Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

would you?

an*

But yeah, of course I would. I'm not so shallow that I wouldn't bang a hot chick mercilessly just because she's a little messed up. I respect women for the right reasons: their looks alone.

Now, crazy is a different issue. Don't go there. But insecure just means she needs to be comforted and supported. With your package.

Also, you shouldn't steal signatures. It's considered bad etiquette.

Originally posted by Digi
I respect women for the right reasons: their looks alone.

Apparently not.

If you want to date someone who will constantly consult you about her wardrobe, ask if she looks fat in something, run your credit card dry because she just had to get that dress because it makes her feel good about herself, and go through the same thing with makeup... and then have her consistently get "slight" procedures of plastic surgery, like a face lift even though she's only twenty-something, then a nip and a tuck and a boob job, than sure.

If you want to cater to manic/depressive-ness, forever suggesting counseling but forever watching your other friend list losing people because you have to stay with your girlfriend comforting or fighting with her. than sure.

Besides, security of mind is beauty.

I had this chick who was so insecure it was ****ing ridiculous. she wanted to be on the phone 24/7 literally. when i try to say im going to call her back because im busy(just an excuse) after being on the phone for hours she gets frustrated. when she calls and i missed it(because im at work and my phone on silent) when i finally check my phone i see she had called over 20 times. she either does that or pops up at my job.

One time i made a mistake and left phone around her and she called my mother and cursed at her and called her a b*tch , because she though it was a girl texting me (because my mom calls me baby).

I left her and this stupid whore still thinks were together.

I'm not sure that is actually "insecurity"

Sure, I would. She will be very dysfunctional, obviously, in some situations. Depression might be an issue, as well. However, I'm highly infectious as a person (people, IRL, begrudgingly end up emulating my behaviors and quarks for some reason) and she'd eventually cheer up.


Originally posted by Digi
I respect women for the right reasons: their looks alone. But insecure just means she needs to be comforted and supported. With your package.


haermm2


WTF, dude?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I had this chick who was so insecure it was ****ing ridiculous. she wanted to be on the phone 24/7 literally. when i try to say im going to call her back because im busy(just an excuse) after being on the phone for hours she gets frustrated. when she calls and i missed it(because im at work and my phone on silent) when i finally check my phone i see she had called over 20 times. she either does that or pops up at my job.

These are my favorite types.


Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure that is actually "insecurity"

You're probably thinking something else. But it is extreme insecurity mixed in with some crazy shit.

Honestly, most beautiful women are insecure for one reason: they've generally been in relationships almost their entire lives. Much of who they are is based on the affirmation of worth that they receive from the boys and then men that they have dated over the years. When they are single the project their need to be with someone like a beacon and time and time again they end up with someone who treats them like a trophy. In the rare case that they end up with a worthwhile partner it usually ends quickly because he calls her on her crap. You can also add that even those males they aren't dating fawn over them to the point that they cannot even understand who they are at the core; they are only their looks and the company that they keep.

This is not ALWAYS the case by any means, but it's true quite often.

I'm with inimalist, all we know from CBC account (and lets take that with a grain of salt, dude's a bit messed up) is that the woman is very jealous and desires attention. Whether that is due to insecurity, or she is insecure unrelated to that is conjecture on our part.

yep if it's a little bit or in the mid way but alot of course not

**** you firefox you show not responding every 10 secs ****!!

What inamilist said. There's a healthy bit of crazy leaking into that "insecurity."

If you've gotten some good snoo-snoo, I say make it clear that you're done and get the hell outa Dodge.

Unless you're trying to set her up as a booty call. But I wouldn't. Usually it's the chill chicks who make good friends that make the best low-maintainence side dishes.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
...this stupid whore...

Ya know what? I take back everything I said. it sounds like you two crazy kids have a chance.

Actually, Big C, what you need is some science to help you get to the bottom of this:

http://i.imgur.com/2HwlU.jpg

Determine where she is on each axis. If she's above the line, tough it out and quit your whining. If she's beneath it, run.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're probably thinking something else. But it is extreme insecurity mixed in with some crazy shit.

the level of aggression suggests something other than insecurity. An insecure person would be much more passive aggressive, not likely to show up at your work.

