do you think?

[darkblue]

Politicians are the people who care enough to be the face for their cause.

Anyone can potentially rule your country. Depending on their level of support.

[neva_black_n_white]

Hey guys, I didn't know if you wanted me to catch up or carry on with your flow, so I've chosen to carry on with the flow. *smiles*

 

If theres any Questions that ive some how managed to bypass then throw them in, im not avoiding!!

 

Oh, and sorry guys, i had an all day interview yesterday in Manchester, bit of a treck but was well worth while. I think it went well but lets keep out fingers crossed *big grin*

 

 

Anywho, politics.

 

Well, to be honest, general knowledge is a bit of a wear point for me that includes politics, but i do have one point that always annoys me.

 

I dont know too much so if im making my own story up, just pat me on the head and agree lol.

 

But anywho, what i dont get is, the fact we all have the oppotunity to elect a party right? (voting) well, what i see as unfair is, when the leading party, may well have got the most votes, BUT as a combined the rest of the groups had a higher amount of votes. thereforeeee, indicating NOT the majority of the population wanted them to be leader!!

 

For example.

 

Part

A - 42%

B - 23%

C - 35 %

 

so, A wins, however, b and c combined gives a total of 58. far more votes than that of group A. How does that come into consideration?

 

Anyway, its quite possible if made that up.. but kind of unlikely.

 

How are you guys? Fire away with any Questions. Ive got exams so im sorry if my involvement is a bit patchy!!

 

neva aka kell x

[darkblue]

In each constituency - the candidates who get the 'majority' of the votes, will get a seat in parliament.

(UK system)

 

Even if the other candidates combine to get a higher majority - they cannot both take one seat. Only the majority candidate can have the seat, as they have the most support.

 

Add up all the constituencies, and whatever party has the most 'seats' in parliament - form a Government.

There have been a few cases of coalition Gov.s, etc - but that is the normal way things go.

 

Question:

What is wrong with Freud and his work?

[neva_black_n_white]

DB, did you have a rant at me earlier

 

I didnt go out with my boyfriend because i found him attractive, and that was the only thing going. I knew him because a friend of mine had briefly been in a relationship with him and there wasnt any communication there. I dont want you to judge me, i didnt pounce on him, and to be honest at the time, with how naive i was about relationships, im quite surprised i didnt. We met up alot, it wasnt the old, going out for a few drinks. Im not that type of girl anyway.

 

About a month or two after we had started chatting, talking over msn and meeting up a few times, we got on great. A mate of mine had a halloween party, wed all met the day before and were joking about what we were wearing. I wasnt going as anything special, just in a uniform of some kind. BUT the sweetest thing was, he turned up in the male version. He was the one who came to me (which was also odd because at that point alot of people believed he was "shy" which had its reasons and now hes amazingly loud - a little bit of a surprise). Our relationship did grow, and it wasnt "oooh, hes attractive".

 

I found him attractive, yes, but had you asked me to describe my so called type (making me pick physical appearances) i doubt people would have matched us up! I find him amazingly attractive now, but thats because the relationship grew. Ive experienced alot of changes, surprises, he is everything i wanted but to some degree i didnt expect, you know?

 

Im young, like ive said before, my relationship has matured me beyond my age, that is why i feel i can say the things i do in regards to love etc.

 

I dont want to go into too many personal issues, and i could defend it alot more, but i dont think i need to.

 

neva

[ShySoul]

Hey kell! Keeping my fingers crossed (and my toes, and my eyes, and....) that the interview went well.

 

Honestly, I don't follow politics like I should. Seems to me like a lot of debate over issues, but I don't really see the impact it has on me and others a lot times.

 

You have a point, the winner isn't necessarily the majority favorite in that regard. But of the three groups, that one was the best. Ideally the winner would then work with the other two groups and try to work out compromises and deals so that more people have a say and are satisfied. Doesn't always work that way of course.

 

I think the bigger problem I've seen is that, here in the US, its basically a two party system. So if you don't agree with either, its hard to let your opinion be known. You can vote for another party, but they don't have as much backing and stand little chance of succeeding. So a lot of times I feel like it's better to choose the candiate that I like more, even if I don't care for him much either. Choose the lesser evil. And another thing, it seems like the parties are more concerned with outdoing the other, then on actually accomplishing things.

 

DB, some of the people really do care, others don't. Anyone could potentially rule the country, but reality is that for most it would be a difficult process to get to that point. I believe that more people should strive for it if they really want. But truth of the matter, all presidents have been white males, many having been well off. Of course, an actor is governor of my state of California, so anything is possible.

