Does "tough love" motivation work on you?

[squark]

I don't think type is the only factor determining whether this works on someone or not.

It was a half-joke bc so many gammas said it was motivating and the clip is basically Te+Se, but yes, there are certainly more factors involved. I added that disclaimer at the end bc I figured people might take it overly seriously and start arguing types.

[Exodus]

Real tough love is when you push someone to do what they have to do, but aren't doing due to laziness or self-doubt or denying reality or whatever. It means thinking better of someone than they think of themselves, instead of humiliating them and treating them like crap.

[ruined]

tough love has always worked for me but at the same time, i lack a lot of it, my mom is caregiving and i don't have a father and no other family gives a shit about me so my only sources of motivation is really myself which is impossible to find and my mom who only reinforces what keeps me behind, she has no foresight, no understanding of the time that is now and how things have changed, i.e teenagers aren't the same as they were in the 70s lol, new things matter, there's a hierarchy and you gotta play by the rules

[FDG]

It was a half-joke bc so many gammas said it was motivating and the clip is basically Te+Se, but yes, there are certainly more factors involved. I added that disclaimer at the end bc I figured people might take it overly seriously and start arguing types.

I have a hard time noticing the Te in that type of speech.

The CEO of the company I work for is a LIE-Te and his "motivating" speeches have more data and are more factual, I find this approach convincing, whereas in the video I see a lot of emotional pressure.

I have the impression Se doms are more likely to give these kind of speeches.

[FDG]

Seriously though, these “bitchy” people are the ones you can typically get the most value and resources from because you can leverage their bad karma guilt lol. If you don’t crack under their pressure, they’ll basically give you their inheritance and stuff because they’re obliged to afterwards if they see you’ve put a decent amount of effort in.

Yeah, I noticed this with a SEE-Se-E8 boss. I'm not sure what's the point of this approach? I don't think it's especially healthy if you want to promote a performance-based stable organization it creates more of a "posse" mentality.

[squark]

I have a hard time noticing the Te in that type of speech.

The CEO of the company I work for is a LIE-Te and his "motivating" speeches have more data and are more factual, I find this approach convincing, whereas in the video I see a lot of emotional pressure.

I have the impression Se doms are more likely to give these kind of speeches.

Te in the "let's cut the fat, and get the best performance" kind of thing. What you're doing isn't working, so let's find what does. The insults and so on are something else imo.

I've never had a boss of any type try the put-down and insult kind of approach - it's demeaning and not to sound conceited, but I'm better than that and don't need to put up with that kind of thing. And as an aside, the Te-lead bosses I've had in real life have actually been some of the best and most fair, and I did respect them. On the other hand, this . . . meh, no.

It makes me think of chickens. Some dogs got into my chickens and I only had 2 of the old crew left, and introduced a new group to the old two. One was clearly the lead chicken, everyone gave her space, respected her, and she didn't have to do anything. Mostly she left everyone alone unless they were clearly out of line or challenging her. The other. . . wanted to be boss, and was instead just a bully. She constantly chased the other birds around, not leaving them alone, trying to force respect out of them. They were afraid of her, sure, but she was no leader. Nobody would follow her. And this clip makes me think of that - you're all fired and worthless (bullying behavior) earn your jobs back because you're not as good as me (I demand respect) . . . and well I'm not giving anyone like that respect. Just looks like that pathetic chicken to me.

[Animal]

IME, "tough love" only really works for people whose egos have been annihilated and subsumed by their super-ego. (Talking Freud here, not Socionics.) That is, people who have bought heavily into the "tyranny of shoulds", unquestioningly kowtowing to socially-sanctioned imperatives or goalposts, possibly because their own sense of personal agency or values have been ignored/starved of acknowledgment, or brutalized or blackmailed out of them. This explains why a lot of young men with absent or distant father figures tend to latch onto hectoring, prescriptive father figures like Jordan Peterson: the super-ego's role is to discipline one to the demands of the external world in order to meet survival needs. If your father (or society, in loco parentis) is absent or withholding of approval or love, your super-ego will go haywire trying to find the appropriate hoops to jump through in order to fill that deficit of love in your life: it will latch onto what it thinks you need to be in order to gain approval (of your father, of others whom you've projected your father's disapproval onto, etc.). As a result, they become rather submissive to society's definitions of success, with little connection to their own inner values, wants, desires, and they alienate or try to brutalize (or seek out others who will brutalize) their id impulses out of them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the true self will always put up resistance, and so symptoms like anxiety, procrastination, depression, shiftlessness, confusion, etc. show up... which just perpetuates another cycle of super-ego brutalization.

You only assent to criticism you, on some level, agree with. Otherwise, resentment erupts, and your id and ego are riled into asserting themselves. People with a healthy relationship to their super-ego (understanding the role of social mores, but also being grounded in a sense of one's own impulses and needs) don't tend to need someone to berate them into doing something: if they actually want to do it, they do it; if they don't, then being berated is not going to convince them they want to do it.

