Social Interactions – Page 2

How do pathological liars convince themselves their lies are true?

Answered Jul 10, 2019

They don’t necessarily “convince themselves their lies are true”.

The mechanism seems to be…

“I want you to do, give, or tolerate Such-And-Such-Thing, And think that a certain claim will induce to to so, if you believe it. So I will push that at you”.

It is important to note that, sometimes, the thing they want is control. Many, many people feel a lack of control over their lives. Some will desperately look for control opportunities, even those that don’t actually benefit them.

If they lie, and you believe them, then they can feel control. Even if they don’t benefit in any practical or tangible way. Some will lie to manipulate (“Oh, I love you”), including lashing out to induce you feel bad. There are actually people who will claim to hate you, when they really don’t have any opinion of you, at all.

They often have poor ability to predict whether the lie will work. Or whether lying will reduce your future willingness to believe them.

Some will do an approach of multiple different angles. Where, the first lie doesn’t work, and then they move on to the next lie (which might even contradict the first). Hoping to find the lie that you will believe.

Their perception of whether their lies are true, just isn’t on the radar. It is about saying some words, to expect a certain result. The pathology is the failure to realistically expect a connection between the words (lies) and your response/actions.

Users of stimulant drugs (cocaine, amphetamine) are notorious for constant, compulsive lying. I wonder if some non-using liars have some kind of natural brain chemistry similar to that induced by those drugs.

Why do people have more children when a big family is financially not viable?

Answered Jun 28, 2018

Originally Answered: Why do poor people have many children even though they cannot afford to raise them well? ·

A few reasons, which relate to each other.

There is a pervasive assumption that, everyone has children. That it is just an automatic part of a standard, universal life-trajectory. This assumption is present all across the economic spectrum. I have met adult women who acted confused upon encountering a middle-aged person who simply didn’t have any kids. Lack of desire to have them, lack of a spouse/partner, lack of support systems, and lack of money just weren’t seen as meaningful factors.
Having children at an early age (e.g under 25) is highly conducive to being and remaining poor. The existing child impairs the parent’s (usually the mother’s) ability to work in paid employment, or to pursue higher education.
Peer pressure from other young people making bad reproductive choices.
Lack of positive role-models, such as women who were able to better their lives by not having any children early (or at all).
Poor people may have received low-quality education in high school, including basic sex education.
There may be some correlation between poverty and religion. Which may degrade sex education.
Assumptions of being able to rely on extended family for money, housing, food, free childcare and other resources. A related point is some cultures (e.g. pacific islanders) have a combination of high poverty rates, high reproductive rates, and willingness to cram excessive numbers of people (including multiple related families) into crowded, unhealthy housing.
Assumptions of being able to rely on the baby-daddy for child support payments.
Poverty is correlated with having unstable relationships, which may include the aforementioned baby-daddy (or multiple baby-daddies) failing to contribute financially. Thereby perpetuating the poverty for the single mother and children.
The unstable relationships may lead to the idea of bonding with the current partner by having a child together, despite having children from previous relationships.
Lack of planning and self-control is conducive to being and remaining poor. And is also conducive to having unplanned children.
Poverty recycles, with numerous mechanisms. Including the intelligence impact of poor nutrition, maternal smoking/drinking, etc. This may lead the poor child to grow into an adolescent or young adult with poor planning and self-control, leading to another generation of poor children.
Some of the answers here mention that, contraception is too expensive for poor people. However, if you cannot afford contraception, then you certainly cannot afford multiple children. It comes down to self-control.
Plenty of children are conceived after the parents-to-be have had a little too much alcohol, and aren’t thinking very clearly. This applies across the economic spectrum, although problematic alcohol consumption may somewhat correlate with poverty.
Magical thinking, and black-and-white thinking, regarding actions→consequences. The person has unprotected sex repeatedly, without any resulting pregnancy. They then conclude that the two things aren’t really connected. Or may assume themselves to be infertile.
Lack of anticipation of how severely a child will restrict their lives.
Lack of anticipation of how much a child costs to support.
Availability of welfare benefits. Including multi-generational welfare dependence, and social environments where such dependence is normalised.
Pervasive social attitudes that it is somehow oppressive (or at least politically incorrect) to openly state that people shouldn’t be having children they cannot afford.
The first unplanned child is generally the one with the largest life-derailing effect (e.g. inability to work or pursue education). After that line is crossed, having an additional child isn’t seen as having as much incremental effect. So there may be less motivation to avoid having additional children.