[darkblue]

Nope - not a rant about you, neva. I didn't know about you and your boyfriend.

I don't think it's necessary to find someone you initially find physically attractive - but most people go for looks first, and fall in love with the person's personality and character later.

 

I actually believe all good relationships should be formed out of friendship.

[darkblue]

I agree, shy. And it's important to choose a party which has your principals and pledges to do things that you think would benefit the country.

 

The UK system is similar, only we have a 'House of Lords' - who are not 'elected' and have little power due to an act passed by Asquith - but anyway...

 

I too wish you well on your interview, kell.

[neva_black_n_white]

Indeed, i see your point. I knew that, but i think it can become a little unfair. You know? People are encouraged to put their vote in and to some degree miss out on an oppotunity. I dont know, i think there should be over 50% agreeance on one, which is highly unlikely.

 

 

Freud.

 

Well, to be fair i think freud has got a fair few points that are pretty legit. But i think its all about the sexual reference. The majority of what he found and produced as an approach was done whilst has was smoking weed, so thats one major downfall, people critisise him for that.

 

But the main focus is all the sexual reference, he ignores all biological, cognitive, humanistic, social, behavioural influences. BUT at the same time, each of these approaches, at the same time, tend to ignore the other 5 factors.

 

SO, all in all. It seems to be equal.

 

The majority of Freuds work was based upon case studies. Thats great because it has high ecological validy YET he has little control. That, and if you opt to do case studies over a long guiration of time/longitudinal studies you get drop outs.

 

You do find that some case studies are also criticised, in the example of little Hans, for the issue that information obtained was passed through the father rather than the child.

 

 

Alot of people also result in "resistance" after therapy sessions, meaning they often tend to ignore/resist the explanation what has been given. Because the therapy is only deemed successful once accepted this can be difficult.

 

ALSO, his model (oral, anal, phalic, latency, genital) only develops upto an adolescent/early to late 20's age group, it tends to ignore anything after this, whereas others after this have developed into adulthood.

Within his models he also states that stages cannot be repeated, again listed as a critism, it implies that people cannot rework errors..

 

 

I dont want to ramble too much, But if theres more questions or deffinitions needed, speak up.

 

neva

[neva_black_n_white]

Thats cool DB, we have our own opinions anyway, but you'll find i can be qute defensive, so bare with me *blushes*

 

Thanks guys for the support too, as soon as i know the verdict, ill let you in on the secret *smiles*

 

Ive got to run now, even though i have loads to say, but one has an exam tomorrow!! Bright and early for this gal!

 

See you soon and thanks again *smiles big time*

 

neva aka kell x

[darkblue]

Freud took cocaine, had questionable theories on infant thought and has critics for every single aspect of all of his work. From dream interpretation to psychoanalysis, to development and even his work with the subconscience mind (ID ego and superID) - all have critics.

 

His friends betrayed him. His family were gone. His logic was questionable.

 

But, he was a genius.

He thought about things that no one else dared to mention.

 

He is quoted to having said:

"In the olden days, I would have been burned at the stake... Now they just burn my books."

 

A genius in his own right, and I have devoured most of his writings, with a pinch of salt, of course.

 

Good luck in your exam!!

[ShySoul]

People are encouraged to put their vote in and to some degree miss out on an oppotunity. I dont know, i think there should be over 50% agreeance on one, which is highly unlikely.

 

My city took to doing something that is closer to what you want. Instead of just voting for one candidate you can rank your top choices. Only first place votes count at the start. In the case that there isn't a clear majority, the lowest guy is thrown out and the people who voted for him have their vote transferred to their second ranked guy. I believe that continues until there is a clear cut majority pick, over 50%.

 

I'll stay out of the Freud talk, but I'm reading with interest. I'll jump into the next topic with zeal.

 

Hope the exam went well Kell!

[darkblue]

Oh Shy, do join us in discussing Freud.

You know you want to.

 

Then Darwin, Dawkins, Ericsson, etc etc etc.

[neva_black_n_white]

Im just not sure on him. I think to base the majority of you work on what he did seems so sereal. Maybe it is because i havent thought of the things that he has, which makes me think "no". But oh, how he would get round that, the good old "denial" *smiles*

 

Im not sure though, i like how you can respect his work, it takes a strong person to not rebel i guess, i just think some of the things he said and the methods he used to implement his reasoning were a little far fetched. I think he proves some good points and i can understand where his knoweldge is coming from, particularly his therapies. I just think you ned to be careful, like with the rest of the approaches to how naive you are of the other possible causes.

 

You know?