[sbbds]

IME, "tough love" only really works for people whose egos have been annihilated and subsumed by their super-ego. (Talking Freud here, not Socionics.) That is, people who have bought heavily into the "tyranny of shoulds", unquestioningly kowtowing to socially-sanctioned imperatives or goalposts, possibly because their own sense of personal agency or values have been ignored/starved of acknowledgment, or brutalized or blackmailed out of them. This explains why a lot of young men with absent or distant father figures tend to latch onto hectoring, prescriptive father figures like Jordan Peterson: the super-ego's role is to discipline one to the demands of the external world in order to meet survival needs. If your father (or society, in loco parentis) is absent or withholding of approval or love, your super-ego will go haywire trying to find the appropriate hoops to jump through in order to fill that deficit of love in your life: it will latch onto what it thinks you need to be in order to gain approval (of your father, of others whom you've projected your father's disapproval onto, etc.). As a result, they become rather submissive to society's definitions of success, with little connection to their own inner values, wants, desires, and they alienate or try to brutalize (or seek out others who will brutalize) their id impulses out of them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the true self will always put up resistance, and so symptoms like anxiety, procrastination, depression, shiftlessness, confusion, etc. show up... which just perpetuates another cycle of super-ego brutalization.

You only assent to criticism you, on some level, agree with. Otherwise, resentment erupts, and your id and ego are riled into asserting themselves. People with a healthy relationship to their super-ego (understanding the role of social mores, but also being grounded in a sense of one's own impulses and needs) don't tend to need someone to berate them into doing something: if they actually want to do it, they do it; if they don't, then being berated is not going to convince them they want to do it.

What does your experience consist of? I’m sorry but I find this psychoanalysis to be quite a stretch and really quite silly.

It reads as a long-winded rationalization of wanting to preserve the belief of “lmao, I am so unassailable compared to others”.

[sbbds]

I have a hard time noticing the Te in that type of speech.

The CEO of the company I work for is a LIE-Te and his "motivating" speeches have more data and are more factual, I find this approach convincing, whereas in the video I see a lot of emotional pressure.

I have the impression Se doms are more likely to give these kind of speeches.

Yeah, I noticed this with a SEE-Se-E8 boss. I'm not sure what's the point of this approach? I don't think it's especially healthy if you want to promote a performance-based stable organization it creates more of a "posse" mentality.

Granted, if you had an aggressive boss like that in an irl situation with a big team, there’s a high chance they would be batshit.

I think this approach mainly only works in reality if it’s direct one-on-one mentorship. Basically people who are competent enough to survive through it will feel the seriousness of it and significance. Those who aren’t will at the very least be motivated out of stagnancy, by sheer force if nothing else.

It’s funny, I didn’t see much convincing emotional pressure when I watched the video. I saw the guy as trying to be strict, but also being rather impersonal and deadpan. It’s impossible he seriously thinks they’re all ******s, etc lol.

[sbbds]

I've never had a boss of any type try the put-down and insult kind of approach

...

Why even comment if you have no actual experience?

[idontgiveaf]

No one tough love me

I tough love you

[squark]

...

Why even comment if you have no actual experience?

It's generally not the battered wife or abused child who sees how fucked up the situation they're in is - it usually takes someone outside that situation to see more clearly. And in this case, you're the abused child.

[sbbds]

It's generally not the battered wife or abused child who sees how fucked up the situation they're in is - it usually takes someone outside that situation to see more clearly. And in this case, you're the abused child.

You’re answering a question purely hypothetically then, which is meaningless.

If you’ve experienced actual abuse, you have a better chance of differentiating real abuse from non abuse. Your perspective being true means that victims of abuse will always be victims trapped in the same abuse mentality. That’s a pretty unfortunate, and also ironically, almost abusively anti-humanistic way of thinking of the world.

[Animal]

What does your experience consist of? I’m sorry but I find this psychoanalysis to be quite a stretch and really quite silly.

It reads as a long-winded rationalization of wanting to preserve the belief of “lmao, I am so unassailable compared to others”.

That was my own firsthand experience, based on actually experiencing toxic situations and years of therapy. I can see how it might come across as haughty armchair analysis, but it wasn't meant to be. I've had people try to use "tough love" on me, including my own parents, an academic counselor, and two bosses. In each case, my experience was that something in me (the pat of me that wanted to be acceptable to society) would acquiesce to the criticism, and immediately try to "get me shit together." But inevitably, later on down the timeline, I'd realize that it had caused me to alienate quieter parts of me that needed to be listened to. I've realize that, if I'm not doing something, there's a reason for me not doing it: not an excuse or justification or rationalization for inaction, but rather a recognition that inaction is almost always a symptom of some inner conflict. The answer, in the end, was not for the part that wanted action or inaction to "win" the conflict, but usually some form of action that stood completely out of the perspectives of the warring parts. And when I allied with the imperatives thrown at me by others, I was betraying the part of me that was on the resistant side of that conflict; and when I allied with the nonactive parts of me, I was betraying parts of me that wanted engagement with the world. Both parts reflect vital needs, but neither had the full picture.

