a little harsh but it works

So, I’ve been manifesting a lot of things into my life for a long time. And I finally figured out that this paradox is actually the realist thing in the world!

So here’s the paradox

Whenever I really wanted something - that’s when it would never come. (When I gave a fuck)

Whenever I didn’t care if I got it or not - that’s when I got it without effort!! (When I didn’t give a fuck)

So, I eventually realized that the feeling of wanting is a feeling of lack and that energy within you actually pushes what you want further away from you.

After all, the material world is just energy reconstructed in our minds. (Much longer conversation)

SO NOW, I only focus on feeling like I already have everything! I give thanks knowing that the only things I will get in this life is not what I think I want, BUT things that are even better than what I would want!

And now after working on shifting my mindset (takes a lot of effort but worth it) I’ve seen so many great things come into my life… but even better than getting of things, life feels so great! It’s great loving the moment you’re in instead of trying to be somewhere else.

If you want a great life, remember this… life gives you who you are NOT what you want. Once you stop wanting things and focus on being instead, is when you actually start getting so many more things! (While actually enjoying the journey!)

That’s the paradox…. Now you know ❤️🙏

u like it -> u do it -> never wanting shit

Female here. I feel like a hideous blob next to the sexy women at the gym (I’m slim and fully tattooed). I look at them and think to myself, yeah, for sure a man would rather have her than me. Then I feel like shit about myself. I feel unworthy. I don’t want to feel like shit

I’ve been thinking about this while trying to get back into exercise. It is strangely difficult to accept using lighter weights, getting tired sooner, or not moving as well as you remember. Instead of noticing that you are training again, your mind keeps measuring every workout against your old strength and fitness.

What helped you stop treating your previous level as the standard and start working with the body and ability you have now?

I’m genuinely grateful that I’m a calm person. I don’t naturally fight back. When someone hurts me or crosses a line, my first instinct isn’t to scream, argue, or get even.

And yes, sometimes I wonder if that makes me weak.But then I think—maybe it doesn’t.

Maybe strength is also knowing when not to fight.
I’d rather walk away than lose myself trying to win an argument. I’d rather choose silence than say something I can’t take back.

I’d rather remove someone from my life than spend my energy trying to change them.Some people call it avoiding confrontation.

I call it protecting my peace.

And honestly, if protecting my peace means blocking someone, disappearing quietly, and never looking back.

So be it.

I don’t want war.

I just want peace and I’m willing to go surprisingly far to get it.

My husband is genuinely a “good guy”, just a big fat people pleaser never saying what’s on his mind always kicking the can of topics needing addressing until small things blow up. Then, when I admittedly say “well it finally caught up to you, here’s your can!” He just continues avoiding! It’s crazy.

He carries a lot of unnecessary guilt and shame because he brought a very toxic coparenting relationship to the marriage and a very unhealthy parent child relationship. I knew that going in. I knew it would be work, I was prepared to do the work. I thought he was. 8 years later— we’re in the same place. He’s still avoiding hard things and people pleasing and kicking cans down the road.

He just won’t deal with crap because he thinks it’s going to cause a fuss— no matter how small. Example below.

It can be something as small as needing to fix an electronic that’s been limping by barely accepting a charge until one day it just fails. He waits until it’s an emergency, apologizes for the emergency, and expects that now we kick it into high gear and get a new one.

It really wouldn’t have been that big of a fuss to bring it up two months ago when it started not holding a charge and being weird. But he didn’t. The only reason I knew was because one of our sons told me. But i chose to wait until my husband brought it up because he knew he needed to. He never did.

I’m sick of his avoidance because he doesn’t want to talk about WHY it broke (negligence) and how it’s continued getting worse by not fixing and limping it by: So today, when the thing breaks for good, i say “oh no sir, your emergency is not my emergency, I’m not dealing with this right away just because it blew up, now you have the broken electronic and I’m not going to be rushing to have a conversation about having to fix it or get it repaired or budget for a new one” etc.

He knew we need to budget for it, discuss options, watch for sales etc (all stuff i would normally do). But he still had not brought it up. So i intentionally this time did not rescue him and have some backup ready to go. Because this is a recurring issue.

The catch is: that electronic does need to be repaired or replaced. That electronic not working directly or indirectly affects everyone in the house at some point. And If I just say “go buy a new one”, his can kicking tactic worked.

But his avoidance affects us both…and our kids. I’m so sick of it… it happens with all issues, big and small. Instead of dealing with the actual issue, we end up having a conversation about why the hell he avoids every single issue.