 

Im not 100 % with or against Freud. So..

 

Besides, you have greater knowledge, im only a novice on Freud *blushes*

 

 

Hey shy!! Thanks, my exam went pretty well i think. Sometimes im not the best od judgements but i dont think it was horrific anyway. So all should be good *big smiles*

 

I think the method theyve set up for your city is far better than what they have running. I dont know, it just seems that the little people are getting kicked out again. Im probably naive to the system and its fair and all that jazz, but it just doesnt seem to be working out that way.

 

How is everyone anyway?

 

neva

[darkblue]

I don't think ANYONE can be 100% approving of Freud - LOL. Probably not even himself!

 

Some theories (development of the infant, in particular) were incredibly far-fetched and there is STILL many experts disputing his work.

 

I'm glad the exam went well.

[neva_black_n_white]

Thanks kiddo. we'll just have to see, smiles. got another one tomorrow, such a busy bean indeed.

 

I think its just hard for people to actually turn around and say "yeah, hes kind of got a point there".

 

But hes cool, nice to know he had his own, even if some what unique, take on things.

 

Do you think love sets challanges? I dont fully know what i mean by the Q, ive just been thinking over it alot. I guess I wanted a take on it.

 

Neva

[darkblue]

Do you think love sets challanges?

Absolutely.

Love is one of the most powerful emotions a human can feel - and emotions are controlling and influencing things.

 

There will always be obstacles in every relationship. They can only be overcome through committment, loyalty, trust and communication.

There will also be oppertunities to stray from all the basic rules of a relationship - whether it be cheating, selflessness, etc.

Only the love that exists can keep you on track and focus your mind on what you really want.

 

Good question, and I could go on about it.

[ShySoul]

Yo me homies. Whaz up? (gotta stop mocking people that talk like that )

 

Been out of commission the last couple days, entertaining company. Been alright, having fun.

 

neva, when it comes to exams it can be hard to tell. I thought I did well before and I messed up. Other times I was really worried and ended up doing great. Another time I thought I did poor, and ended up with the highest grade in the class, even if it was only an 83. So don't think about it to much. I'm sure you did good and what matters is you tried your hardest.

 

Any system is going to be flawed in some way. But you have to go with what seems the fairest. That's why its important for the people who do get in office or positions of power to work with the little men and listen to what they want instead of working in secret or for their own agendas. Doesn't always work that way in practice unfortuntely. And its also important for the little guy to speak up if they want something done. Last election I think a couple of initiatives were voted on because enough people signed a petition to get it placed on the ballot. System may not be ideal and has flaws, but its possible to work well if people stay informed and take action.

 

As for Freud, I haven't really studied him so I won't embarrass myself by saying anything on the topic. But I think any persons philosophies or ideas are ideal for that person only. There are going to be some good points that can apply to everyone, and some points that make you scratch your head and wonder how he could ever have come up with that. Same with religion, political parties, etc. Hence my beliefs are a strange mixture from every souce imaginable, taking bits and pieces from whatever catches my eye.

 

Does love set challenges? Hmm.... First thought was yes, but then I thought no. With love comes challenges, as darkblue listed. But is it the love that really sets those challenges? Or is love what overcomes those challenges? From what I've seen its generally people's fears, insecurities, unwillingness to cooperate or compromise, etc. that sets up challenges. It's their love that makes them realize what is stronger, their feelings for the person or those fears, etc.

[neva_black_n_white]

I like that. Love overcomes tests.

 

Not that i disagree with DB i can kind of see both opinions, mixed on this one guys. Depends on the situation huh?

 

But i deffinitley think that love overcomes tests or challanges, it has to, well doesnt have to, but it does just when situations arise that may be described as "challanging". It helps you through.

 

I have another Q.

I already have my opinion on this one but i wanted others as well. Do you think two people, within a relationship can love each other at different magnitudes?

 

As for the tests one, i guess it can be beneficial. To know whether your doing the right thing for yourself and others, not that its necessarily doubt but it is reassurance. You know?

 

I think tests can hurt sometimes, but in those time, and over coming them you can really realise the importance, worth and the strength of love.

 

neva.

[darkblue]

Do you think two people, within a relationship can love each other at different magnitudes?

 

Most certainly.

There are different levels of companionship, sometimes both aren't at the same 'level'.

There is a member on this site, who was married for over a decade, before splitting with his wife. He was the 'giver' in the relationship.

 

I believe it is possible to have a relationship with different 'magnitudes' or levels of bond.

 

It probably shouldn't be like that, and would be best if both parties were on the 'same page,' so to speak - but it happens.