I've learned to value those resistant parts as protectors: learning to listen to their more quiet (though sometimes inconvenient and socially-disapproved-of) role in my life: they've helped me define my values, my own feelings, my own direction in life independent from other people's expectations. Learning to listen to the inconvenient parts of me has helped me find true agency in the last few years, which is why I don't respect "tough love" anymore because it often bulldozes over the quieter and subtler work of truly getting to know what's ticking inside.

Psychoanalysis isn't really popular anymore, but most people who bash it haven't actually read much of the good stuff (I like early Freud, Harry Stack Sullivan, Klein, Winnicott, Alan Schore, Diana Fosha, Adam Phillips). I think they have something important to say about human nature, even if they're just metaphors and heuristics. Understanding human irrationality and subjectivity from the inside-out is important, especially since we've become so bent on positivist narratives of the self, telling us who we are from the outside-in. We lose a sense of what life actually is like for us from the inside, which is painful.

[sbbds]

That was my own firsthand experience, based on actually experiencing toxic situations and years of therapy. I can see how it might come across as haughty armchair analysis, but it wasn't meant to be. I've had people try to use "tough love" on me, including my own parents, an academic counselor, and two bosses. In each case, my experience was that something in me (the pat of me that wanted to be acceptable to society) would acquiesce to the criticism, and immediately try to "get me shit together." But inevitably, later on down the timeline, I'd realize that it had caused me to alienate quieter parts of me that needed to be listened to. I've realize that, if I'm not doing something, there's a reason for me not doing it: not an excuse or justification or rationalization for inaction, but rather a recognition that inaction is almost always a symptom of some inner conflict. The answer, in the end, was not for the part that wanted action or inaction to "win" the conflict, but usually some form of action that stood completely out of the perspectives of the warring parts. And when I allied with the imperatives thrown at me by others, I was betraying the part of me that was on the resistant side of that conflict; and when I allied with the nonactive parts of me, I was betraying parts of me that wanted engagement with the world. Both parts reflect vital needs, but neither had the full picture.

I've learned to value those resistant parts as protectors: learning to listen to their more quiet (though sometimes inconvenient and socially-disapproved-of) role in my life: they've helped me define my values, my own feelings, my own direction in life independent from other people's expectations. Learning to listen to the inconvenient parts of me has helped me find true agency in the last few years, which is why I don't respect "tough love" anymore because it often bulldozes over the quieter and subtler work of truly getting to know what's ticking inside.

Psychoanalysis isn't really popular anymore, but most people who bash it haven't actually read much of the good stuff (I like early Freud, Harry Stack Sullivan, Klein, Winnicott, Alan Schore, Diana Fosha, Adam Phillips). I think they have something important to say about human nature, even if they're just metaphors and heuristics. Understanding human irrationality and subjectivity from the inside-out is important, especially since we've become so bent on positivist narratives of the self, telling us who we are from the outside-in. We lose a sense of what life actually is like for us from the inside, which is painful.

Thanks for sharing, but the problem I had with your OP was that you (perhaps inadvertently) cast other people going through those dynamics as being victims like how you apparently saw yourself, which is demeaning. Yet you didn’t reveal that you were a victim yourself in that post, which is shady.

Also you could consider that you simply don’t need the tough love anymore as a symptom of evolving away from it, not that it’s useless in itself or was always useless for you. Or perhaps just that it’s just yourself who was like this. I asked you for your experience, and you only talked about yourself. You spoke as if for everybody in your OP.

[Animal]

Thanks for sharing, but the problem I had with your OP was that you (perhaps inadvertently) cast other people going through those dynamics as being victims like how you apparently saw yourself, which is demeaning. Yet you didn’t reveal that you were a victim yourself in that post, which is shady.

Also you could consider that you simply don’t need the tough love anymore as a symptom of evolving away from it, not that it’s useless in itself or was always useless for you.

I think that's a fair criticism of that post. I think I've probably been reading too much psychoanalysis, which has a tendency to pathologize people. That said, it's hard for me to think of a situation in which tough love would be the best option compared to something subtler and more respectful of people's deeper motivations (and anti-motivations). People have reasons for being the way they are and doing the things they do, even if it's seemingly self-destructive. (Some of the things I've done in the past were self-destructive, and people tried to tell me that in a tough love kind of way. I appreciated that they cared and were concerned for me, and that helped me a bit. But, I think, people need to be given time and space to listen to themselves for the resulting behavior changes to be more than just going-through-the-motions of social compliance or shame/guilt.) The "love" part of tough love is important, and is lacking in many people's execution of tough love. A lot of people who preach "tough love" are just trying to coerce people into their own value system. But I can see how tough love, coming from someone who really loves you or cares about your welfare, might register and help mobilize a healthy part of the self. Without that crucial component, hough, it's very easy to turn into self-punishment.

[squark]

You’re answering a question purely hypothetically then, which is meaningless.

If you’ve experienced actual abuse, you have a better chance of differentiating real abuse from non abuse. Your perspective being true means that victims of abuse will always be victims trapped in the same abuse mentality. That’s a pretty unfortunate, and also ironically, almost abusively anti-humanistic way of thinking of the world.