I'd say some type of behavioural control issues, maybe some obsessiveness, maybe a conduct disorder. Hard to net-psych someone from such a poor description, but not what I would call insecure at all.

Still, if a crazy gf showed up at work threatening to kill your 70 year old secretary because the gf thinks you're having an affair after the sec sends you a fruitcake for the holidays I'd say there's a bit of insecurity going on there. There may be other disorders as well, but any excessive scenarios show a lack of confidence in oneself.

jealousy and insecurity are not the same thing, nor is possessiveness, nor is narcissism.

what you have described is almost certainly not the action of an insecure individual, because that level of direct aggressiveness requires a level of self-confidence that is, by definition, not present in insecure individuals.

depends on how insecure she actually is.

Maybe not meant to be read consecutively, but:

Originally posted by inimalist
jealousy and insecurity are not the same thing, nor is possessiveness, nor is narcissism.

what you have described is almost certainly not the action of an insecure individual, because that level of direct aggressiveness requires a level of self-confidence that is, by definition, not present in insecure individuals.

Originally posted by juggerman
depends on how insecure she actually is.

How exactly do I use the graph?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
How exactly do I use the graph?

lmao, this pretty much just made my day.

Anyway, here you go:

rNfXdHJ6Knc

Originally posted by inimalist
jealousy and insecurity are not the same thing, nor is possessiveness, nor is narcissism.

what you have described is almost certainly not the action of an insecure individual, because that level of direct aggressiveness requires a level of self-confidence that is, by definition, not present in insecure individuals.

You seem quite knowledgeable. I'd love if you could point me to some studies that show that they aren't interconnected traits. I could see a person being insecure but not jealous or at leas the possibility that they are so insecure that they are able to express those jealousies or any valid feelings of being wronged, but no way in which a person who demonstrates unhealthy jealousy could lack insecurities about him or herself.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
You seem quite knowledgeable. I'd love if you could point me to some studies that show that they aren't interconnected traits. I could see a person being insecure but not jealous or at leas the possibility that they are so insecure that they are able to express those jealousies or any valid feelings of being wronged, but no way in which a person who demonstrates unhealthy jealousy could lack insecurities about him or herself.

jealousy can come from entitlement, the over estimation of one's worth, the opposite of insecurity.

if you are really interested in studies, PubMed is awesome, I'm just talking about ontology or definition, and frankly, I don't like "trait based" personality theories anyways, so I'm not going to put much effort into defending them...

EDIT: I'm also not saying they aren't interconnected, simply that things are a little more complex than "person X acts jealous/possessive/aggressive/entitled, therefore person X is insecure". It is a possibility, sure, not a necessity. And given the description by C-big-C, insecurity is almost certainly not this girl's issue. It could be, of course, but it would be a very aberrant case, as insecure people are rarely so directly aggressive.

Again, I don't support this type of "trait labeling" in the first place, but certainly, a brief description by an obviously biased source on the internet is no where near enough to make an actual claim.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I had this chick who was so insecure it was ****ing ridiculous. she wanted to be on the phone 24/7 literally. when i try to say im going to call her back because im busy(just an excuse) after being on the phone for hours she gets frustrated. when she calls and i missed it(because im at work and my phone on silent) when i finally check my phone i see she had called over 20 times. she either does that or pops up at my job.

One time i made a mistake and left phone around her and she called my mother and cursed at her and called her a b*tch , because she though it was a girl texting me (because my mom calls me baby).

I left her and this stupid whore still thinks were together.
Please tell more stories.

Originally posted by inimalist
jealousy can come from entitlement, the over estimation of one's worth, the opposite of insecurity.

if you are really interested in studies, PubMed is awesome, I'm just talking about ontology or definition, and frankly, I don't like "trait based" personality theories anyways, so I'm not going to put much effort into defending them...

EDIT: I'm also not saying they aren't interconnected, simply that things are a little more complex than "person X acts jealous/possessive/aggressive/entitled, therefore person X is insecure". It is a possibility, sure, not a necessity. And given the description by C-big-C, insecurity is almost certainly not this girl's issue. It could be, of course, but it would be a very aberrant case, as insecure people are rarely so directly aggressive.