What are some things that wealthy/privileged people believe about the working-class/poor that are untrue?

Updated Jun 29, 2019

Many misconceptions don’t just come from wealthy people, but also from those with middle class backgrounds. It can also come from individuals who are themselves doing low-wage jobs, or even who are unemployed, but who have middle-class parents.

Everybody can afford to live in a decent/nice house or apartment, in a decent/nice neighbourhood. So, people living in low-rent/high-crime neighbourhoods are choosing to be there because they are scumbags who enjoy the atmosphere.
Everybody can call The Bank Of Mommy And Daddy to make a withdrawal, any time they are short on cash.
Everybody can move back in with Mommy and Daddy, who live in a nice house, in a nice neighbourhood.
Women with breadwinning husbands may assume that everybody has one.
All geographic areas have the same level of economic opportunity. This relates to the attitude that, everyone should live in one town for their entire life, and that, there couldn’t possibly be any legitimate reason to move. I have been chronically treated like I did something stupid and morally wrong because I moved to a large city as a young adult, and refused to stay stuck in the impoverished, backwards rural town where my mother chose to live.
Everybody has the same educational opportunities. Including being supported by parents, to enable university, rather than having to work full-time.
Some people get negative attitudes towards a poor person who pursues higher education as a “mature” student. As if she were obligated to just accept a low-education/low-income life. The people showing this attitude run the whole economic spectrum.
Severe ignorance about the difficulties of a university student with a low income and zero family support system. This can include affluent students generally screwing around (talking loudly in class, etc), and failing to respect that a poor student is sacrificing and taking education seriously (e.g. she is personally paying for it, and also that it’s her path out of poverty).
Everybody can demand that an employer must assign them to a job in a nice, polite, clean, air-conditioned office, sitting down all day.
Everybody can demand that an employer pay them enough to live comfortably.
Everybody can limit themselves to working 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, with a fixed 9–5 schedule and fixed hourly wage. Severe ignorance of issues like commission/piecework, unstable (including casual) shift rostering, early/late/night shifts, working overtime, etc. I have even encountered open hostility over this. In my experience, that is a specifically female reaction.
Intelligence and economic class are automatically correlated. Severe cognitive dissonance at encountering someone who is intelligent, articulate, well-read, etc, and who is employed at a low-paying/low-skill/low-status job.
Severe ignorance of the issues that poor people may have in taking care of their health. Including such things as telling someone that they are stupid if they don’t have medical insurance.
Severe ignorance of daily issues like using public transportation, which can take large amounts of time and hassle.
Severe ignorance of the levels of violence, drugs, and other crime encountered by poor people in the environments where they live and work.
Severe ignorance about why a working-poor person seems to stressed-out all the time. Stemming from severe ignorance of how that person may be “hanging by a thread” financially, with a real possibility of becoming homeless.
Severe ignorance of the general social dysfunction among poor people. Including the types of people surrounding you when you are poor. This includes severe ignorance of the way that, an employed working poor person will be targeted by parasitic/exploitative non-working poor people.
Speaking of exploitation, I once knew an alleged adult with coddling upper-middle-class parents who thought she was entitled to go around leeching off of working poor people. With the delusion that, anyone with any job has large quantities of money to fork over. Her father even expected me to let his out-of-control abusive brat live in my home, rent-free.
Severe lack of comprehension that, a working poor person may be justified in having a very cynical view of humanity in general.

Why do some intelligent people fail to achieve their potential?

Updated Jul 20, 2019

In no particular order…

Some intelligence is simply ability to memorise. As measured by regurgitating facts on exams. And exams don’t necessarily translate into the “real world”.

Some intelligence is very focused. Such as a person who can write very fluently, but struggles with mathematics that are related to the topic.

Some intelligence is technical, while lacking interpersonal skills/aptitude.

Feeling intimidation and Impostor Syndrome. That can escalate to be deadly (and I mean that literally, and have witnessed it).

Bullying from other people (e.g. employer or supervisor or colleague who sabotages you).

