Overt Versus Covert

Short post today. I hope that my readers will really drive the discussion with this one.

I have been doing some thinking lately how the whole process of actively trying to “woo” someone. There are two main models which are proposed, one of them the more widely accepted model and the other more common around the manosphere. They are:

• Men are the pursuers and Women are the pursued
• Men display and Women choose

I would like to examine these two models, because I am wondering if they are necessarily mutually exclusive. One way of reconciling these two is the following:

Men Display –> Women Choose –> Men Pursue –> Women are Pursued

All of the potential models involve men starting the process. Not really a surprise, I guess. Now to get to the title of the post.

One way that I have been looking at this is that men generally are overt in their actions, and women are covert. For example, men display overtly- they are proactive in their masculine endeavors, for example. Or in their gaining of status/money. And of course, when it comes to actual pursuit, they are definitely overt.

On the other hand, women tend to be covert when they are pursued. They lead men on with IOIs and reciprocal behavior, much of it subtle. The interesting question then, is whether women are overt or covert when they “choose.” A covert approach would be to show subtle interest in a man, such as display IOIs or spend time near him. An overt approach though… I doubt it would look exactly like a man’s.  Probably much less subtle IOIs.

What I would like is my reader’s input. What do you think tends to happen? Which model? And is it usually men are overt, women covert? Or are women just as overt? And does it look different from how men act overtly? Please give your thoughts below. Feel free to throw personal stories and anecdotes around all you want.

 

 

Saturday Saints- #128

Today’s letter is the letter “T.” This gives us our saint, Saint Thorlak:

Saint Thorlak Thorhallsson (Old Norse: Þorlákr Þórhallsson; Icelandic: Þorlákur Þórhallsson; Latin: Thorlacus; 1133 – December 23, 1193), also spelled Thorlac, is the patron saint of Iceland. He was bishop of Skalholt from 1178 until his death. Thorlac’s relics were translated to the cathedral of Skálholt in 1198, not long after his successor as bishop, Páll Jónsson, announced at the Althing that vows could be made to Thorlac. His status as a saint did not receive official recognition from the Catholic Church until January 14, 1984, when John Paul II canonized him and declared him the patron saint of Iceland. His feast day is December 23. He is currently being considered as a potential patron saint of people with autism and autism spectrum disabilities by a grassroots movement called the Mission of Saint Thorlak.

(Gotta love that name, eh?)

More can be found out about him at his wiki, located here.

Random Musings and Links- #9

Its been a while since I’ve done one of these, so here goes…

A random thought I had recently: Are most “social niceties” something that women created just so that men could break them?

Scott over at American Dad wrote a post over at American Dad titled Christian MGTOW as Pauline Celibacy.  He asks:

As “game” supposedly has a Christian application, (within the context of honorable courtship leading to marriage) does also MGTOW?

I don’t know. I’m just asking. I just know that I have obligations as a husband and father that make a certain level of risk for the Kingdom unacceptable. I try, I really do. This very site is risky in light of what it could cost me if taken the wrong way. But are the MGTOWs the true warriors of the faith?

My own take is that it probably isn’t, at least when you look how how MGTOW is usually defined. As commenters over there pointed out, MGTOW means Men Going Their Own Way… and we as Christians are supposed to be going God’s way. MGTOW is a secular response to widespread problems with the marriage market. A Christian response is necessarily different. As others have pointed out before, Christian men are called to be patriarchs or monks (which is not the same thing as a hermit, despite moderns tending to think as much). We are called to actively serve God- whether by raising a family, ministering to those in need or devoting our lives to prayer (which is ultimately about praying for the sake of others).

Ace over at 80 Proof Oinomancy has an interesting new post about friendship and social media.  If I read him correctly, he is suggesting that people are using social media to try and keep friendships alive which rightly should be allowed to die. I suspect he is trying to point out that friendship always has a utilitarian component to it. By that I mean that when we have friend at some point in our life, they are our friends for (presumably) good reasons. And when those reasons are long gone, why exactly should we try to keep them our friends? Indeed, with those reasons gone, are they even friends any more? Food for thought.