Again, I don't support this type of "trait labeling" in the first place, but certainly, a brief description by an obviously biased source on the internet is no where near enough to make an actual claim.

Excellent. The matter is crystalline once more.

Originally posted by inimalist
An insecure person would be much more passive aggressive, not likely to show up at your work.

There are many different types of "insecure". An insecure person would most certainly drive to their boyfriend's place of employment to see why they did not answer. Sounds like a control issue, right?

A person feeling out of control and searching for the hold on control again is...what? Insecure? I think so.


Originally posted by inimalist
I'd say some type of behavioural control issues, maybe some obsessiveness, maybe a conduct disorder. Hard to net-psych someone from such a poor description, but not what I would call insecure at all.

A "classic" almost archetypal characteristic of insecurity is a lack of trust: trusting themselves or others. Her inability to feel secure about the relationship when he did not answer for 20 minutes is a definitive sign that there is a security issue. No "pop-internet psy" necessary to see that. Very typical of an insecure person is how controlling they are. It is irritating.


However, you are right: we do not know the whole story. But based on the story...yeah...the lady was insecure and controlling. Crazy, too.

Originally posted by inimalist
what you have described is almost certainly not the action of an insecure individual, because that level of direct aggressiveness requires a level of self-confidence that is, by definition, not present in insecure individuals.

That's...not true...


Aggression is sometimes the result of insecurity.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=insecurity+and+aggression&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=7lDzT5vgMKrO2AWUp4CyAw&ved=0CFcQgQMwAA


In this case, she seems to be a very insecure person. An insecure person is certainly does exhibit antisocial behaviors and isolates themselves, but that is not the same thing as a 'withdrawn' person: that is a specific type of insecure that is not at all representative of all the different "flavors" of "insecure" out there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are many different types of "insecure". An insecure person would most certainly drive to their boyfriend's place of employment to see why they did not answer. Sounds like a control issue, right?

A person feeling out of control and searching for the hold on control again is...what? Insecure? I think so.

I, nor would actual control theorists, wouldn't call "loss of control" the same as "insecurity". Certainly not without a better understanding of this person's primary and secondary control characteristics.

but no, it sounds far more like possessive entitlement than it does insecurity, especially given the willingness to violate social norms to get what they want.

If you want to just mash some weird definition of insecure into the convo, sure, obviously I can't argue with that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A "classic" almost archetypal characteristic of insecurity is a lack of trust: trusting themselves or others. Her inability to feel secure about the relationship when he did not answer for 20 minutes is a definitive sign that there is a security issue. No "pop-internet psy" necessary to see that. Very typical of an insecure person is how controlling they are. It is irritating.

actually, this is pop-internet psych. lacking any in depth accounting for her motivations, you really can't say positively whether she was motivated by fear of rejection or by entitlement. I think it is closer to the latter (an insecure person is actually more likely to try and act in accommodating ways, as they fear being rejected, rather than being confrontational, which risks what they are afraid of) as the willingness to violate social norms and aggressiveness points to, but have at it man, I'm not really interested in arguing it with you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, you are right: we do not know the whole story. But based on the story...yeah...the lady was insecure and controlling. Crazy, too.

"controlling and insecure" would produce someone who uses passive aggressive tactics to guilt others into doing what they want. I'm not even sure this girl, from that story, could be called controlling, as she didn't seem to demand much outside of attention, but sure, w/eves

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's...not true...


Aggression is sometimes the result of insecurity.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=insecurity+and+aggression&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=7lDzT5vgMKrO2AWUp4CyAw&ved=0CFcQgQMwAA


In this case, she seems to be a very insecure person. An insecure person is certainly does exhibit antisocial behaviors and isolates themselves, but that is not the same thing as a 'withdrawn' person: that is a specific type of insecure that is not at all representative of all the different "flavors" of "insecure" out there.

the only item that looks related to a personality trait called insecurity leading to aggressive behaviour is the first result, which deals with attachment insecurity, which is fairly different from the trait of insecurity.

maybe the issue is that you are looking at all the "flavors" of "insecure" out there and confusing those with the personality trait of insecure that the OP is clearly defining?

though, being honest, attachment insecurity, as a developmentally learned behaviour, is almost certainly more relevant to this girl's behaviour than is trait insecurity.

