Hypothetical approach for general disorder

This is just a theory and should not be taken as serious advice.

I’ll be using a personal, Aeolitalk definition of disorder as “a vicious spiral driven by a behavioral fixation to obtain an end without the proper means”. You may find it helpful to relate it to “perversion” as used in the section below, as I often use the two words interchangeably in my head.

Satan’s goal is a perfect inversion of all heaven and earth. His preferred method is perversion. What’s the difference? A perversion is any kind of disorder, whereas inversion is an opposite ordering. Let’s look at the simplest possible example:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

These numbers are ordered in a certain way. Satan wants them to be ordered the opposite way:

5, 4, 3, 2, 1

This is inversion, which is the goal. If the numbers are properly ordered, then any perversion sorts the system closer to where Satan wants it.

2, 1, 3, 4, 5

Now that there’s entropy in the system there’s at least one switch that Satan doesn’t want to occur. He doesn’t want the 2 and the 1 to switch, because it’s further from what he wants the system to look like. So simply causing chaos in the system doesn’t work because he doesn’t want maximum entropy in the universe, that’s just a means to his end of creating a perfectly ordered system that’s exactly the opposite of the creator’s design. He’s a smart dude too, it’s really too bad that he’s evil.

Why pagans insist God is female

I have a beginning theory for how disorder in general (individual and society-wide) ought to be addressed, which I might as well share in brief.

1) Viability of treatment – If the vicious spiral has progressed such that the fixated person or society has become desensitized, then behavioral techniques are effectively useless for either severing the pathological behavioral connection or building the healthy behavioral connection.

It may be possible to reinvigorate ordinary levels of sensitivity in individuals through solitary confinement, as when drug addicts first enter the penal system. In the case of society-wide insensitivity, it may be a practical necessity to banish or exterminate individuals or the entire society because the logistical cost of constructive action may be too high.

2) Progressive exposure therapy in the proper means, to train healthy behavioral connections – E.g. Training a whipped dog out of its learned helplessness by placing treats progressively farther out of reach to encourage the re-development of motivated action.

This is a relatively easy process so long as the problem is well-defined and the conditions for success are comprehensively documented as defined in Peak as “established fields”, which may change over time (how to succeed in PUA, for example, was well-defined in 2015 but less well-defined in 2018). But it requires saint-like patience and time expenditure on the part of the charitable party because the incremental steps tend to be unbelievably small at first. One must use the rhetorical techniques of persuasion to achieve buy-in (effectively seducing them as in Robert Green’s book, to put it somewhat crudely), requesting incrementally larger steps and positively reinforcing improvements, and repeating the persuasion at intervals. The goal is to pursue hormesis in the hope that chemical epiphanies (or “breakthroughs” in therapy) will produce the healthy causal pathways in the brain.

3) Aversion training to prune the very strong, pathological behavioral connection – This is actually a very difficult thing to do correctly. For example, early sexual abuse is only very occasionally translated into eustress by exceedingly strong people, whereas it much more typically produces pathological narcissism.

The fine line between constructive negative feedback and abuse is why parents who spank their children with the best intentions have to follow so many rules to avoid poisoning the child’s mind. If the sufficient conditions for constructive negative feedback (as in training theory) and deliberate practice (as in Peak) are not met, it may undo any productive work done to strengthen the budding healthy replacement behaviors (achieving the mirror opposite effect of strengthening the pathological outlet). Any institution of aversion training must also be assiduously protected from the predatory violence of sadists who will seek to become moral (and thus behavioral) authorities in order to invent excuses for behavior-correcting violence. This creates its own vicious spiral where the treatment produces the need for more treatment, which is just fine with the sadist.

I think focusing on any one of these three points, without the others, is likely to produce failure. For example, Milo Yiannopoulos once said he likes to have sex with a woman once per year to see if this can change his preference for homosexual sex to heterosexual sex (progressive exposure therapy to the healthy behavioral connection). I would not expect this to work because he’s still engaged in the fixated, desensitizing behavior which keeps the fixated behavioral connection much stronger than the proper connection he’s hoping to form. In a more Freudian sense, he continues to reinforce the infantile self-love, which motivates his narcissistic self-degradation and instrumentalizes black male lovers as fetish objects, preventing the development of less solipsistic object-love represented by the infant’s transference of self-love to the nurturing mother.

The good news is that I expect the sorts of people who are more predisposed to fixations (like, say, the German nation) would also be better candidates for treatment. Someone like Milo, whose brain is better at forming and pruning incorrect synaptic connections should also be good at forming and pruning correct connections. An evidedential point in favor of this expectation in the extreme normalcy of extremely high IQ people as documented by Cooijmans.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Hypothetical approach for general disorder

  1. thordaddy says:

    “General disorder” is, collectively, sexual degeneracy. And “sexual degeneracy” is, individually, self-annihilating. The desire for self-annihilation is homo*sexuality, phenomenonally-speaking. And the sexual dogma of a racist Christianity is the “antithesis.” The internecine war to conscientiously conceive “self-love” rages such that the homosexual’s “neighbor” is his greatest enemy and the white (S)upremacist will not “love thyself” for he surely must be his own worst enemy (relentlessly seeking to overcome his myriad acts of self annihilation).

    As such, all “therapies” aimed at “general disorder” must begin with a clean rejection of self-annihilation and associative affirmation of a racially religious sexual doctrine. The motivational assumption being general disorder = mass racial** self-annihilation.

    * Where homo=same=EXACT same=self
    ** Where one’s race is one’s father(s).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s