Bullying includes pervasive “tall-poppy-syndrome”, which may come from everyone around the intelligent person.

Money. University funding is fairly generous where I live. But it is still limited. Funding for postgrad study, or scholarships are limited.

Low supply of highly intelligent people, but even lower demand. There are people with PhDs doing the lowest jobs (literally burger-flipping and such) to put food on the table.

Poverty. Some kid from an impoverished background may be a genius, but will be sabotaged by that. Even if they go to university, I have been acquainted with two postgrad students who separately resorted to being homeless (as in illegally camping) while studying. And there are plenty more, in many places.

Drugs (including alcohol). High intelligence may incline people to seek out “evolutionarily-novel” stimulus. I’ve witnessed this one up close and personal.

Intelligence involves questioning. Which involves embracing ambiguity and doubt. Science is all about seeking through questioning. That can lead to a paralysing doubt of one’s self.

Raising the bar. More intimidation and Impostor Syndrome.

And last but not least…

A world full of stupid people. Who feel entitled to all of the things produced/done by intelligent people. While acting with mind-boggling contempt and open hostility.

Why do pathological liars lie?

Answered Jan 16, 2019

I’ve known some severe liars. People who were so bad that literally nothing that they said, about any subject, could be trusted.

Some reasons:

They want something from you (money, sex, drug-enabling, etc), and think that lying will manipulate you into complying. It may sound logical, but they often use obvious lies, without rational anticipation of the lie’s chances of working.
They want to avoid consequences for their bad behaviour, which was also pathological. Again, some of these lies are obvious.
Lying as a shortcut to social status. This can include the common boasting about money, accomplishments, etc. It can also include boasting about the cool things that they are “going to” do in the near future. They want that status and admiration immediately, without having to take the time and energy to do the work involved. I once had a neighbour who loudly boasted about how she was “going to” quit smoking and start up a healthy lifestyle, expecting immediate admiration. She almost forgot that she had a cigarette in her hand at the time. And no, she never quit or, exercised, or ate healthily.
A related point is trying to seem like a more interesting person. Out of fear that honesty will result in being perceived as a boring loser.
A related status issue is lying to a social clique or other group to push someone else down the hierarchy, as a way of reducing competition.
Constant fantasising. And saying things (sometimes quite casually) as if the fantasy were reality. Including things that are physically impossible.
Fear of the truth, with desperate attempts to avoid facing it. They lie partly in order to convince and comfort themselves.
Lying out of embarrassment over revealing what they really think. Such as holding bigoted attitudes, but refusing to admit it. Or having competition-based envy and hostility, but claiming that the hostility is due to the target being dysfunctional or bad.
Making up “rules” for how everyone else “has to” behave. Including in friendships, sexual relationships, workplaces, etc, etc. They don’t claim that it is their personal rules. They claim that, there are simply universal “rules” of all human interactions, which are coincidentally whatever they think serves them, practically or emotionally.
Minimisation. Claiming that their bad behaviour wasn’t really so bad, so you don’t have a position to object, or to impose consequences. Also, minimisation of the importance of other lies. Such as, “That was a white lie, so you don’t have any right to stop trusting me over it”.
Repetition. If they keep repeating it over and over, you will get tired of the conflict that you allegedly cause by refusing to believe them. And will be worn down into actually believing them.
Failure to anticipate any limits to your willingness to trust them and to continue interacting with them. No matter how many times you have caught them lying, they assume that you will stick around, and will desperately try to see them as trustworthy. They think that your desire to trust them is just as infinite as their inclination to lie. Including when they tell the same lie, yet again.
A related point is, “This time it’s different”. I once had someone repeat a previous lie, admitting that it had been a lie before, while insisting, “That was then, and this is a different time. So you have to trust that I am telling the truth this time, and don’t have the right to judge me for the previous time”.
A related mechanism is trying new angles. They will tell a lie, and you refuse to believe them. Then, they will immediately tell a different lie, which contradicts the first lie. They think that they can can just try a series of different lies, until they find the one that you are willing to believe.
Another related point is using your empathy or your desire to “help”them with their bad life situations (which are the result of their own bad behaviour). They assume that your empathy is endless, no matter how much they abuse it (and you). They try to use your empathy to keep you involved, while convincing you to buy into their definition of “help”, which is really enabling of their bad behaviour.
They are confident that you cannot prove that they are lying. Including when they lie about the content of previous conversations between the two of you. Or even things they said earlier in the same conversation.
They want to lash out. They will come up with anything to say that they expect will hurt you emotionally/psychologically. They may even admit this, to try to avoid consequences (e.g. you abandoning them).
Stimulant drugs. People using cocaine or amphetamine are notorious for compulsive lying. If they have been using for some time, they will compulsively lie even when they aren’t under the influence at the moment. Even other addicts (e.g. to sedating drugs) view these people as bad news.
Dominance games. If they lie, and you believe them, they have dominated you.
Desperation to pull you down into their loser mentality. I once had an acquaintance who insisted that, no employer will ever pay any employee more than minimum wage, so it is stupid to put forth any extra effort or skills. They claim they are trying to “help” you to avoid wasting effort, when they are really motivated by frightened envy/competition.
A related point is trying to minimise anything good in your life. They will lie to avoid the feeling that you may be winning some kind of competition. Including when you have zero interest in competing.
Covering up their ignorance. They don’t want to admit that they don’t know something, so they invent some convenient-sounding pseudo-information about it. This includes insisting that they know better than you (even if you have substantial relevant knowledge and experience).
Just world hypothesis. They are afraid of vulnerability, so they insist that, bad things only happen to those who deserve it. And look for ways to apply that to a given situation where someone else experiences adversity or victimisation.