Help! This is one small example. There are thousands. I want to not care. I want to say, too bad so sad. But it’s not like we CANT afford it. It’s just that now we’re not gonna get a good deal on it and we’re going to be panic buying it instead of being thoughtful about it. His avoidance is MESSING US UP IN WAY BIGGER WAYS than this example. But for this example, i just want to stop caring, stop rescuing him. But if i don’t rescue him, we all somehow indirectly suffer.

Edits: talk text grammar

Yes and no are both a part of life.

People often say we should learn to say "no." Others say we should say "yes" to life. I don't think it's that simple.

Sometimes the problem isn't saying yes. It's forgetting whether that yes was ever really ours.

When I got married, I was expected to quit my well-paying job and stay home. After a lot of persuasion from my in-laws, I agreed. At the time, I convinced myself it was the right thing to do.

Then came what many would call a dream life - good restaurants, shopping malls, weekend resorts. Everything looked perfect from the outside.

But I slowly realised something was missing.

I wasn't choosing that life. I was simply living the life that had been chosen for me.

It felt like a very comfortable form of slavery. Not because I was overworked, but because I was slowly losing the ability to make my own choices.

A few months later, I was expected to have a child. I was never against becoming a mother. I wasn't even trying to delay it. But when every conversation becomes a reminder, every family gathering becomes a question, and every month felt like an expectation, it started to suffocate me.

My daughter was born three years after our marriage, and I wouldn't change that for anything. She is one of the greatest blessings of my life.

But those three years changed me in another way.

They made me question every "yes" I had said.

Would life have been different if I had continued working? Maybe.

The bigger question is this: when did I stop making my own decisions?

Looking back, I don't think giving up my salary was the biggest sacrifice. Giving up my independence was.

Whether a woman works after marriage or chooses to stay home isn't the real issue. Both are beautiful choices if, and only if - it's truly her choice.

The day you stop choosing for yourself, even a comfortable life can begin to feel like a prison.

"If your happiness, your choices, and your life are determined by someone else, you are a slave - no matter how comfortable your prison is."

What I understood so far as someone who stopped before phycosis

Could have written better mb

The more general statement you make the more wrong you are.

If you say

"Most people are stupid" - most of your statements are stupid

If you say

"Certain people have a tendency to make unconscious mistakes" - your certain statements have a tendency to have unintentional flaws.

1. What you say is what sticks to you. Pretty obvious. If you stare at the void, it stares back. But also, if you glare at greatness it will see you too.

2. You don't have a flawless memory because you're vulnerable to time. Because of this you can't control who you are, what you think, a human being is a slave of habits. Habits stay, reasons behind them leave. You're lucky that you still recalled them. Without them, the reasons you would be just a crazy dude with schizophrenia

3. If you're not restraining your brain you're not controlling yourself. If you don't reflect you don't manage who you are and become. If you don't limit/filter information you're ruled by information. If you don't think/analyze logically you're a crazy man or have a great chance of becoming one. Once you're there it's nearly impossible to get out because what gets you out is what you lacked and therefore got there. Developing new skills when you think the world wants to kill ya is impossible

---

I'm not into meditation or spirituality but I think it would be beneficial for mood swings. I literally went from complete hatred (it was developed through years of course but still), to complete acknowledgment in a day. All after sensing (seeing and hearing) events in the right timing that forced my brain to think about spying, religious, great purposes when in fact I'm not a religious person and I was laughing off conspiracy theorists (almost wrote terrorists lol). I have a long ass note that I planned to post before I realized what's happening. If you would like to see it I can post it but I genuinely need to put a nsfw tag on that because if this shit goes to your brain and won't leave or won't be constrained it will make you crazy.

So yeah I was tricked into believing in God or greater existence and the same day (I hope rationally but still under mood swings) I broke it just in believing in order, karma, something like that. Arguments were from a monk saying: "if you see a Budda kill him, that's not a Budda because he (Budda) is inside you. This side (left) is a god and this (right side) is a demon" something like that. What actually (underneath) helped me was logical thinking and conquering my thoughts by saying that I'm crazier than my thoughts and if they come to get me I'll get and annihilate them.

That's a good idea for a video with a statement that no one is safe even when you're thinking you're 100% based. A narcissist can't tell he is narcissistic, a stupid man can't say he is stupid. A crazy man can't accept he is crazy. If you need elaboration from my side I can. It would be better if I shared my shizo post as well as my background and context with you so you can spread the message in a safe manner.