 

As for the challenges - you can tell who is the pessimist in that discussion!

Shy came accross with good points, and I do believe that strong commitment and solid set foundation of trust, loyalty and love can conquer any problems sent the relationship's way.

[neva_black_n_white]

Yeah i know what you mean, i thought the same when it came to the different magnitudes. I just didnt know whether or not it was healthy for a relationship. It could make understanding towards one another more difficult.

 

I never think love should be forced, and i doubt it can ever be found.

 

So, effectively i wouldnt want to or wouldnt be able to change it if it happened to me, but i have worried before about the effects of loving at a different magnitude.

 

Is it fair?

Does it prohibit one another to a degree?

Isnt it a torment?

 

I dont know, ive been trying to suss it out, wonder why it happens, obviously for love and that someone doesnt ever want to lose such a raw emotion.

 

But i do question which is the bigger sacrafice.

 

You loving more than another and them possibly losing out on loving someone else more.. let alone you never feeling that responce. hard to describe i guess.

 

Dont quote me too much

 

neva

[ShySoul]

You think I'm optomistic? It's taken a lot of pessimism to get to the point where I can be so hopeful. When you've been as low as I've felt, there's nothing else to do but look up.

 

Do you think two people, within a relationship can love each other at different magnitudes?

 

Of course. Happens all the time. Most common example I think is at the start of a relationship. One person falls harder and the other holds something back. You see it all the time in these posts, one person is scared by some bad experience and afraid to open up again. So while they love the person it takes them time to open up, and let the person into their heart as deeply as the other person has let them in.

 

There are other times when a person will retreat, out of fear, some personal issue, or something else entirely. Relationships are in a constant state of flux. But as long as the underlying love doesn't disappear and the couple is willing to work things out, the relationship can survive.

 

You loving more than another and them possibly losing out on loving someone else more.. let alone you never feeling that responce. hard to describe i guess.

 

Little confused. You love someone more then they love you, and you feel guilty because you think they would be happier with someone else whom they love more? Is that what you are saying? In that case I think it might depend on circumstances. If the person wasn't with you, would that really make a difference? Or is it something within the person that is causing them to not be able to love as deeply as you are and want them to? Then only he can fix that, it will be the same problem no matter who he is with.

 

I know the feeling of loving someone deeply but them not being able to love like that. And I've been in the reverse role, the one afraid to open up. Oddly, it was in the same relationship. Which of course made for a very bizarre situation with each of us taking turns pushing forward and holding back. Didn't end well. Sigh....

 

Though it can work out and does everyday. I know it feels bad, like you aren't enough to help them through. But you are probably doing more then you realize. The other person just has to find a way to overcome whatever is holding him back.

[neva_black_n_white]

Thanks shy

 

I thought it wouldnt make sense, things of importance to me either come out blurred or i intentionally end up bluring.. simpler that opening up. chuckles*

 

I will respond better, later, but for now ive got something to sort out, Kell

 

hope your ok db!!

 

(i almost called you dw, but shes fab. i used to LOVE hey arthur!)

 

neva

[darkblue]

I'm good thanks, kel.

 

I'm so busy focusing my powers on wishing you the best on your exams, to respond!

 

take care.

[ShySoul]

So, the two of you are busy. Maybe I should carry on the conversation with myself. Nah, I have enough disagreements with myself.

 

Wishing you two well in whatever you have going on. Looking forward to the continuation of our chat about nothing and everything.

 

Some words to think on:

 

"When we all think alike, then no one is thinking."

 

Walter Lippman

[neva_black_n_white]

I couldnt imagine being a "clone" of someone else. I mean you always hear about the sheep of the group, makes you wonder where people are comfortable being that "sheep". Me, personally, would want to burst out of that bubble/lable. I couldnt imagine not being my own creative person.

 

I wonder why people do follow and not take their own lead, I mean we can always come up with reasons but ive never really had a person tell me why they did it.

 

Do you think its the dependence on others? Or just their lack of dependence? Or the want/need to fit in? Or shyness?

 

Shy are you really shy? Whats it feel like? Hows it hold you back? Does it have its advantages?

 

Im not saying im always extravert but im not a holdy backy type of person.. just when it comes to personal stuff.. but i think you know what i mean.

 

Just wondered how it feels. Might help me relate to people more. But you dont have to answer.

 

Hehe, DB thats cute! i believe one has worked his magic and got away with that more effort kiddo, more effort in deed

 

How about you, have you ever been shy db.. ever snapped out of it.. spill all

 

Neva aka your kiddo kell