Originally posted by inimalist
the only item that looks related to a personality trait called insecurity leading to aggressive behaviour is the first result, which deals with attachment insecurity, which is fairly different from the trait of insecurity.

maybe the issue is that you are looking at all the "flavors" of "insecure" out there and confusing those with the personality trait of insecure that the OP is clearly defining?

though, being honest, attachment insecurity, as a developmentally learned behaviour, is almost certainly more relevant to this girl's behaviour than is trait insecurity.

Whatever, dude: I said my piece. I do not think it is debatable nor will I engage the topic further. It is beating a dead horse.


It was insecurity.


Originally posted by inimalist
I, nor would actual control theorists, wouldn't call "loss of control" the same as "insecurity".

No, the feeling of "the loss of control". The control may not have been lost. But the insecurity really kicks in.

Hey, Big C, ignore these jabronis. Show us pics of this girl. That's way more relevant data to this decision.

Topless or not, your choice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Whatever, dude: I said my piece. I do not think it is debatable nor will I engage the topic further. It is beating a dead horse.

It was insecurity.

which study do you think shows this? I'm not being a dick when I say trait insecurity (which comes from personality psych) is a different concept than attachment insecurity (which comes from developmental psych).

The former is an ascription to an individual of a certain quality that motivates a wide range of behaviour, the latter is a learned behaviour that informs the way that individual forms and views subsequent relationships.

C-big-C made a trait based attribution, as has almost everyone in this thread, saying things like, "this girl is X". Nobody, afaik, has said something like, "this girl has obviously had issues in the past that now inform her ability to maintain a relationship". And even if they did, we still don't know her motivations, so we still would be in a position of arguing whether she did it for reasons of insecurity or something like possessiveness or entitlement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the feeling of "the loss of control". The control may not have been lost. But the insecurity really kicks in.

loss of primary or secondary control?

and what are this individuals attributional patterns for events? are they primary or secondary control oriented, and how easily can they move between one or the other?

for people with the proper attributional pattern and control orientation, loss of control can actually be comforting or inspiring. Even things like "learned helplessness", the quintessential "loss-of-control" scenario are only ever modestly observed, and studies since the 70s have essentially thrown a large degree of skepticism on Selegman's work, especially with regards to humans.

Originally posted by inimalist
which study do you think shows this? I'm not being a dick when I say trait insecurity (which comes from personality psych) is a different concept than attachment insecurity (which comes from developmental psych).

The former is an ascription to an individual of a certain quality that motivates a wide range of behaviour, the latter is a learned behaviour that informs the way that individual forms and views subsequent relationships.

C-big-C made a trait based attribution, as has almost everyone in this thread, saying things like, "this girl is X". And even if they did, we still don't know her motivations, so we still would be in a position of arguing whether she did it for reasons of insecurity or something like possessiveness or entitlement.



loss of primary or secondary control?

and what are this individuals attributional patterns for events? are they primary or secondary control oriented, and how easily can they move between one or the other?

for people with the proper attributional pattern and control orientation, loss of control can actually be comforting or inspiring. Even things like "learned helplessness", the quintessential "loss-of-control" scenario are only ever modestly observed, and studies since the 70s have essentially thrown a large degree of skepticism on Selegman's work, especially with regards to humans.


That's a lot of words for such little content. Too much words for a discussion I do not wish to have: I find it rather obvious that it is plenty of insecurity issues going on. You seem to think that "insecurity" only boils down to a specific type of system of behaviors: I do not.

To answer your question about what type of control loss I think she experience: primary or secondary control? The answer is, "yes." In other words, both. I personally do not feel you can narrow it down to internal or external.



Originally posted by inimalist
Nobody, afaik, has said something like, "this girl has obviously had issues in the past that now inform her ability to maintain a relationship".

Just saw this.