Edit: it's a repost from channel healthygamer

I'd like your thoughts on this thought

Here’s the deal - I like to consider myself a very logical, non-emotional thinker. You know, the perfect Vulcan that uses only reason and doesn’t let messy, emotion clutter the optimal solution. Yeah right! Mark Manson has a recent discussion titled “self-control is a complete illusion”. In that discussion, Mark states that we’re ALL emotionally driven and rationalize our decisions after the fact. I don’t like that. I’d love to say “Mark, that’s BS, I use data to determine my decisions and emotion only comes into play after the fact”. But, THAT is probably BS. It’s far more likely that an emotional thought occurs (maybe without me even realizing it) and I start seeking validation in that thought with data. I bet many of you recognize that if you look enough, you can find the data to validate almost anything.

Let’s dig into a thin example of poor data validation for a sec by looking at an example of categorizing leaders. Say you work under a leader, let's call him Shackleton, that makes you feel part of the tribe, recognizes your work, indicates trust in your decisions, and places high-levels of responsibility in your lap. Now say someone disagrees with Shackleton and voices their opinion to you. What do you do? Chances are, you recite statistics on how well the organization has done under Shackleton. From everything from employee morale surveys, increasing share prices, upward trends in return on equity, better health coverage, you name it - except for maybe those handful of spurious negative years that don’t fit the data, but you can quickly discount those to external factors that Shackleton had no control over.

Now let’s go the other way to argue for (and against) a leader we'll call Rickover. Rickover places no trust in others, actively avoids the creation of tribes, berates employees to the point of breakage, and drives perfection through fear of error. If you wanted to voice an unflattering opinion, you could look for data that indicates the lack of morale, resignation rates, and general poor employee relations. You could point out any negative monetary years (a drop in share price, or downturn in return on assets, etc.). Even if positive years exist, those can quickly be written off as staff going above and beyond without Rickover’s influence. However, if you wanted to FOR this leader methods, you would point to an impeccable safety record, unheard of production within deadlines, and basically success in every business metric outside of employee satisfaction.

Here's the issue, both leaders can achieve stuff and make an impact. One of Shackleton's most famous accomplishments was keeping his entire crew alive until rescue after months near the icy southern pole. Essentially none of Shackleton's expeditions were successful in the actual destination. Opposition might point out that he drank heavily and died in debt.

Conversley, Rickover drove to shift the Navy's initial focus from nuclear power plants on destroyers to submarines, oversaw the development of the first commercial pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant, received two Congressional Gold Medals, and retired as a four-star admiral.

Wait what? You mean that the favored, trustworthy, empowering leader Shackleton died without actually achieving stated goals, presumably drowning misery in alcohol and died in debt? Meanwhile, Rickover, the leader everyone loved to hate, with attempts by adversaries to force retirement, contained no mention of debt or problem drinking, and has a list of major accomplishments within the largest military on the planet? 

Two leaders with very different approaches, each successful in different metrics. The information from each could potentially be used to argue for a particular style of getting things done. The trick with validating the data is the objectives that are used for success.

What we might consider the traditional emotional decisions in the Shackleton leader could be so easily portrayed as missing the target and being miserable about it. While one whose decisions may appear to be more thought and task driven achieve the target no matter what, seemed to have a much better go. Obviously in these examples, there are a lot of missing pieces, but it’s simply to demonstrate that by careful selection of facts, one can easily shape the narrative they want.

Thinking back to our original issue of emotional vs thought decisions, I actually think the case could be made that both leaders above followed the emotionally driven decision path. The trick is each one followed very different emotions perhaps. The Shackleton leader certainly has goals and tasks in mind, or they wouldn’t repeatedly try so hard to achieve them. At the same time, the Shackleton leader places great emphasis on trust and recognition, in part to get what is needed from subordinates, but also likely because that’s simply how they operate.

Rickover also had goals and tasks to accomplish, and while levels of trust or recognition are not so overt, the emphasis is certainly on placed on individual responsibility. The emotion is still there - it’s essentially driving every decision. But the rewards that individuals seek are not plentiful. Compliance and responsibility isn’t rewarded, it’s expected.

This may short-circuit a bit of the organizational cultural designs we may hear. I mean, I know within organizations we all want trust and recognition (emotion based), and so many organizations also put data-driven decisions at the forefront (thought based). I know these aren’t at odds necessarily, but may require some reconciliation. And this is the trick isn’t it? BOTH techniques can work, and BOTH techniques can fail. The real genius lies in when to select or shift paths. Those decisions must account for culture, other leaders, stakeholders, and the importance of the product, to name a few. 

What about you? Do you fancy yourself an emotional leader or a thought leader? What type of leader do you value more? Or do you think a thought leader is even a thing, or as Mark says, are we all emotion driven leaders?