To all the nice guys @tm...

Post Reply New Topic

What about that thing where he expected all the women to "bow down and worship him"? That's completely consistent with the ASPD sexual-ego trait(sounds like Ted Bundy's line-of-thinking). Sociopaths/psychopaths think they're entitled to women and usually get them, but he might have been a non-stereotypical one that didn't.

If having sex cured one of autism I'd have managed to cure myself by the time I was 17 for sure.

Sorry but you are wrong, it is a Narcissistic trait sometimes present in ASPD/Psychopathy bu that it itself doesn't make a psychopath. What other history to have?

Oh okay, so he may or may-not have been one. Nobody knows for sure obviously since he's dead including you despite your claim to the contrary.



I never directly stated that he was or wasn't one, only that he probably was in my opinion.

Damn, I have lost the count of Nice guy threads, now I have to start over.

*Sighs in frustration three times*

You all have missed the point. Nice Guy TM syndrome in a symptom, not the problem. The point is if one looks the at the underlying dynamic as a whole the problem is how we socialize our children in the USA. The assumptions that parents and educators are under is that other children will socialize each other. People wonder why children are narcissistic today, have a sense of entitlement, whiny and disrespectful. People wonder why Nice Guy Syndrome exists.

It is because of the environment we're raising our kids in. We're putting children who are clueless about manners, appropriate behavior, and social skills together with other children who are equally as clueless. What do we have today? It is what parents and other adults complain about. It is why we have nice guy syndrome. To socialize a child to what is appropriate one has to have children around those who know how to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. Same with manners. Same with wisdom as well. To make a child wise one has to socialize a child with one who is wise not one who is as ignorant as them.

That's the point that I'm making. Instead we live in a society that insists that the primary purpose of going to school is not to actually educate but to socialize the child with his peers and to learn social skills from his peers as his primary teacher of social skills. We wonder why children and teens are unsocialized, uncouth and uncivilized. We wonder why children and teens have a sense of entitlement. In school, we make education secondary to socialization of a child by other children. We wonder why our society is so narcissistic. Maybe the problem is a good chunk of people are like children who never grew up.

Elliot Roger is just the extreme conclusion of this.

Where exactly are the grown-ups and the adults?

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 01 Nov 2014, 4:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

So we both agree that we are going on the information available, namely his "manifesto", and how he was characterized by various people including himself.

I do get what you are saying, but I don't think he got off by the power so much as this was his resentment carried out. He felt weak not powerful.

Psychopaths do act in times of stress, but this is to satisfy. This kid he was always going to kill himself he just wanted to take other down with him. This is often from extreme jealously, manifested in rage.

The entitlement is a different kind. Psychopaths get enjoyment out of the suffering becuase they are often sexual sadists. Their victims are playthings. They aren't worried about following social conventions.

This kid clearly wanted a relationship or sexual encounter. He was spouting off, which may make him seem like a psychopath, but nothing else fits the description IMO.

Psychopaths rarely justify they behavior, we ask they tend to take you down the garden path, or they might be honest as say they enjoy it.

You can't just purely take what people say at face value in isolation, or one incidental thing.

Except for that he committed a mass-murder immediately after saying that stuff. But of course that doesn't mean anything right?

Ok, I get it?it's just that you posted this in L&D and invoked NiceGuy? syndrome? So I promptly projected my Dale Carnegie fixation. And, don't worry folks?if I can get past all the "new thought" stuff going on with Napoleon Hill, I'll be projecting that as I read through his stuff.

But, yeah, I completely agree with you here.

Let me ask this, though?what exactly does this have to do with NiceGuy? syndrome? Is it just the sense of entitlement? Part of what feeds that is how teachers are encouraged to get behavioral results from children. I was taught that bribing kids was acceptable. I was also taught that EVERYONE had to be a winner. Yes, give special recognition to those who genuinely work hard or are natural achievers, but make sure everyone walks home with a trophy eventually. And I think that's just horrible methodology, but I was told in one school I taught to use the Madeline Hunter ITIP model, and bribery was actually expected. I suppose I could see how that would lead to a gross misunderstanding of rule-following, i.e. you follow the rules, you get what you want--not because you deserve it, not because you earned it, but because NiceGuys? win by default and girls MUST reward us for doing the RightThing? and give us sex. Obviously this is not how the "real-world" works. Is that basically what you're saying?

If so, the answer is that parents who actually care about their kids will teach them that the value of education is more important than socialization. I'll be straight-up with you here, I have a low opinion of most school teachers--I used to be one, so maybe there's some self-loathing there, too. They are more concerned with pay and unions than they are selflessly serving the public. But the real enemies here are the parents who leave ALL learning up to the teachers as though they are glorified, overpaid babysitters. Unless you reach the parents, this problem is NOT going away any time soon.

If you like you can read or skip my following ramble while I express my attitude towards the whole thing. It's up to parents, if they really care, to change this. If you invest nothing, you get nothing.