What all of this comes down to is desperation for control. And desperate people do dysfunctional and often blatantly unworkable things.

Facing how things really are is like surrendering. Lying that things are some other way, is an attempt to control the situation.

Facing the fact that you won’t/don’t believe them is like surrendering to you. Lying with you believing them, means controlling you, even if there is nothing practical to be gained.

What do I do to make a guy in his early twenties understand consent?

Answered Jan 8, 2019

Here is one of the most important life lessons I’ve had.

If an adult, of any age, male or female, doesn’t understand or respect consent by the time I meet them, they are never going to do so. And there is absolutely nothing that I can say or do to teach them.

If an adult, of any age, male or female, doesn’t understand that, bad behaviour leads to bad consequences, by the time I meet them, they are never going to do so. And I cannot teach them, even by imposing those consequences.

I’ve also learned that, it doesn’t really matter whether the person can or cannot “understand” consent. What matters is that they don’t care.

In looking back on certain interactions, I would find myself saying things like:

Sometimes, you are going to want something, and my answer will be “no”, and you will just have to accept that.
I have the right to say “no”, and other people have the right to say “no” to you. I, and they, aren’t victimising you, just because you feel disappointed, hurt, or angry.
Sometimes, you are going to want something, and you will have to wait for it, rather than expecting immediate compliance.
Complying with a demand in the past is not a promise to comply with that same (or any other) demand in the future. Each time you want something, you will need to separately ask (not demand). With the understanding that, this particular request might be denied.
Different behaviours will lead to different consequences. Coercive and abusive behaviour will lead to consequences that you don’t like.
I have repeatedly, consistently, clearly, and firmly said “no” to this demand. Why are are treating me exactly as if I said “yes”?
I don’t see the situation the same as you see it. And I don’t view the “rules” of relationships/friendships the same as you view them.
Your belief that you “need” something, or the fact that you fantasized about me giving/doing/tolerating doesn’t create any kind of promise by me, or obligation.
My money, physical possessions, physical body, and time belong to me, not you.
The fact that you “can’t” control your behaviour, doesn’t require me to stick around and tolerate it. My rules, limits, and boundaries don’t magically disappear just because you “can’t” respect them.
Telling me that my boundaries are dysfunctional doesn’t constitute an entitlement to violate them.
My primary responsibility doesn’t revolve around complying with your demands. My primary responsibility is take care of my own needs, including my own financial self-support, and my own physical safety. That includes the responsibility to stay away from parasites and abusers. Because allowing some people into my life is like deliberately getting into a cage with a large, rabid animal.
The subject of this conversation is consent. And how you behave when I say “no” to you. This conversation is not about pestering or gaslighting me into saying “yes”.
You need to accept the limits and boundaries I set for what I will give/do/tolerate. And if you can’t or won’t, then the limits and boundaries will become even more restrictive, up to ceasing all contact. Accept what is offered, or you will get nothing at all from me.
I don’t have to be in this relationship/friendship. I have the right and the ability to abandon you at any time, for any reason. Such as if you don’t start respecting my boundaries. Or even just because I don’t feel like interacting with you anymore. This is a unilateral decision to be made by me, and doesn’t require your permission.