So let me rephrase: no one has pointed out that emotional insecurity can be attributed to events in the past (childhood)? I do not know if that was necessary. I think it would be difficult to blame her adult, insecurity behaviors soley on "man, dat b*tch be crazy." Obviously, she exhibits the behaviors for a reason and those reasons could be some severe abuse. Now we are getting too much into pop-psy with no grounds.

would this be the Thompson, Perry, Morling, Skinner version of Secondary Control, or the Heckhausen version?

again, not to sound like a dick, but it seems sort of funny that you come along and go "pfffft, you think X has this narrow definition, I don't", when, tbh, it seems to illustrate your lack of familiarity with the subject.

I mean, cool, ok, I'm certainly no expert on this stuff either, but like, I'm not sure your definition of insecurity as "anything I want it to mean" or as "anything, from any field of psych, that includes the word insecurity" carries any weight. I'm not saying agree with me, but the argument of "this is what I want" isn't very convincing.

Originally posted by inimalist
would this be the Thompson, Perry, Morling, Skinner version of Secondary Control, or the Heckhausen version?

I believe Skinner's version: 1995 (edit or 1996). But since I have not contrasted the locus, I think you're trying too hard with your "gotcha".

Originally posted by inimalist
again, not to sound like a dick, but it seems sort of funny that you come along and go "pfffft, you think X has this narrow definition, I don't", when, tbh, it seems to illustrate your lack of familiarity with the subject.

TBH, you came off as being extremely ill-informed at how diversely "insecurity" is defined in psychology. And, no, I am not being a dick, either. I know you know there are a shit ton of ways to flesh out that idea and there are many many behavioral interdependencies.

Originally posted by inimalist
I mean, cool, ok, I'm certainly no expert on this stuff either,

Why would you assume I think I am, as well? I definitely am not. But to sweepingly brush aside the notion that insecurity is not involved is definitely brash.

Originally posted by inimalist
but like, I'm not sure your definition of insecurity as "anything I want it to mean" or as "anything, from any field of psych, that includes the word insecurity" carries any weight.

Contrast that obvious strawman with this actual representation of your side: I consider insecurity to be a very specific definition of shyness and being withdrawn.



Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not saying agree with me, but the argument of "this is what I want" isn't very convincing.

My argument is not that. My argument is that it is some form of insecurity, no matter how you want to mix and match it.

Can you both shut the **** up so that the more important matter can be addressed?

Originally posted by Digi
Hey, Big C, ignore these jabronis. Show us pics of this girl. That's way more relevant data to this decision.

Topless or not, your choice.

^ ^

There can be major benefits to dating someone with poor security. Burglarize the house and leave, for example, but stealing a piece of jewelry occasionally is easier to hide and is a more consistent flow of income.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There can be major benefits to dating someone with poor security. Burglarize the house and leave, for example, but stealing a piece of jewelry occasionally is easier to hide and is a more consistent flow of income.

As a Cyber Security major, I find your brand of humor humorous.

lol im not going to post picks of my ex here.

And yes I think it might be insecurity. She always assumed I was going to cheat on her. weather I go hang out with my friends or anywhere really she doesnt want me to go out at all. None of these guys she ever dated actually cheated on her. They left her for someone else because of the very reason I just left her.

You would think a girl would eventually realise she is chasing guys away with this shit.

I would post some of the very crazy voicemails she left on my cell if it were possible. theres tons of them.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I would post some of the very crazy voicemails she left on my cell if it were possible. theres tons of them.

Why did you save those? Delete them: free up some space.

I'd weigh the costs and benefits.

I have a couple of highly insecure friends (it generally manifests as verbal condescension). But I'm still friends with them cuz I weighed the costs and benefits. Hey, no one's perfect.

My last 2 were both way above me in the looks dept and both seriously insecure...Both times it was fun...1 ended cos she moved to the other side of the world but will most likely be picked up again when she's back at Christmas...The other was a complete and utter psycho and still sporadically sends me vitriol filled messages via facebook. I'd block her but they're too entertaining to do that.

Originally posted by jaden101
My last 2 were both way above me in the looks dept and both seriously insecure...Both times it was fun...1 ended cos she moved to the other side of the world but will most likely be picked up again when she's back at Christmas...

I learned this recently. If distance becomes a thing, don't try to make it work. Initiate the breakup but be psyched that you can stay friends, and actually put some effort into staying in touch. WAY easier to turn it into an occasional booty call when you or she is back in town.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
lol im not going to post picks of my ex here.