One experience can be translated to another, parallels can be drawn. Experience of all kinds teaches. I have a wide pool of experience to draw from, so choosing not to work for assholes when given the "opportunity" to do so says nothing in regard to whether I have interacted with people acting like this or what I think of those sorts. You're focusing too narrowly and not seeing the broader trend.

Observation of others in similar kinds of circumstances is also not without value if one has any degree of empathy. And no, what I'm saying does not mean that everyone is inevitably trapped, don't be ridiculous. It does however draw on the statistical fact that it is those who are reached out to, who are supported by others outside an abusive environment who have the greatest chance of getting free. And it reflects the psychology present in many of those on the inside . . . a mindset like the rat who not knowing when or if it will be shocked refuses to leave an open cage.

[sbbds]

But, I think, people need to be given time and space to listen to themselves for the resulting behavior changes to be more than just going-through-the-motions of social compliance or shame/guilt.

There’s always going to be some kind of meta-dynamic going on IMO. Sorry but if you live in a utopia without these with those you socialize with, let me know where it is please, and how to get there.

You basically got that time and space because you kowtowed enough and climbed high enough to where you no longer have to deal with that side of the dynamic from people as much.

[ruined]

IME, "tough love" only really works for people whose egos have been annihilated and subsumed by their super-ego. (Talking Freud here, not Socionics.) That is, people who have bought heavily into the "tyranny of shoulds", unquestioningly kowtowing to socially-sanctioned imperatives or goalposts, possibly because their own sense of personal agency or values have been ignored/starved of acknowledgment, or brutalized or blackmailed out of them. This explains why a lot of young men with absent or distant father figures tend to latch onto hectoring, prescriptive father figures like Jordan Peterson: the super-ego's role is to discipline one to the demands of the external world in order to meet survival needs. If your father (or society, in loco parentis) is absent or withholding of approval or love, your super-ego will go haywire trying to find the appropriate hoops to jump through in order to fill that deficit of love in your life: it will latch onto what it thinks you need to be in order to gain approval (of your father, of others whom you've projected your father's disapproval onto, etc.). As a result, they become rather submissive to society's definitions of success, with little connection to their own inner values, wants, desires, and they alienate or try to brutalize (or seek out others who will brutalize) their id impulses out of them. Fortunately or unfortunately, the true self will always put up resistance, and so symptoms like anxiety, procrastination, depression, shiftlessness, confusion, etc. show up... which just perpetuates another cycle of super-ego brutalization.

You only assent to criticism you, on some level, agree with. Otherwise, resentment erupts, and your id and ego are riled into asserting themselves. People with a healthy relationship to their super-ego (understanding the role of social mores, but also being grounded in a sense of one's own impulses and needs) don't tend to need someone to berate them into doing something: if they actually want to do it, they do it; if they don't, then being berated is not going to convince them they want to do it.

not having a father figure is probably why i follow such radical male political figures like malcom x, huey newton, etc.

[sbbds]

One experience can be translated to another, parallels can be drawn. Experience of all kinds teaches. I have a wide pool of experience to draw from, so choosing not to work for assholes when given the "opportunity" to do so says nothing in regard to whether I have interacted with people acting like this or what I think of those sorts. You're focusing too narrowly and not seeing the broader trend.

Observation of others in similar kinds of circumstances is also not without value if one has any degree of empathy. And no, what I'm saying does not mean that everyone is inevitably trapped, don't be ridiculous. It does however draw on the statistical fact that it is those who are reached out to, who are supported by others outside an abusive environment who have the greatest chance of getting free. And it reflects the psychology present in many of those on the inside . . . a mindset like the rat who not knowing when or if it will be shocked refuses to leave an open cage.

That may be the case but it’s unconvincing to me that the person who conflates people with trapped rats is going to be the same one helping them out.

Oh and the same one advocating against tough love. See the broader trend!

[Animal]

There’s always going to be some kind of meta-dynamic going on IMO. Sorry but if you live in a utopia without these with those you socialize with, let me know where it is please, and how to get there.

You basically got that time and space because you kowtowed enough and climbed high enough to where you no longer have to deal with that side of the dynamic from people as much.

I think you're misinterpreting my posts. Freud's idea of the superego was that it was a part of the ego that had broken off to police our behavior and keep us accountable to society and our tribe on whom we depend on for survival but that it can go insane and fall into self-punishment. So, yes, there has to be some degree of give-and-take with regard to honoring our own feelings, wishes, impulses (the id) and the demands of the people around us. That's a given. I'm not arguing that we all retreat into self-absorption. That's a recipe for chaos. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't let other brutalize them into becoming completely alienated from themselves, which is something I see fairly often, and IMO a cause of a lot of the psychological suffering (and cruelty) we see in the world nowadays.

[sbbds]

I think you're misinterpreting my posts. Freud's idea of the superego was that it was a part of the ego that had broken off to police our behavior and keep us accountable to society and our tribe on whom we depend on for survival but that it can go insane and fall into self-punishment. So, yes, there has to be some degree of give-and-take with regard to honoring our own feelings, wishes, impulses (the id) and the demands of the people around us. That's a given. I'm not arguing that we all retreat into self-absorption. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't let other brutalize them into becoming alienated from themselves, which is something I see fairly often, and IMO a cause of a lot of the psychological suffering we see in the world nowadays.