The fact that I was in a position to even say those things to a series of adults was a huge red flag. And none of it ever worked, or led to any of them understanding anything.

Sexual consent is a very high-stakes situation. Many, many people have been guilt-tripped, gaslighted, and coerced into sex acts that they didn’t want, in the context of a relationship. Many, many people have been violently raped in the context of a relationship. This guy is waving a huge red flag of an impending assault.

A related category of red flags is the general disrespect of you making your own decisions. Including things like micromanaging your appearance. That is an early sign of serious control issues that can gradually escalate to sexual coercion and violence. I want to emphasise that, you need to take all of his red flags, and all of his arrogance and entitlement and imaginary “rules” very, very seriously.

After he rapes you, there will be nothing that you can say or do to teach him that he did something wrong. And for you, it will already be too late, because it will already have happened. And no amount of arguing will erase the permanent impact upon you.

There are people sitting in prison for rape and other violence, who still refuse to comprehend, and who see themselves as innocent victims of the situation. They still believe that they were just exercising their “right” to do whatever they want, and have zero consideration for their victims.

When getting into a new relationship, or a new platonic friendship, it is vitally important to see how the person responds to being told “no”. You cannot confidently predict this until it happens. Things might seem to be proceeding OK for weeks, as long as you have been consistently saying “yes”. And then, you come to your first refusal (e.g. “No sex tonight, because it’s late and I’m physically too tired to do it”). Or they demand a new sex act that you don’t want. And that may be the turning point when you suddenly find out their attitude about consent.

But also look for a “no” situation that doesn’t involve sex. And do so before getting sexually involved.

People of all ages, and both men and women, can totally disrespect consent. I once knew a middle-aged female who believed that she was entitled to sex on demand from female partners. She sexually assaulted at least one, and probably more, and was completely unaware that she had done anything wrong. And couldn’t even imagine anyone dumping her to prevent a repeat.

She had two views about people saying “no” to her. One was that, the person had a “hangup”, and just wouldn’t admit to secretly wanting it. The other was that, people refused because they were too stupid to understand how much fun sex in general (or particular sex acts) would be. And that, pestering, gaslighting, arguing, and eventually using physical force was either giving them what they “really” wanted, or would be justified because they would learn that they enjoy the experience.

Nothing that anyone said or did ever got through to her. She burned through relationship after relationship after relationship (or really, more like a series of “booty-call” situations). With zero ability to learn from consequences, zero inclination to honestly examine her attitudes, and zero interest in changing her behaviour. She was convinced that, everyone who said “no”, or who set boundaries, or who dumped her, was dysfunctional. And that they refused to appreciate what a great partner she was.

Like your boyfriend, she believed that, anyone saying “no” to her was an act of abuse. And a violation of the rules and promises that supposedly come with entering a relationship. She believed that, if you don’t want to be assaulted, the burden is on you to say “yes” to literally any demand.

I disagree with the suggestions of game-playing (forcing him to eat, proposing the strap-on, etc). That makes it seem like some kind of negotiation, or mutual disrespect, or fight over the subject. He very likely is completely clear about his own right to say “no” and to enforce it. Because his wants and entitlements are central to his experience of the relationship, while viewing you as existing to serve him, and give him anything and everything he demands, without limits.

I also disagree with the comment about violence (i.e. stating the intent to kill them if they try to assault you). I’ve encountered people who will completely tune out that statement, and act like they didn’t even hear it.

Many, many people view sexual relationships, or platonic friendships as a one-way deal. They are here to take, and you are here to give.

Like your boyfriend, they are adamant that, relationships and friendships have universal, obvious “rules” that you have agreed to obey, simply by getting involved. Common relationship/friendship “rules” are that:

You never have the right to say “no” to them. About anything.
You don’t have the right to set any requirements, demands, or standards of your own.
You don’t have the right to impose any negative consequences for their abusive behaviour.
You don’t have the right to ever abandon them. Or even to have any restricted availability when they demand attention.

