Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (48969)	6/3/2002 12:39:23 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

Feeling bad is wasteful if you need to adjust adjust "feeling bad" seems totally unimportant to the process, unless you need to "feel bad" to adjust I fail to see why it is a critical component I constantly adjust my behavior, and do not need to waste my time "feeling bad" to adjust In your steps I don't see "feeling bad" as a necessary part of them it is possible to accomplish steps 1-9 without feeling bad (imo)

To: one_less who wrote (48969)	6/3/2002 2:23:13 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Feeling bad about something is the human quality that initiates the adjustment process when facing one's own imperfections. We refer to some people as "well adjusted." I've been following this discussion about feeling bad and making adjustments. I agree with you that it's healthy to make an adjustment when you find yourself feeling bad. I suggest, though, that a truly well-adjusted person doesn't not require much feeling bad and subsequent adjustment because he/she tends not to do things that he/she later has cause to regret. I would call that individual "well adjusted" and the one who responds constructively to feeling bad, "healthy."

To: one_less who wrote (48969)	6/3/2002 3:29:12 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The phrase "well adjusted" is generally used in a psychological sense, and although it has an ethical component, that is not the principal focus. In its ordinary usage, it means first that one is adjusted to one's environment, especially one's social environment, in a way that minimizes conflict and allows one the opportunity to pursue one's goals with some success. This, of course, assumes a social environment that is not too deviant itself. The idea of being well- adjusted in a dictatorship, for example, would seem to assume the adoption of qualities of dissembling, betrayal, and toadying that are not generally recommended. Secondarily, the idea of being well- adjusted has to do with the "smoothness" of one's internal dynamics. This may partially have social reference, as when talking about anger- management, or it may be primarily personal, as when talking about debilitating anxiety. Just for illustration, in the Freudian model, there is the Id, which is infantile and not subject to the constraints of reality; there is the Superego, which internalizes parental and social mores and sits in judgement over one; and there is the Ego, which balances the other two, and brings the result into contact with reality, so that mature goals can be formed according to reasonable expectations. If the Superego is too strong, the person is crippled with over- scrupulousness, timidity, irrational guilt, and foreboding due to the expectation of punishment. If it is too weak, the Id gets the upper hand, one indulges in risky and anti- social behavior, one is too subject to fantasy in one's perceptions, and the Ego never has a chance to mature properly. Thus, one can see that there is an idea of the proper adjustment involved in the creation of a strong Ego, one that can maturely pursue its goals with rational deliberation and in conformity with reasonable social norms. Extend the idea beyond its origin, and it is clear that one wants to refine and shape one's perceptions of appropriateness over time, and bring one's behavior and perceptions, if possible, into harmonious relationship with those revised norms. Just as we saw that social adjustment will differ according to the pressures of the particular society, it may be necessary to be in conflict with a given society in order to assert what one understands to be humane values, and therefore it is important to discriminate beyond mere "getting along". Similarly, one may be hamstrung by guilt over comparative trivialities, or things that have no real moral onus at all, because of being raised too strictly by parents without a sense of proportion. Therefore, one cannot make conformity to internalized standards the sole critierion, but must suppose that one can rationally criticize one's standards, and improve them over time. Thus, being well- adjusted may become a rather complicated thing.......