You're not great at picking up sarcasm, are you?

Anyway, I've mostly been a tool in this thread, but good luck with whatever you decide.

I already do ;]

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe Skinner's version: 1995 (edit or 1996). But since I have not contrasted the locus, I think you're trying too hard with your "gotcha".

Skinner outlines, in 2007, her opinions on primary v secondary control in a paper replying to Morling & Evered. In fact, primary and secondary control are only modestly related to locus of control (locus would determine what cause one attributes to an event, thereby changing whether an individual thinks the event was under their control or not, but this is getting more into Perry or Rauthbaum's stuff).

In terms of how Skinner defines primary and secondary control, Primary control can be broken down into two parts: actually doing what you want (walking, for instance) or actions that facilitate this (getting a wheelchair, this type of primary control is what Heckhausen would call secondary control). Secondary control deals with accepting and adjusting to events beyond one's control. So, if you know you can't walk, you accept this, as in, you no longer fight against it cognitively, and you adjust to meet your new limitations/context. If you only do one or the other, you can end up with various stressors, etc, but that isn't too important here (acceptance without adjusting will lead to frustration because you will still try to behave as though you were in total control, adjusting without acceptance will lead to conspiracy/magical thinking). So, sure, locus, or the perceived locus, might change what an individual thinks is within their control, but is generally not necessary when talking about primary v secondary in general (and the locus for the woman described by C-big-C is patently obvious).

In Skinner's view, a loss of secondary control isn't really "possible". Or, not that it isn't possible, but it requires a change in a person's cognition that would change how they have adapted to or accept an event. This has not happened in C-big-C's scenario. This woman has lost primary control and has no secondary control strategies to compensate, so she uses primary control strategies. In Heckhousian terms, she is using facilitator primary control to achieve her primary control objectives, but there is no apparent change in her acceptance or adjustment. So, going by the Skinner/Morling/Thompson/Perry view, there is no loss in secondary control, going by the Heckhausen view, secondary control increases.

I'm still not sure how you think this relates to insecurity (or, I don't agree with you defining a loss of primary control as insecurity, though you seem to think this is acceptable). This convo is really not fun any more, and I need to stop when this happens, however, I did sort of want to throw this glib remark out there: I have studied this topic, this literal topic about primary and secondary control, under Raymond Perry. Look him up, he is one of the most prestigious control researchers in the world, currently doing groundbreaking stuff that looks at attributional retraining of people's "locus of control" (he wouldn't use that term) that has astounding results in classroom settings. The TWO major papers I did for the course, which both received over 90%, were investigating Morling & Evered vs Skinner, specifically dealing with their ideas of secondary control, with the second paper being a design of an fMRI study to verify Skinner's ideas. I know I don't do this type of thing very often, and it isn't really becoming, but honestly, you are just wrong here. Just wrong. I know, you will write out some huge reply to each sentence I posted, so, whatever. The fact remains you are trying to talk about what is a very complicated topic as though you can just gloss over it, without any care for nuance. Like I said, last word is yours, so feel free to explain why I'm mischaracterizing you or why your opinion on this is actually superior to my ill-informed one, because frankly, a lot of our discussions just seem to devolve into this type of thing and it becomes more stressful than entertaining. Its like arguing with a creationist sometimes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
TBH, you came off as being extremely ill-informed at how diversely "insecurity" is defined in psychology.

nono, you are confused, I am the one who is informed about how diversely the term insecurity is used in psychology, and how they aren't interchangeable, even though they have the same word in the term. I know, science is weird sometimes.

When I saw title insecure, I remembered how I worked in a club and a girl - one of the customers asked me, if I remember her, on which I "politely" replied yes and later on she was already assaulting me with kisses and considering her striking cuteness I couldn't resist. Is she counted as insecure? Or does it make me insecure as well?

Originally posted by inimalist
I know, science is weird sometimes.

So are comics!

Originally posted by Bardock42
So are comics!

I knew I could depend on you!