Naturally, those rules only apply to you, and not them.

Disrespect of consent applies to many things besides sex. That’s the problem with the “cup of tea” video, which I’ve seen before. I don’t believe for one second that that video (or similar approaches) will teach these people anything.

I have received severe disrespect of my right to say “no” to all of the following:

Being platonic “friends” with openly abusive individuals who contribute nothing but aggravation.
Buying into someone’s mindless grudge against a third party.
Handing over cash money, any time, any amount, for any purpose.
Allowing someone to live rent-free in my home.
Being people’s free, on-demand, personal limousine.
Alternately, being expected to accept “offers” of being given a ride home from a social situation, getting into a car with some creepy guy I don’t know.
Enabling and paying for other people’s drug habits. Including committing serious crimes.
Being guaranteed available any time they call and want attention or a favour.
Living in a geographic area that I don’t want to live in. Including being told that I was obligated to spent the rest of my life in an impoverished, small-minded small town in the middle of nowhere.
Moving to a “nice” low-crime neighbourhood that I couldn’t afford.
Having ongoing contact with my abusive mother. Including being told that I “have to” live in the same town as her, or even under the same roof. While also being bullied to go around lying about what a wonderful parent she was.
Quitting a job, merely because the other person wouldn’t be capable/willing to do it. Or otherwise behaving badly at a job (e.g. refusing to get work done), merely because the other person would do so.
Remaining stuck in a minimum wage, bottom-of-the-barrel job for the rest of my working life.
Being told how I can and cannot spend my money.
Disclosing private information, such as exact income and other financial details.
Disclosing my physical home address to people I just met.
Being treated like I should have dropped out of university, without finishing a degree, merely because the other person didn’t feel capable, and wouldn’t even attempt it.
Being told “you will” continue to attend a low-quality, unprofessional, abusive institution that I call Low Rent Polytechnic, at which I had already had a very negative experience (described in another of my answers). Including signing up for remedial courses that I didn’t need, wouldn’t benefit from, surrounded by morons, while running up a huge loan. Just because said polytechnic was desperate for students who were actually capable of passing academically. (I headed straight to a far better institution).
Being told that I didn’t have the right to resist (or even complain about) open, physically threatening sexual harassment, which occurred at the aforementioned polytechnic.
Being told that I “have to” own and watch a television, merely because somebody else can’t think of any other leisure activities.
Having an acquaintance dictate what kind of clothing I am allowed to wear.
Personal space invasions, including physical touching without my consent, by people I barely know.
Generally being married or partnered, including claims that I “have to”do so, even if it isn’t with the person disrespecting my consent.
Having children that I don’t want, and cannot afford to support.
Being told to completely remove myself from society, merely because some acquaintance has a massive envy problem.
Being told to kill myself, merely because some acquaintance has a massive envy problem. And that wasn’t just one person who did that.
Having an acquaintance dictate what kind of medical care I may access, involving my body and my money.

Numerous people seriously expected me to slavishly comply with those bizarre, abusive demands. I’ve had people make demands that would have obviously had disastrous consequences if I had obeyed, with zero chance of benefit to anyone. Things that weren’t at all compatible with real-world adult functioning. All the way to things that were physically impossible. I’ve had people make some of those demands in the first conversation upon meeting.

Some people lock onto a demand, and just keep repeating it over and over and over. With escalating condescension, indignation, and agitation. Thinking that, they will wear you down, and exhaust your supply of “no”, until just cave in to get the argument to stop. Some will directly tell you that they intend to relentlessly pester you on and on until you comply.

Disrespect of consent can extend to every area of life, where you are making your own choices. Many, many people have absolutely no limit to their senses of entitlement to make demands and coerce others.

It isn’t just one type of person, or one type of demand, or one type of context. It’s absolutely pervasive. And they will never, ever learn to respect your boundaries or consent, regardless of what you say or do. Which is the problem with the “cup of tea” video, and similar approaches.

Have you ever heard the two big rules for training a dog not to do some bad behaviour? You need to impose the punishment the first time, and every time. The same principle applies to most humans. If you ever cave into a coercive event (e.g. continuing to demand sex after you have said “no”), he will learn that coercion works. And he will continue, and will escalate.