Deep Strength wrote a post a few days back about the Questionable Strategy that woman employed. If you read through his post you will realize that she is on the wrong track, and so are a lot of other women.  Now there is the thing- I will defend such women… to a point. They have almost certainly been mislead their whole life about how to increase their changes of snagging a good man. Including and especially from those they trusted to help them. Where I won’t defend them is when they refuse to listen to reason. When they will refuse to change their approach and ignore the advice of those who are genuinely trying to help them (in an effective way). And a whole lot of people fall in that category, unfortunately.

Mrs. ktc linked to an interesting poll. Loyalty and obedience (but I repeat myself) go a long way in the eyes of men.

[If I can think of others to add, I will update this post and mention them here. My readers are of course encouraged to offer suggestions of their own if they read any good posts lately.]

Update 1: Another rather random idea that popped in my head:

A woman either looks up to the men in her life, or looks down upon them. There really isn’t any room for a middle ground.

The Courage to Empathize

Today’s post is something of a spur of the moment thing. It comes about as a result of two posts intersecting in my mind today. The first is “well, when I called her ‘evil’, she just laughed” over at 80 Proof Oinomancy. I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, as it is pithy, in keeping with Ace’s usual style. The most important parts are these:

See, the vast majority (I’d say ≥ 95%) of women that play “tough” are, at their core—

Terrified.

Odds are they had a very weak – if not completely absent – father figure.

This left them feeling twice as vulnerable as the average female.

Now, be sure to understand, dear reader, fear is a female’s default position.

coupled with:

So, am I saying all of those women are – at heart – just frightened, little girls?

(Permit me to be uncharacteristically clear, rather than my usually cryptic self.)

Yes.

That’s exactly what I’m saying.

Now, all of this I have heard and known before. Still, a refresher never hurts, especially when the timing matches up with something else you read. In this case another post.

The second post is one over at Scott’s blog, Ideals are never fully attainable.  The relevant part is this section at the end:

If may also be true that women do not naturally respond with graciousness at the sight of their husbands trying harder, this is also something that must be addressed. I don’t actually believe that women struggle with empathy. I do, however believe they tend to lack the courage and/or motivation to turn the data provided by empathic responses into actionable items. In other words, the kind of empathy that changes your life and the lives around you. This is what happens when you see something that is not right and then you make a series of decisions about what can be done, and then do them. But no one escapes the Lords wrath in the end when He will ask “why did you stubbornly wait to do the right thing?” and we respond:

 

“I was waiting for the other person to go first.”

Both of these posts together, or at least the ideas they presented, made something click in me. You see, I have a theory now why women seem to have trouble with empathy. This is something long discussed in the manosphere, and there are even some commenters who argue women are incapable of empathy. Of course, there are also those who argue women have no agency or are incapable of loyalty, etc.

As for myself, I think women are entirely capable of empathy. I have known some empathetic women. And history is filled with numerous examples of such women- indeed the general culture still clings to the notion that women are naturally empathetic. That had to come from somewhere. My suspicion is that it did in fact used to be the case, although in recent years that has changed.

So where am I going with all of this? Here goes:

I theorize that women are having difficulty in this age with empathy because they are insecure and afraid- and empathy requires courage to carry out.

Here are the individual arguments which lead to this conclusion:

Argument 1: Empathy requires courage-

To empathize with someone is to put yourself in their shoes. This requires that you both understand their position, and mentally assume it as well. That involves, by necessity, assuming a vulnerable state in order to feel what they feel. That requires courage because you will be experiencing- and confronting-  fears and insecurities you would otherwise not face.

Argument 2: Women’s default state is fear-

As Ace explains, fear is a female’s default state. This is difficult for men to internalize, because while we feel fear we don’t live it like a woman does. Consider their vulnerability and weakness compared to ours, and this becomes so much clearer. Not to mention test this argument against their actions and see how things start to make sense.