No I agree with that. I think that’s all a given.

What I am saying is that you present your stance as if becoming a “victim” here is optional, and an option to avoid in most cases. You’re not giving details on how you achieved your current position having “escaped” that situation, like you’re not even wanting to acknowledge it properly in the first place. You can’t tell me that you just woke up one day and started to backtalk your boss for e.g. lol. Or did you?

[Animal]

No I agree with that. I think that’s all a given.

What I am saying is that you present your stance as if becoming a “victim” here is optional, and an option to avoid in most cases. You’re not giving details on how you achieved your current position having “escaped” that situation, like you’re not even wanting to acknowledge it properly in the first place. You can’t tell me that you just woke up one day and started to backtalk your boss for e.g. lol. Or did you?

You keep moving the goalposts with every response, expecting deeper and deeper levels of self-disclosure from me (when you haven't said anything about yourself), when I think I've pretty much answered all your questions. I said years of observing that same pattern (of tough love -> acquiescing -> feeling like I betrayed myself) again and again, plus years of therapy and self-reflection. I've been on this forum for over 13 years. I feel like I've shared enough of myself here over the years that no one needs my life story anymore. I think you're reading that post as far more judgmental than it really is. I'm not even saying those people are "victims", any more than any other person. We all have neuroses of some kind (including me), unless we've reached nirvana or something.

[sbbds]

You keep moving the goalposts with every response, expecting deeper and deeper levels of self-disclosure from me (when you haven't said anything about yourself), when I think I've pretty much answered all your questions. I said years of observing that same pattern (of tough love -> acquiescing -> feeling like I betrayed myself) again and again, plus years of therapy and self-reflection. I've been on this forum for over 13 years. I feel like I've shared enough of myself here over the years that no one needs my life story anymore. I think you're reading that post as far more judgmental than it really is. I'm not even saying those people are "victims", any more than any other person. We all have neuroses of some kind (including me), unless we've reached nirvana or something.

My problem is that if you indeed have had such experiences and you believe in them, you should be as revealing and helpful as possible, instead of just dropping off a quasi-demeaning comment nonchalantly and vamoosing. I did reference my personal experience in my posts in this thread, and I have talked about my life a lot on here too. I don’t care how long you’ve been on here; you’ve been inactive for a while and so I haven’t seen your posts and apparently you haven’t seen mine either.

[sbbds]

@Animal Also if you don’t reply to me or this thread anymore it will be funny because of my avatar and your name caption.

[cry]

Well let me tell you- the best way to make me depressed is to tell me everything is fine and nothing should be changed. I might even become lazier knowing how easily satisfied people are. I get alot of my energy from other people's dissatisfaction actually, so when someone is unwilling to tell me the truth or thinks everything is fine and dandy I see them as useless or even boring to me. I just love issues. Not that I can tell people what is wrong- actually I might be exactly the kind of person I think is useless.

Also the guy reminds me of the my Dad's style of motivating people- through these reality checks. I'm not saying I listen to him but I am familiar with this so it's pretty easy to relate to.

[Animal]

My problem is that if you indeed have had such experiences and you believe in them, you should be as revealing and helpful as possible, instead of just dropping off a quasi-demeaning comment nonchalantly and vamoosing. I did reference my personal experience in my posts in this thread, and I have talked about my life a lot on here too. I don’t care how long you’ve been on here; you’ve been inactive for a while and so I haven’t seen your posts and apparently you haven’t seen mine either.

That "should" is asking a lot, IMO. Yes, it would be nice if people did that, but I'm just too lazy to invest that much effort into a post on here anymore. It also isn't reasonable to expect people to foresee every possible way their words could be construed, especially on a casual platform like this forum. No one is beholden to jumping through arbitrary hoops someone throws up, after-the-fact. It simply didn't occur to me to write that post any other way than I did. Also, people should be free to disclose as much or as little of themselves as they feel comfortable doing. (See: Your Personal Bill of Rights.) Sharing things with the right people in the right context can be very healing. But doing so indiscriminately can have bad consequences. I don't feel like sharing any more than I have, so I won't. But I will try to be more mindful of coming across as demeaning and victim-blaming in the future.

[sbbds]

That "should" is asking a lot, IMO. Yes, it would be nice if people did that, but I'm just too lazy to invest that much effort into a post on here anymore. It also isn't reasonable to expect people to foresee every possible way their words could be construed, especially on a casual platform like this forum. No one is beholden to jumping through arbitrary hoops someone throws up, after-the-fact. It simply didn't occur to me to write that post any other way than I did. Also, people should be free to disclose as much or as little of themselves as they feel comfortable doing. (See: Your Personal Bill of Rights.) Sharing things with the right people in the right context can be very healing. But doing so indiscriminately can have bad consequences. I don't feel like sharing any more than I have, so I won't. But I will try to be more mindful of coming across as demeaning and victim-blaming in the future.