By remaining in the relationship, and arguing, and fantasising about helping him to “understand consent”, you are failing to impose any real consequences, or enforce any real boundaries. The more crap you tolerate, the more crap you will receive. He interprets you staying and engaging his crap as confirming that you can’t ever leave. He interprets each argument as making progress towards his goal. Or as you failing to face the inevitability of doing what he demands. And he thinks that, it is just a matter of time before you cave in, and lose the will, or even the ability, to ever say “no” to him again.

Black-and-white thinkers require black-and-white solutions. The only workable solution is to just physically get away from the person. Refuse all further contact. Any communication will revolve around trying to get you involved again, so he can abuse you some more, and repeat his demands.

The best case scenario with dumping him is a sense of great relief, and the perspective to see how bad he is, and the empowerment of asserting your right to boundaries and consent. The worst case scenario with dumping him is that you will be single while looking for a replacement who respects you, and who is already a decent adult without needing to be taught.

The best case scenario with staying is more conflict, arguments, and disrespect, until you get so sick and tired that you then dump him. The worst case scenario with staying is a devastating act of violence which will seriously harm you for the rest of your life. Many, many women have been raped, beaten, and/or killed by guys with this attitude. And neither you nor he are special or exempt from that possibility.

Why do doctors wait until chronic medical conditions such as high blood pressure or blood sugar become acute enough to cause damage before they will begin treatment? Why not start treatment with lower dose medications before damage begins?

Answered Jan 7, 2019

There are two angles here. Which relate to things other than blood pressure and blood glucose.

First, some patients are actually over-paranoid about minor symptoms or indications on tests. And some of them use “Dr. Google” to encourage that paranoia.

Also, some patients are negligent, and have behaviours which cause/encourage their medical damage.

Second, there are doctors (with actual legit medical degrees) who are cavalier, and even incompetent, to the point of compromising patient safety/health/lifespan.

I have personally witnessed a situation where a very informed/knowledgeable patient faced a dismissive and ignorant doctor.

The patient tried to explain major issues in her medical history, and the doctor didn’t seem to comprehend. And also failed to write down basic things like medication use, while denying the patient’s concerns about side-effects. Which are actually mentioned in the information sheet included with the prescription pills. And which the patient had studied by reading legitimate scientific journal articles (because she is actually a scientist).

That doctor failed to comprehend the timeframe of the symptoms, and ordered tests, which the patient (who has a degree in a relevant field) knew were irrelevant.

A different, actually-relevant set of blood tests came back with alarming numbers (with the patient’s eyes bugging out as she read it). And that doctor dismissed it as, “Some people are out of range, everything is just fine for them”. Without mentioning that, only 2.5 percent of the population is in that group. And getting a creepy tone when the patient said that she would compare the recent readings with some previous ones.

And, speaking of creepy, that doctor got a creepy tone when the patient requested further tests for a viral disease which may have been sexually transmitted (although she was later cleared on that).

That patient was also bullied by a nurse at the same clinic, trying to convince her that she is in menopause, when she knows otherwise.

The patient was told that, her physical symptoms aren’t real.

She wasn’t trying to scam sympathy or pain meds. She was trying to stop vomiting.

That patient is now awaiting evaluation for a potentially life-threatening (and actually rather common) condition. And won’t be seeing that doctor again, unless necessary to pick up results from a referral (N.B. this is the New Zealand public heath system). Delayed diagnosis and treatment increases the danger of an emergency arising.

There is an enormous culture of condescension towards patients, by medical professionals. They assume that you couldn’t possibly know anything about how the human body is put together, or how it works. They assume that you don’t know your own medical history, or your risk factors, or your symptoms.

Some of them simply don’t listen when you try to give them important information.

Also regarding the NZ public heath system, we have waiting lists here. This became a political issue 10 or 15 years ago, with excessive time frames. The government solved that by kicking people off of waiting lists for examinations and procedures. Just to make the lists look shorter and more efficient.

They have actually told people that they aren’t sick enough, and to reapply when their problem becomes worse. Which for some, will inevitably happen, increasing the chance of complications, emergencies, and fatalities.