Argument 3: Women are more insecure than ever-

While there are exceptions, most women these days are profoundly insecure. It is no wonder why. Masculine men are increasingly scarce. They are cut off from the traditional sources of security and sense of belonging- families are small, separated and play little role in everyday life, a sense of greater community is non-existent, and they have increasingly been pushed into roles that are traditionally male (which under natural conditions would only occur in a state of social/community distress).

Argument 4: Insecurity undermines courage-

To be insecure and to be afraid are not necessarily the same, but both are closely aligned and both together interfere with courage. To feel fear, and to be afraid, are also not the same. It is natural to feel fear at various things. But to feel afraid is to let that fear take hold of you and guide you. Herein lies the problem- fear, when it guides an individual, interferes with our higher callings, such as empathy. I believe this is because being afraid is inherently emotional, and thus tied to our bodies and their Appetites, while being empathetic is a matter of the soul and the Reason/Will. Being afraid is an instance of the body suborning the soul, and thus matters of the soul, such as empathy, are tossed aside.

Argument 5- Notable empathetic women felt a sense of peace-

If you look back in history at some of the female saints noted for being empathetic, there was a profound sense of peace in their lives. They were unafraid- often despite great and obvious perils to their well-being. I believe this was a product of two functions. The first and most important was the peace that their Faith gave to them- a peace given not as the world gives it. The second reason was that the culture of the time didn’t encourage or stimulate female insecurity like ours does now. Thus, it was easier for them to overcome and rise above that default state of fear.

---

When you take these different arguments and combine them, the natural conclusion is that women have trouble with empathy because they are profoundly insecure and afraid. Until those insecurities are resolved, and until they are no longer afraid (or are at least able to overcome their fears), they will lack the means to show true empathy.

In the context of Scott’s post previously  mentioned, you can see the problem with the Promise Keeper’s movement. The men were doubling down on actions which made their wives even more insecure. Which only increased the tendency of those women to act out in a negative manner. Which of course made the men feel bad, and believe they were doing something wrong. So they doubled down again on the foolishness, with even more negativity resulting. It is a vicious cycle which cannot end well.

 

Assistance Sought: Captain and First Officer Tales

I have strong suspicion that many of my readers are of a… shall we say… bookish nature. As in, they are major nerds. So I am counting on that nerd power to help me out.

What I am looking for is instances in Star Trek of good Captain and First Officer interactions. This would include instances where they operated well together, as well as instances where conflict was handled. In fact the latter would be especially nice.

I am hoping that my readers will know of specific episodes where these instances take place. At the moment I don’t quite have the time to watch them all to find out on my own.

*Other instances of good Captain and First Officer interactions outside of Star Trek would also be ok too.

Knowing And Knowing

There is a different a difference between knowing something… and knowing something.

This is the difference between knowledge gained in the academic sense- that of a purely intellectual nature- and that knowledge which is reflexive and intuitive.

After my initial mental roadblocks, the continuing issue with “Red Pill” affairs for me has been the differences between those two forms of knowledge. I would like to think that I am pretty good at that first level of understanding. I am quite intelligent, and grasping interconnected concepts such as are discussed in these parts suits me well. On the other hand, I still have issues with knowing things on an intuitive or reflexive level. I find this to be a lot harder for me.

Is it the same for my readers? Or is this just a personality thing?

My suspicion is that intuitive knowledge is more difficult to acquire because it requires actual experience. Military training tries to create as much reflexive knowledge as possible through intense training. The goal is to make training as realistic as possible, so as to get a soldier to act the same way in the field. In terms of a reflexive understanding of women, I don’t think anything but actual experience interacting with them will do. From my understanding PUA training courses often involve a lot of work out in the field interacting with real women. This would tend to support the notion that nothing beats experience.

