this forum sent you a casual DM because they liked your posts and wanted to chat, or if a regular girl approached you somewhere out in the world? Just a normal girl, mind you, but someone who doesn't immediately start showering you with praise for your genius.

brightnomad0 said:Envy is essentially a darker, more toxic version of jealousy.
Someone driven by envy might secretly resent the success of those they envy, or perhaps they even hope to see that person stumble.
At times, an envious person can't quite mask their true feelings, which might lead them to act openly against someone else....
Even if jealousy doesn't dictate your entire life, I suppose we all deal with it to some extent—whether it's managing our own feelings or navigating the resentment others feel toward us. We’re all susceptible to it, but I think it’s something we can learn to manage and eventually overcome……

Envy is that sense of discontent or disapproval triggered by seeing what others have achieved, owned, or simply who they are....
An envious person craves what belongs to someone else, often feeling as though they don't deserve what they currently possess.
In the struggle to pull themselves up to the level of those they envy, an envious person tends to suffer a moral decline, sacrificing their integrity in the process. Even if they actually succeed, I suspect any gain is only temporary.

Ultimately, envy is just an expression of HATRED....
The root of this feeling lies in Selfishness Inc.
To cope, an envious person might try to tear down those they envy by using unfair criticism or questioning their competence and motives.

It also makes people prone to being UNRELIABLE and DISTRUSTFUL toward their rivals.

An envious individual can be POSSESSIVE, excessively suspicious, and overly demanding regarding rules and expectations.

And at the end of the day, true LOVE IS NOT JEALOUS....

Have you ever dealt with someone who tried to undermine you out of pure envy? Or perhaps, can you recognize those jealous impulses within yourself?.....?????
Do you find yourself leaning toward jealousy at times, and if so, why... or do you stay clear of it entirely?.....?????

This thread is relatively old, but I’m digging it back up because these posts—specifically this interesting theory that envy is just a negative side of jealousy and the debate that followed—might hold some answers to questions I've been chewing on after hearing about a certain situation recently.

I'm wondering, when does jealousy—or perhaps envy, as a more complex and selfish version of jealousy—cross the line into something pathological?

And also, what’s the connection between envy and vindictiveness? In other words, if a person feels jealousy or envy first, they usually get closer to the person they're feeling it toward, but if the relationship doesn't turn positive, those negative feelings don't just resolve themselves into a friendship; instead, they just... stop. (Well, the relationship stops for secondary reasons, but that serves as a catalyst for the person to lean further into their resentment, which eventually manifests as revenge.) I’m simplifying things here just so we don't get bogged down in the weeds and can hopefully see the core issue. So, under what conditions does a rivalry continue even after the relationship has officially ended (what kind of personality type maintains that)? And at what point can we say something has become truly pathological?

That's a lot of questions, I know. But basically, do you think highly competitive people—as opposed to those who are more grounded and content with their place in the world—tend to struggle with pathological jealousy or envy? Or am I just overthinking this?

🤣

I went through something similar back when I was about fifteen—though, looking back, I wouldn't call it love. It felt more like this intense longing for someone who seemed "brilliant" and "thrilling"—right up until the moment they turned out to be pretty mediocre, actually. It was the kind of thing you mostly need when the person in question is completely out of reach. As I got older and, well, as life provided more actual opportunities, that urge to idealize some distant figure just sort of faded away.

You see versions of this in adulthood too—though I probably wouldn't label it a fixation. To me, it seems more like a lingering crush that persists over time, dips, and then flares up again if the timing works out. I know people who have rekindled old platonic crushes once those people became "available" again—say, after a long-term relationship ended. But that isn't quite the same as a purely unavailable object—I'm honestly not sure what a truly, permanently unavailable object would even look like. And everyone I know who has carried on a long-term platonic crush hasn't been particularly irrational about it; they still held onto hope, sure, but they weren't just wasting their lives—they were actively dating and seeing other people. 😬 So, I find this whole story a bit confusing—it feels a little too much like fiction to me. It sounds like someone who simply lacks the capacity to move on, or cool off, or put things on standby, or perhaps shift their focus to someone else entirely. It doesn't feel very realistic to me, no-no.

Your Brain is 40% Female, 60% Male
It says I have a completely masculine brain
Analytical and thorough—I usually prefer sticking to the hard facts
And even though my emotions might pull me off course once in a while...
I don't really like letting my feelings take the driver's seat

It’s funny because if you change your answer to just one single question, suddenly you're a "healthy mix of male and female, both sensitive and savvy."
Which is basically what I am, whenever I answer these silly questions a bit differently (and honestly)

Take this specific question, for instance:

# If you have a problem, you tend to

* Solve it yourself
* Ask for input

So, which response counts as "male" and which counts as "female"?
I checked, and apparently, the "female" answer is: ask for input. 😬 I mean, I wasn't exactly surprised, but I wanted to be scientific about it.

And let's not overlook the fact that right under the results, they try to bait you with a link to a new quiz 😉:
God chose your birthday for a reason. Learn 12 instantly shocking secrets your birthday reveals about your future!

http://www.blogthings.com/whatgenderisyourbrainquiz/results/?result=osoba%&prigovara#$upitniku$kao$takvom$žens ko$je,he,he!

Megan Gomez2 said:We all pretty much know our own gender, or at least most of us do, 😁but does anyone actually know what gender their brain is?
Let's find out.

http://www.blogthings.com/whatgenderisyourbrainquiz/

I ended up at 53/47%. 😉

Could someone please explain how these questions are supposed to determine your brain's gender?

# If you were to pick up a book for some relaxing reading, it would be:

* fiction * non fiction or this
* Non fiction
🤣

Or maybe this one:
# You are better at:

* Understanding what is being explained to you
* Explaining things you understand or this
😲

Or this:
# If a friend has a problem, it becomes your problem as well

* False * True a
* True
😢

The other questions aren't exactly any less ridiculous, I guess. It’s probably fine for a bit of fun when you're feeling incredibly bored, though. Honestly, Upitničić is—well, quite frankly—insulting to both genders, and arguably to anyone who would bother taking it.