I only say should, because it makes you look a bit like more of a dick if you don’t in this case, but good job on the final comment there.

[squark]

Oh and the same one advocating against tough love.

You're really not paying attention. I agree with the way thehotelambush defined tough love - you know, with actual care involved. Some guy trying to milk more money out of his employees doesn't qualify imo.

Put it this way: "You can do it, you're strong enough, I believe in you and know that you can do better, you can overcome this. Excuses aren't doing you any favors, tackle it, I believe you can accomplish it when you put the work in. The only thing stopping you is yourself. Rise above it, meet the challenge." VS "You useless lazy moron, my grandma could walk circles around you. You don't deserve to lick my boots until you prove that you have what it takes. Look at how worthless you are." Guess which one is tough love and which one is abuse?

One empowers and encourages the strength you know exists in a person -- the other breaks them down and tells them they have to prove themselves to you, that you are the judge of their worth. Anyone telling you they are going to judge your worth based on what you give them is taking advantage of you.

[sbbds]

You're really not paying attention.

Is this the kind of comment from someone wanting to give and advocating careful love, or is it really ironically a shrouded form of abuse?

Anyone telling you they are going to judge your worth based on what you give them is taking advantage of you.

What. Why?

[sbbds]

@squark

”Put it this way: "You can do it, you're strong enough, I believe in you and know that you can do better, you can overcome this. Excuses aren't doing you any favors, tackle it, I believe you can accomplish it when you put the work in. The only thing stopping you is yourself. Rise above it, meet the challenge." VS "You useless lazy moron, my grandma could walk circles around you. You don't deserve to lick my boots until you prove that you have what it takes. Look at how worthless you are." Guess which one is tough love and which one is abuse?

One empowers and encourages the strength you know exists in a person -- the other breaks them down and tells them they have to prove themselves to you, that you are the judge of their worth. Anyone telling you they are going to judge your worth based on what you give them is taking advantage of you.”

In both cases, you’re judging their worth. The only difference is that one form is positive and the other negative.

Also if someone literally directly told you they’d be judging your worth, well they’d probably be a bit nutty, to the point where they probably wouldn’t be lucid enough to want to take advantage of you or ever do it very effectively. But it’s implied that anybody in a superior position (or even not; anybody really) can potentially do it to you, even if they don’t say anything or act on it. It’s a natural consequence of being in society. It doesn’t automatically mean you’re in a situation where you’re being taken advantage of.

[Memento Mori]

Tbf, IIRC Squark is LSI. LSI is EIE seeking and thus Fe+ seeking. I think her position makes perfect sense in that light. What is motivation to one person may be rebuked by another.

Betas are not responding to this scene quite as well as I'd expected. It was an SLE that showed it to me years ago. Personally, I love it, and respect people willing to be 'that guy' that sacrifices their likability in order to make a humbling impact. Obviously that impact doesn't work for everyone, and I concede that real estate/sales is not in my future, so I'll likely never be in a position like this to know beyond doubt how I'd react. People can argue whether or not the character is an abusive antisocial, but he's a character in a fictional movie, so I think superimposing malevolence is kinda pointless. I take it the writers wanted a character that would grip the audience for a few minutes and totally rock the egos (no puns intended) of the characters in the scene. It makes for a great clip, his likability aside.

That said, this scene really has nothing to do with 'tough love', so I understand some of the stilted reactions. He's literally just passing through and throwing his weight around to--from his perspective--separate the wheat from the chaff.

Be grateful to those who would set us straight, for they are the ones who bring out the best in us. Equally so, be grateful for those who we repudiate, for they remind us of what we are not, and thus consequentially what we are. There is always a worthwhile lesson for the vigilant.

[Animal]

@squark

”Put it this way: "You can do it, you're strong enough, I believe in you and know that you can do better, you can overcome this. Excuses aren't doing you any favors, tackle it, I believe you can accomplish it when you put the work in. The only thing stopping you is yourself. Rise above it, meet the challenge." VS "You useless lazy moron, my grandma could walk circles around you. You don't deserve to lick my boots until you prove that you have what it takes. Look at how worthless you are." Guess which one is tough love and which one is abuse?

One empowers and encourages the strength you know exists in a person -- the other breaks them down and tells them they have to prove themselves to you, that you are the judge of their worth. Anyone telling you they are going to judge your worth based on what you give them is taking advantage of you.”

In both cases, you’re judging their worth. The only difference is that one form is positive and the other negative.

Also if someone literally directly told you they’d be judging your worth, well they’d probably be a bit nutty, to the point where they probably wouldn’t be lucid enough to want to take advantage of you or ever do it very effectively. But it’s implied that anybody in a superior position (or even not; anybody really) can potentially do it to you, even if they don’t say anything or act on it. It’s a natural consequence of being in society. It doesn’t automatically mean you’re in a situation where you’re being taken advantage of.

The issue isn't that the latter is judging you and the former isn't. It's that, in the latter example, the person is evaluating you based on what they can get out of you; that is, they only value you based on how much they can exploit you. That's the reason people are responding negatively to this tough love stuff. Tough love is only "love" if it allies with healthy impulses inside you, working for your own behalf. Even then, it has to be respectful of your own sense of agency. Otherwise, you just have a form of social coercion. That's all I was saying in that first post that you apparently found demeaning, just in more pretentious language.