I also suspect that constant practice is important as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if the intuition aspect of this knowledge can fade over time, especially if a man’s original upbringing was very “Blue Pill.” In that case it isn’t necessarily like riding a bike- it all won’t come back to you right away. In bodybuilding you have to work to keep fit, you slack off and the muscle starts to atrophy. The same principle might apply here as well. I’m curious if my readers have their won thoughts on that.

And in case folks wonder why this post, well, let us just say that I flubbed something recently [at least, I’m 95% sure I did]. Looking back I was able to use that intellectual knowledge to see where I screwed up. At the time though I was thrown, and it took me too long to recover. I am a quick thinker, but not that quick.

Update: Zippy has a great explanation of knowledge/competence:

Unconscious incompetence:
You don’t even know that you don’t know how.

Conscious incompetence:
You know that you don’t know how.

Conscious competence:
You know how, but you have to think about it as you do it.

Unconscious competence:
You know how and don’t have to think about it.

Saturday Saints- #127

Our letter for today is S. Given the Paschal season, our saint for today is Saint Salome:

Salome (Hebrew: שלומית, Shelomit), was a follower of Jesus who appears briefly in the canonical gospels and in more detail in apocryphal writings. She is sometimes identified as the wife of Zebedee, the mother of James and John, two of the Apostles of Jesus, and sometimes also as the cousin of Mary, mother of Jesus. In Roman Catholic tradition Salome is counted as one of the Three Marys.

More can be found out about her at her wiki, located here.

Market Analysis: Collective Bargaining

This post is a continuation of my Market Analysis series, which began in my post Market Watch. In today’s post I want to examine and discuss in greater detail this observation that I made:

Too many people are doing too little to make marriage happen these days. Marriage needs to be a matter for the whole community.

I have two general areas I want to examine here. The first to look at is the community angle. The second is about making marriage happen.

Starting with community, there is a saying about how “it takes a village” which I think is appropriate here.

Marriage is a communal effort. Everyone in the community is involved in ensuring that it works. When the community isn’t supportive of marriage in general, and marriages in particular, then you get what we have today: tons of divorces and a crashing marriage rate.

Looking back at my quote, I had it wrong. I shouldn’t have said “Marriage needs to be a matter for the whole community,” but instead should have said “Marriage is a matter for the whole community.” Whatever we say or think about it, that simple fact cannot be changed any more than human nature can be changed. We are social beings, and our social environment impacts all of our relationships.

The marriage market cannot be healthy unless the community is supportive of it. When that support is withdrawn, then our baser natures will assert themselves. Thus we end up with the sexual marketplace instead. I suppose, to continue with market metaphors, that the marriage market can be described as a fairly regulated market which, absent those regulations, will quickly turn into a real mess.

Let’s expand that first sentence somewhat. What does “make marriage happen” actually mean? I can think of a number of things:

• Encourage young people to marry verbally- that is, talk to them and spur them towards marriage if that is their calling.
• Publicly talk about the benefits of marriage and how wonderful it is or can be, especially around young people.
• Stop badmouthing marriage- eliminate the griping and negative attitude that is so often expressed. [At the same time efforts need to be made to address the source of these woes. But keep it below the radar]
• Provide financial support and incentives to young people to marry.
• Discourage and admonish against individualist attitudes which lead young people away from marriage (careerism, travelism, etc.)
• Rebuke and punish those who break up marriages or treat them flippantly.
• Reassure young people that the community will have their back during rough spots in the marriage.
• Promote life and the unique blessing that is children.

Those are just a few ideas I have come up with while thinking about it. I invite my readers to offer their thoughts on the subject. This post is less developed because I am hoping many of you can propel the discussion forward, hopefully towards directions I haven’t thought of.

Market Analysis: Penny Stocks

This post is a continuation of my Market Analysis series, which began with my post Market Watch. Today I want to cover a topic which was brought up by Elspeth in a couple of comments. Here is the first:

I’m just done, done, done, with pretending that Christ cannot change people deep down and for real. Suppose Paul had been deemed of no earthly use to the Church because of his previous persecution of it.