===

The problem with education in the USA is that teachers are expected to do EVERYTHING. I've been there, done that, and now I have kids of my own. I send them to a private school. And I can tell you that it has nothing to do with public or private education. The difference between public schools and private schools are the values parents place on kids. When you are paying for an education, you demand results. And you know that the results you get either way, public or private, depends on your level of involvement with your children. Public school parents, especially those who live in "underprivileged" communities, send their kids to public schools for one or both of these reasons: 1) Simply can't afford tuition, 2) Required by law to send their kids to school. If the latter and not merely the former, you have the deadly combination of parents who don't care about education enough to work with their kids and kids who really, REALLY don't want to be there. Compulsory education in the face of unwilling parents/students brings with it disruptive behavior and an environment destructive to the teaching/learning process. It's no surprise we give up on educators and educators give up on children. It is neither the teacher's nor the student's fault that parents have abandoned them, but we expect public educators to be babysitters. Unless parents are proactive in determining their children's cognitive direction, the educational system will fail them. And I don't care if they are straight-A students. If they aren't prepared for life beyond those cinderblock walls, we have all failed.

The municipal system where I live got upgraded from an F to a D this year. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!! !! !! !!

Reliance on any school system, public or private, for socialization ranks among the most stupid things I've ever heard. The purpose of education is preparation for the workforce, prep for advanced vocational training, and/or prep for further academic performance. The only friends you need to worry about are your teachers/mentors. You need to be building adult relationships, not impressing your peers. You need to be hanging out with grownups who are going places, not worrying about your "social life" or your bf/gf.

I don't mean to keep bragging on my kids, but I can't help it. We practice what we preach here. I'm able to teach my kids music in a way most parents are unequipped for. To date my crowning achievement as a dad came this week. I was volunteering at their Catholic school when I was informed that my boy, who is in 2nd grade, would be playing the piano before Mass. I couldn't believe it! I was told they had enough people working so I could leave, but now I was compelled to stay for mass in support of my oldest son. I haven't told him this yet, but I wanted to sit down with him and explain that what he did is a sign of leadership ability. Other kids at his school play piano. The difference is his demonstrated excellence at his age and experience level. And I think because we are very careful to filter his exposure to certain negatives and explain realities behind what we can't filter, he understands the world in a way kids twice his age miss. We limit exposure to media and entertainment and try to stimulate imagination, and I think that comes out when he is allowed to play with other kids. We also seek socialization opportunities OUTSIDE school, and it's fascinating to observe how he influences other kids and shows initiative.

THAT is what education and parenting is about, NOT some misplaced idea on how/when socialization happens. Teachers are there to TEACH, and NOT to take responsibility for your ability (or lack thereof) to get along with and/or impress your peers. Our emphasis at home is on adult relationships, not how to be childish. That, and coupled with the values our kids do get from a religious school and church, are among the best ways to adapt kids to a civilized future.

No, what I'm saying is this. As an aside, This is why some people are against homeschooling by the way. The idea is that children are supposed to learn social skills from other children or what others call their peers. They learn social skills alright and that is to be this mac-daddy player or be their version of cool. This is where this whole got to have game, mac daddy, nice guy crap came from. It came from the idea and methodology of learning from one's peers.



Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! So, why do so many parents make learning social skills from one's peer group the primary focus? It makes no sense and goes against logic. How can one learn from those who know not?



This is where I'm confused. What exactly is the parent's role vs. the teacher's role?



1. You said " If you invest nothing, you get nothing." 2. I have heard the phrase "There are no guarantees in life." How does statement one logically hold up if statement 2 is true?

===



Well, my wife is a teacher so I do understand.



I agree. You can always put the kid somewhere else.



True



I agree with everything you said here. I've never understood the concept of preparing them for "life." What is "life?" Don't people live different lives? How is there a universal life? What is the universal life of all life?



That's good. Another comment I would like to make is this. My wife has me enter data sometimes in an excel spreadsheet and other multiple areas for her. It's so stupid the way they do it. They have flat files with so many redundancies. Why can't we all have a universal database across my state in which all educators can input the grades and access that keeps to the standard of non-repeatable data? My wife just said "Don't. I know it's stupid but just give them what they want." I could create them a database and use an Entity Relationship diagram to create a blueprint.



Why do educators and parents make socialization the primary purpose of going to school? I don't get it.


I don't understand though. Why is it necessary for everyone to be a leader as this society seems to promote? How did he demonstrate leadership ability? I don't understand.



I agree!

That's like saying that someone who's never had a job at 20 should quit worrying about his lack of job experience and lack of employment. I'm not a fan of PUA either, but the older you get, the more stigma virginity in men carries. If you want easy sex, learn the symptoms of BPD and find a girl who has it. Just subdue whatever feelings you may have for her afterwards.

That's comparing apples and oranges. No it's not the same at all.



Maybe the idea of having a stigma for virginity is the problem. Have you ever considered that society is the problem then and society is the disease? I say, challenge the standard, tell them all who would shame you to f**k off and deface the social currency. Think for Yourself! Question Authority! Tell them to go to hell.



So, one is supposed to take advantage of someone in a certain state? Can you not see what you are saying here? I'm sorry but if someone wants to have sex with me I want it to be from their own volition.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 01 Nov 2014, 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That elliot rogers character does not sound like a very nice guy at all, they should stop calling mean people 'nice guys' would make more sense.

You missed my point

posted in june, while is it you just now brought it up?

the post says

ie he'd be able to have sex if he'd cured asd, not that the cure to asd is sex.

NiceGuy????

I'm a nice guy it seems. thats what people who know me say. O.o should I be a bad guy why is being good bad? is being bad now good?
or does the tm(trademark) mean the fake nice guy? o.O

In this context 'nice guy' doesn't mean a guy who's nice.

It's a guy who attempts to be manipulative and guilt women into relationships by being a doormat and then acting like they're owed for it.