[squark]

^ Yes, exactly!

[sbbds]

The issue isn't that the latter is judging you and the former isn't. It's that, in the latter example, the person is evaluating you based on what they can get out of you; that is, they only value you based on how much they can exploit you.

That could be just as well the case with the former example. Seems naive to think otherwise.

Otherwise, you just have a form of social coercion.

So could saccharine love. The examples didn’t make that clear at all lol.

That's all I was saying in that first post that you apparently found demeaning, just in more pretentious language.

If that’s the case then it’d have to not only be pretentious but very roundabout.

[Memento Mori]

The issue isn't that the latter is judging you and the former isn't. It's that, in the latter example, the person is evaluating you based on what they can get out of you; that is, they only value you based on how much they can exploit you. That's the reason people are responding negatively to this tough love stuff. Tough love is only "love" if it allies with healthy impulses inside you, working for your own behalf. Even then, it has to be respectful of your own sense of agency. Otherwise, you just have a form of social coercion. That's all I was saying in that first post that you apparently found demeaning, just in more pretentious language.

I appreciate this distinction, given that this thread is inquiring into "Tough Love" I understand where You're coming from. I would also argue that not all valuable lessons in life are presented benevolently. Often in life, we can grow too comfortable. For some, having their mettle tested is productive, and even for those who find it grating, there can be a reordering of priority and focus. It is true that hot iron can bend to the point of breakage, but cold, unused iron rusts. A ripple is a ripple, and even those making waves can teach us important lessons. Our attitude is as important to our own benefit as that which is seen as done onto us. Growth and clarity sometimes comes from the most unexpected of places.

[Singu]

I think I've probably been reading too much psychoanalysis, which has a tendency to pathologize people.

I've also read a bit of psychoanalysis, so I understand where you're coming from. I used to be into Karen Horney a lot, and I think the idea about attacking the subjective premise that everyone essentially has in interesting (everyone's behavior is a result of some sort of a subjective premise, perhaps an emotion). The idea of self-criticism is interesting, and learning to tone down the dial of self-criticism is something that you can practically apply to your personal situations. A person whose too critical of oneself might take most criticisms as devastating, but people who are not very self-critical may take most criticism in stride. They don't accept it or they don't register it.

However, over the years I've learned that it was more like "Socionics 2.0", or "pre-Socionics", depending on which you started from. There may be some genuine insights on human nature that may be interesting, but in the end they're usually just the opinions of the psychoanalyst, and shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. Actually it's kind of similar to Socionics in that it start out with educated guesses or conjectures of the psychoanalyst, but it's lacking in the critical approach.

Anyway, tough love is usually just a way to justify and rationalize love by saying that it's a form of love.

[Animal]

I've also read a bit of psychoanalysis, so I understand where you're coming from. I used to be into Karen Horney a lot, and I think the idea about attacking the subjective premise that everyone essentially has in interesting (everyone's behavior is a result of some sort of a subjective premise, perhaps an emotion). The idea of self-criticism is interesting, and learning to tone down the dial of self-criticism is something that you can practically apply to your personal situations. A person whose too critical of oneself might take most criticisms as devastating, but people who are not very self-critical may take most criticism in stride. They don't accept it or they don't register it.

However, over the years I've learned that it was more like "Socionics 2.0", or "pre-Socionics", depending on which you started from. There may be some genuine insights on human nature that may be interesting, but in the end they're usually just the opinions of the psychoanalyst, and shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. Actually it's kind of similar to Socionics in that it start out with educated guesses or conjectures of the psychoanalyst, but it's lacking in the critical approach.

Anyway, tough love is usually just a way to justify and rationalize love by saying that it's a form of love.

I agree. I don't regard it as "true", any more than I would regard Socionics as "true." I've found that it presents a useful lens through which to get a handle on some of the experiences within that don't make much sense with either modern science or ancient religion. For example, we don't have a much better explanation of a trauma victim's attraction to situations that recreate the traumatic experience than what Freud conjectured (repetition compulsion; "we repeat to complete"). But, in the end, it's just a blunt instrument for trying to get at things that are much a more complex interaction of many things. I like the precision of psychoanalytic language and I like that it takes a critical eye toward the larger society, and the way it can have negative effects on a human being. People are talking about such things now (like the influence of technology on young people, etc.), but not with as much depth as I'd like.

I appreciate this distinction, given that this thread is inquiring into "Tough Love" I understand where You're coming from. I would also argue that not all valuable lessons in life are presented benevolently. Often in life, we can grow too comfortable. For some, having their mettle tested is productive, and even for those who find it grating, there can be a reordering of priority and focus. It is true that hot iron can bend to the point of breakage, but cold, unused iron rusts. A ripple is a ripple, and even those making waves can teach us important lessons. Our attitude is as important to our own benefit as that which is seen as done onto us. Growth and clarity sometimes comes from the most unexpected of places.