Which is followed by this:

None of that changes my original assertion that people can and do have sincere changes of heart, and that any person’s decision to reject a certain group of people as mates is fine but let’s kill the “even real and true Christians are damaged beyond any kind of repair as potential mates”.

The issue here is whether some people are so “damaged” that there is no realistic hope of recovery, and thus, eventual marriageability. In the past the word “ruined” might have been used of such cases- as in, ruined for marriage.

First to define “damage” in this context.  A simple explanation would be strains or burdens on someone’s physical/mental/emotional well-being which impair his or her ability to have a successful/stable marriage. [If someone has thoughts on a better explanation please mention below.] I mention all of these because they can and do all affect one’s capacity to be a good spouse.

It is also worth mentioning that these factors- these burdens- are not necessarily the fault of the person in question. Some are- the products of sin, for example. But others might simply be the product of nature (think certain illnesses) or the willful actions of others (the trauma created by abuse, for example).

The way I see it, what we are talking about here is a spectrum of “damage.” Everyone has at least some damage- small things which would get in the way of their being a good husband or wife. However, there is a spread which takes place. Some people have relatively little damage (a few bad habits), and others have a huge amount of damage (think of some stories from the ‘sphere). Now, somewhere on this spectrum is a point where someone is too damaged to be considered marriageable. That is, they are too burdened, as they are at that time, to make a good spouse. [I suspect this point is not fixed- it is heavily influenced by culture and the overall environment- thoughts for another post.]

Now all of this needs to take into account that where people fall in this spectrum changes over time. Sometimes damage is “healed.” Sometimes it gets worse or new damage takes place. So the real question is whether some damage cannot “heal” or get better.

Well, having thought it over some, I think there are some people who are beyond simply “damaged.” These people are broken. I suspect most of my readers know people like this. People who have experienced terrible trauma and struggle with it daily. They are enduring burdens which go beyond the need for ordinary healing- they need out and out miracles. And not the everyday miracles we often overlook- I mean the the kind which are unmistakable.

Now, these miracles do happen. Perhaps my readers know of some instances, either with people they know or have heard of through the grapevine. But all the same, without such miracles those people would not have improved.  Thankfully they are not common. But they do exist.

At the same time, all of this has gotten me thinking about how exactly people “heal.” And how Christian transformations work. I know they work- I have seen them happen first hand. But I have been wondering about the process. Since Elspeth mentioned St. Paul, I think this seems appropriate to ponder:

I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. ² I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. ³ And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— ⁴ and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. ⁵ On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. ⁶ Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. ⁷ And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. ⁸ Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; ⁹ but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. ¹⁰ For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

(2 Corinthians 12:1-10)

Part of me wonders if the transformation is not always about healing. That is, it isn’t about removing the harm or burden. Instead, it is about lending strength to the person in question such that they are able to carry on despite the burden. If so, this is important to understand because there is a marked difference in how they operate.

If the burden is gone, then it should hopefully not come back to haunt someone in the future. But if the burden remains and is covered by grace, then a lapse in faith by the person means that it comes out full force again.

Perhaps my readers have some thoughts on this they would like to share. I am curious to hear what you folks have to say.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #130

Today is Thomas Sunday. So named because of the following passage from the Gospel of John:

²⁴ Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵ So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.”

²⁶ Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” ²⁷ Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” ²⁸ Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” ²⁹ Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

(John 20: 24-29)

Here is what St. John Chrysostom had to say about this particular passage:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said, Except I shall see in His hands —I will not believe.

