Now it is of course a chicken egg thing. If you became that way, because others did not really care about you, .. then it might not be "just", but it still does not change the outcome. You experienced toxic and now you spread toxic.
Money does not change that and there is no easy solution. It would require a inner change in you to adopt to your surroundings, and/or a change of the surroundings, if they are bad to you, until you are at a place where you want to be, with people you like and who like you.
Seriously, I know people in that place and they did see a therapeut for some years and then got seriously depressed, after they realized, that they were just a client to the person who they thought, they had a deep connection with, who in reality, also did not like them and just did their job for money.
Now sure, a good therapeut can help certain people, but I don't know the poster, so I would not dare to know the "correct" answer for him and if it is really a therapist. Might help, might also kill him. Hyperbole? Well, I wish. But a close family member got along (miserable) on his own, then went with the pressure to get "professional" help and now he is dead.
Oh and he is not the person from the first example, this person is probably still alive, but that can change any day. So I have some reason to not see therapists as the magic solution.
A good therapist can be very helpful in helping you unpack why and how you think about things, and how you might change both for the better. That can be a valuable professional service. Especially for people who might otherwise have few or no relationships where they can talk about those things.
It is tragic that your family member did not get enough out of therapy, or perhaps was actively harmed by it. But I think therapy has helped enough people that I find it strange to blanket recommend against it.
Perhaps we can at least agree that short-scale (a few months, not years), deliberate therapy has a place?
Where did I do that? I wrote:
"Now sure, a good therapeut can help certain people, but I don't know the poster, so I would not dare to know the "correct" answer for him and if it is really a therapist. "
"So I have some reason to not see therapists as the magic solution."
Psychoanalytical therapy definitely has its place. Also for years, if necessary, I never advised against that per se. I just blanket recommend against the "just go see a therapist" solution, as it really depends on the therapists and the person and the situation.
Edit: maybe to elaborate a bit more: the op said he views the world as hostile. So he does not trust people. So why would he trust "a therapist"? And if he finally do seek one and that one is a bad one .. or even a really bad one who tells his friends in the bar at night about his nutcases and they all laugh and the op finds out, because he is paranoid and has bugged his therapists mobile or have him followed (he has money) ... then the consequences can be fatal. As then he has proof, "yes, the world is indeed hostile to me"
I think that you understand subjectivity of that perception. World is not hostile, just indifferent and doing its own thing regardless of your existance or needs. You just gotta become fine with that and your outlook on life will improve.
> and easily get a feeling that people do not like me.
Some don't like you. Some feel your mistrust towards them. Some empathize with you and in your company begin to see world as more hostile to them and they don't like it. When you feel safer in the world your relationships will improve.
I have the exact same vision as you: I can’t work in a company because I feel directly hated by the diversity programs (funnily enough, I hire women). Success and money is not happiness and life is... very ironic sometimes.
Thank you for sharing, I don't think you troll as some of my younger employees shared the same feeling of disenfranchisment in their 1:1's.
Even if the view of being othered by diversity programs etc. is a little bit skewed, it's definitely having an impact in their psychology, as it's an easy scapegoat for why a raise was not given, a talk got rejected, etc. etc.
The actual cases numbers of these things happening must be much much smaller, but that's beside the point, as it's the psychological aspect that's ruining their perception of themselves and what society expects from them.
This at some times more than others seems like enough, if no one else takes responsibility. We are hard wired to seek meaning and protect the will.
Where a young man could once pack his bags and leave on a grand adventure and start a new life where noone knew him are long gone. He could join the military or sail the seas and see the world and noone cared where he came from and there was no way to know either. But that time is past.
I'm not sure about this.
The problems are with your own state of mind. They are issues you haven't adequately addressed. And no amount of running will get them to 'go away'.
I know, cause I had similar, and had to confront them head on. And, I was successful.
Sure, return once you've got a new habit/routine in place and can confidently confront the old.
To bring the point home, unrealistic hopefulness or hopelessness sets a person up for failure. Whether they internalize any resulting failures into bitter anomie and desire for omni/suicide depends on an individual's coping skills, ideology and social support (or lack of each thereof). Combine a lack of hope, opportunities and many negative experiences leads to angry people who take their pain and loneliness, and wish to lash out.
I mean I haven't watched Endgame yet because my family is still catching up but I've had all of the major plot points already spoiled thanks to my Reddit addiction. That kinda sucks.
A woman facing the same pressures is plenty capable of "burning down villages to feel their warmth" too. Maybe a few percent less? Who cares?
"We act this way because our ancestors were hunted by sabre-toothed tigers" might sound deep, but what if the sabre-toothed tigers are still around? If so, then maybe it's better to do something about the sabre-toothed tigers, than to expect people to change their behaviour.
It’s acutally surprisingly obvious given the knowledge that it’s not the norm for men to have children, in evolutionary terms. So obvious it’s weird that there isn’t more focus on avoiding those outcomes in society.
Maybe it’s a leftover from agricultural society, where the institution of marriage reduced the tendency. I don’t prefer the strict marriage and fidelity norms of the past, but they certainly had a stabilizing effect. We don’t have a similarly effective stabilizer on the horizon.
All it takes is a look at those OkCupid studies for rating distributions to see how much larger the difference is between success and failure for men.
This problem is not exclusive to men, but affects more men.
Women more often have an expectation of mating upwards, and high status women have a similar problem of finding themselves excluded.
1. High status men have access to a lot of attractive women. With the way men's biology is wired, it wouldn't be surprising that they would choose an attractive, relatively lower status woman over a highly accomplished but not that attractive one.
2. High status men often have stressful work lives. They would probably prefer a partner that makes them feel relaxed at home. High status women usually have careers themselves so it would be difficult to provide this need.
For that matter, you don't have to be with anybody at all, which may be why you see women rather be alone than follow parent's suggestion!
So you'd expect anyone to get violent when they are starving or homeless, but only men to get violent if they don't see themselves getting a sex-partner in their future.
Also through large parts of human history females were treated as chattel and weren't subjected to the same pressures as males.
Modern sensibilities cannot accept this method of increasing productivity.
It certainly impugns the societal value of "productivity".
> If men were natural-born killers, hardwired by biology and destiny to take life, then there would be no need for patriarchal socialization to turn them into killers. > In patriarchal culture males are not allowed simply to be who they are and to glory in their unique identity. Their value is always determined by what they do. In an antipatriarchal culture males do not have to prove their value and worth.
— bell hooks
You just have to go back to WWII (if that!) to find obvious examples of this. Killers such as Richard Winters and Ronald Speirs are celebrated in history and fiction even today, 70 years later.
And convicted (male) mass-murderers have a tendency to receive an unexpected amount of attention from certain women, so even from that perspective this seems like an understandable evolutionary adaption.
Certainly not morally defensible, but nature doesn’t give a shit. It’s horrifying, but not incomprehensible.
And yes, in societies that reward cruelty and killing, cruelty will be high and so will killings.
Convicted male mass-murderers and soldiers are not really comparable. Convicted male mass murderers were not all that succesfull in having and keeping girlfriends until caught and locked. Just about only having a lot of children were the ones that run cult too.
Especially war killers you mention tend to typically be in group that reward killing and peer pressure each other into it.