I agree. The attitude we bring to life can make a big difference in our ability to make use of the lessons that are available. My main issue with a lot of the "tough love" going around these days is that it starts with the basic assumption that people are inherently lazy and that they wouldn't do anything if they weren't coerced into doing it. In particular, I'm uneasy with the substitution of externally-imposed goals for those that come out of a person's weighing their own wants/desires and what others need of them. I think laziness is an attempt to get an unmet need met. Even people who act self-destructively or are suicidal are trying to get a need met. Those needs will have to be acknowledged at some point, or else there will be reckoning later on, in some other form. Rude awakenings can be useful, like you say, but only if they don't overwhelm the organism's inborn inclination towards actualization.

[Singu]

I agree. I don't regard it as "true", any more than I would regard Socionics as "true." I've found that it presents a useful lens through which to get a handle on some of the experiences within that don't make much sense with either modern science or ancient religion. For example, we don't have a much better explanation of a trauma victim's attraction to situations that recreate the traumatic experience than what Freud conjectured (repetition compulsion; "we repeat to complete"). But, in the end, it's just a blunt instrument for trying to get at things that are much a more complex interaction of many things. I like the precision of psychoanalytic language and I like that it takes a critical eye toward the larger society, and the way it can have negative effects on a human being. People are talking about such things now (like the influence of technology on young people, etc.), but not with as much depth as I'd like.

Well perhaps a more constructive approach would not be to ask "Why does the person recreate his traumatic experiences?", but to ask "Does the person want to recreate his traumatic experience, or not?". And given the basic premise that humans basically want to be happy and healthy, probably not. It could be that the thought-processes and the behavior of the person is compulsive, and he may not have much conscious control over it. So perhaps we can try to see and analyze how the person may no longer behave in such a compulsive pattern in the future. And that ultimately requires the ability to eventually control his own destiny.

I don't think there is much use in saying "I am this way", and just end it at that. You can describe a certain pattern of behavior, such as Borderline Personality Disorder. But I don't it's much use to just say that you're Borderline, but you can't really do anything about it. It only brings the power to be able to change it, if you understand the cause behind it. So if we could understand the cause behind "Why does the victim recreate his traumatic experience?", then that would be helpful. But I would think that it would require a different approach to get to the direct answer to that question, even if we initially asked the wrong question.

[squark]

I appreciate this distinction, given that this thread is inquiring into "Tough Love" I understand where You're coming from. I would also argue that not all valuable lessons in life are presented benevolently. Often in life, we can grow too comfortable. For some, having their mettle tested is productive, and even for those who find it grating, there can be a reordering of priority and focus. It is true that hot iron can bend to the point of breakage, but cold, unused iron rusts. A ripple is a ripple, and even those making waves can teach us important lessons. Our attitude is as important to our own benefit as that which is seen as done onto us. Growth and clarity sometimes comes from the most unexpected of places.

Yes, agreed. In my opinion life is about overcoming obstacles, meeting the challenges before you and conquering them. And there's a lot of stuff that is hard, it's not all light and fluffy. Nor is it always presented in a nice package.

What was that story - it was a story told in a movie or something about the little bird that was cold and yelling, and a cow came by and pooped on it, making it all warm and saving it's life, then a coyote came by, pulled it out of the shit and ate it. With the moral being that not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, or trying to hurt you, and not everyone who pulls you out of the shit is your friend. Anyway, that's true too, that sometimes what looks like help isn't, and what looks like harm isn't. And also sometimes people are trying to toughen you up for your own good. However. . . I don't think that's what was going on in the clip. IMO.

An example from my own life. . . someone close to me was in an accident, badly hurt and I was taking care of them as they recovered. At first they actually needed me to do everything for them, from cutting their food to wiping their ass, they physically couldn't do it themselves. But, as they grew stronger I made them do more and more things on their own. They complained at me, sometimes begging me to do it, but I knew they could do it for themselves, and I told them so, refusing to do for them what they could do themselves. And they did. Everything I thought they could do, they were able to do without my help, they just needed the push to do it. One time in public I made them open a door for themselves and go through it. When I wouldn't do it, they started begging passersby to help them, until some "kind" person gave in. It wasn't kind. It was holding them back. And sometimes helping someone is just holding them back. But, to those people walking by, I'm sure I looked like some kind of cruel abuser, and man, the looks I got. . . that was sometimes hard to take, their eyes saying, "You horrible woman abusing that poor helpless handicapped person" the accusation in their glares. So yeah, sometimes too you have to look like the bad guy to do the most good. And they did want to be able to do these things themselves - it wasn't like I was trying to make them do something they didn't ultimately want anyway.

But I've never found it necessary or desirable to tell anyone they were worthless scum, and I don't think that's how you help a person find their own strength. Instead, that's how you make a person dependent on you. Tell them they have to earn their worth from you, and you create someone willing to do anything to please you, or angry enough to "prove you wrong" that they'll do whatever you want in order to dig their way out of that deficit you've created. Tell them they're strong enough without you, and you give them independence and the ability to find strength within themselves they may not have known they had.