1. As to believe carelessly and in a random way, comes of an over-easy temper; so to be beyond measure curious and meddlesome, marks a most gross understanding. On this account Thomas is held to blame. For he believed not the Apostles when they said, We have seen the Lord; not so much mistrusting them, as deeming the thing to be impossible, that is to say, the resurrection from the dead. Since he says not, I do not believe you, but, Except I put my hand— I do not believe. But how was it, that when all were collected together, he alone was absent? Probably after the dispersion which had lately taken place, he had not returned even then. But do thou, when you see the unbelief of the disciple, consider the lovingkindness of the Lord, how for the sake of a single soul He showed Himself with His wounds, and comes in order to save even the one, though he was grosser than the rest; on which account indeed he sought proof from the grossest of the senses, and would not even trust his eyes. For he said not, Except I see, but, Except I handle, he says, lest what he saw might somehow be an apparition. Yet the disciples who told him these things, were at the time worthy of credit, and so was He that promised; yet, since he desired more, Christ did not deprive him even of this.

And why does He not appear to him straightway, instead of after eight days? John 20:26 In order that being in the mean time continually instructed by the disciples, and hearing the same thing, he might be inflamed to more eager desire, and be more ready to believe for the future. But whence knew he that His side had been opened? From having heard it from the disciples. How then did he believe partly, and partly not believe? Because this thing was very strange and wonderful. But observe, I pray you, the truthfulness of the disciples, how they hide no faults, either their own or others’, but record them with great veracity.

Jesus again presents himself to them, and waits not to be requested by Thomas, nor to hear any such thing, but before he had spoken, Himself prevented him, and fulfilled his desire; showing that even when he spoke those words to the disciples, He was present. For He used the same words, and in a manner conveying a sharp rebuke, and instruction for the future. For having said,

Reach hither your finger, and behold My hands; and reach hither your hand, and thrust it into My side; He added,

And be not faithless, but believing.

Do you see that his doubt proceeded from unbelief? But it was before he had received the Spirit; after that, it was no longer so, but, for the future, they were perfected.

And not in this way only did Jesus rebuke him, but also by what follows; for when he, being fully satisfied, breathed again, and cried aloud,

My Lord, and my God, He says,

Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.

For this is of faith, to receive things not seen; since, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Hebrews 11:1 And here He pronounces blessed not the disciples only, but those also who after them should believe. Yet, says some one, the disciples saw and believed. Yes, but they sought nothing of the kind, but from the proof of the napkins, they straightway received the word concerning the Resurrection, and before they saw the body, exhibited all faith. When therefore any one in the present day say, I would that I had lived in those times, and had seen Christ working miracles, let them reflect, that, Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.

It is worth enquiring, how an incorruptible body showed the prints of the nails, and was tangible by a mortal hand. But be not thou disturbed; what took place was a matter of condescension. For that which was so subtle and light as to enter in when the doors were shut, was free from all density ; but this marvel was shown, that the Resurrection might be believed, and that men might know that it was the Crucified One Himself, and that another rose not in His stead. On this account He arose bearing the signs of the Cross, and on this account He eats. At least the Apostles everywhere made this a sign of the Resurrection, saying, We, who ate and drank with Him.Acts 10:41 As therefore when we see Him walking on the waves before the Crucifixion, we do not say, that that body is of a different nature, but of our own; so after the Resurrection, when we see Him with the prints of the nails, we will no more say, that he is therefore corruptible. For He exhibited these appearances on account of the disciple.

(Source)

I end the post with this passage from Ecclesiastes, along with some thoughts:

¹² I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. ¹³ And I applied my mind to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven; it is an unhappy business that God has given to the sons of men to be busy with. ¹⁴ I have seen everything that is done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

¹⁵ What is crooked cannot be made straight,
    and what is lacking cannot be numbered.

¹⁶ I said to myself, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” ¹⁷ And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

¹⁸ For in much wisdom is much vexation,
    and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

(Ecclesiastes 1: 12-18)

Reading this passage, the truth of it leapt off the page. There are plenty of times in my life when I wish I wasn’t nearly so smart as I am. I imagine that stupidity would make me much happier with my life. I would be blind to most of what was going on around me, and accordingly would be not nearly as troubled as I am. Anyone else ever have similar thoughts?