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I had this chick who was so insecure it was ****ing ridiculous. she wanted to be on the phone 24/7 literally. when i try to say im going to call her back because im busy(just an excuse) after being on the phone for hours she gets frustrated. when she calls and i missed it(because im at work and my phone on silent) when i finally check my phone i see she had called over 20 times. she either does that or pops up at my job.

One time i made a mistake and left phone around her and she called my mother and cursed at her and called her a b*tch , because she though it was a girl texting me (because my mom calls me baby).

I left her and this stupid whore still thinks were together.

She's not insecure, she's crazy. Crazy like a ****ing wasp's nest.

And the first rule is: Don't put your dick into crazy.

I thought the rule was "feel free to put your dick in crazy, but make sure your ass is gone before she wakes up the next day"?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I thought the rule was "feel free to put your dick in crazy, but make sure your ass is gone before she wakes up the next day"?

No man. My bro did just this, and Crazy came back with a baby.
You just don't put you wang into that.

Originally posted by inimalist
Skinner outlines, in 2007, her opinions on primary v secondary control in a paper replying to Morling & Evered. In fact, primary and secondary control are only modestly related to locus of control (locus would determine what cause one attributes to an event, thereby changing whether an individual thinks the event was under their control or not, but this is getting more into Perry or Rauthbaum's stuff).

In terms of how Skinner defines primary and secondary control, Primary control can be broken down into two parts: actually doing what you want (walking, for instance) or actions that facilitate this (getting a wheelchair, this type of primary control is what Heckhausen would call secondary control). Secondary control deals with accepting and adjusting to events beyond one's control. So, if you know you can't walk, you accept this, as in, you no longer fight against it cognitively, and you adjust to meet your new limitations/context. If you only do one or the other, you can end up with various stressors, etc, but that isn't too important here (acceptance without adjusting will lead to frustration because you will still try to behave as though you were in total control, adjusting without acceptance will lead to conspiracy/magical thinking). So, sure, locus, or the perceived locus, might change what an individual thinks is within their control, but is generally not necessary when talking about primary v secondary in general (and the locus for the woman described by C-big-C is patently obvious).

In Skinner's view, a loss of secondary control isn't really "possible". Or, not that it isn't possible, but it requires a change in a person's cognition that would change how they have adapted to or accept an event. This has not happened in C-big-C's scenario. This woman has lost primary control and has no secondary control strategies to compensate, so she uses primary control strategies. In Heckhousian terms, she is using facilitator primary control to achieve her primary control objectives, but there is no apparent change in her acceptance or adjustment. So, going by the Skinner/Morling/Thompson/Perry view, there is no loss in secondary control, going by the Heckhausen view, secondary control increases.

I'm still not sure how you think this relates to insecurity (or, I don't agree with you defining a loss of primary control as insecurity, though you seem to think this is acceptable). This convo is really not fun any more, and I need to stop when this happens, however, I did sort of want to throw this glib remark out there: I have studied this topic, this literal topic about primary and secondary control, under Raymond Perry. Look him up, he is one of the most prestigious control researchers in the world, currently doing groundbreaking stuff that looks at attributional retraining of people's "locus of control" (he wouldn't use that term) that has astounding results in classroom settings. The TWO major papers I did for the course, which both received over 90%, were investigating Morling & Evered vs Skinner, specifically dealing with their ideas of secondary control, with the second paper being a design of an fMRI study to verify Skinner's ideas. I know I don't do this type of thing very often, and it isn't really becoming, but honestly, you are just wrong here. Just wrong. I know, you will write out some huge reply to each sentence I posted, so, whatever. The fact remains you are trying to talk about what is a very complicated topic as though you can just gloss over it, without any care for nuance. Like I said, last word is yours, so feel free to explain why I'm mischaracterizing you or why your opinion on this is actually superior to my ill-informed one, because frankly, a lot of our discussions just seem to devolve into this type of thing and it becomes more stressful than entertaining. Its like arguing with a creationist sometimes.

I seriously did not read a single word of this. Why would you type something out that long that (most likely) no one would read?



Originally posted by inimalist
nono, you are confused, I am the one who is informed about how diversely the term insecurity is used in psychology, and how they aren't interchangeable, even though they have the same word in the term. I know, science is weird sometimes.

Sorry, no, you are the one confused. You sweepingly dismissed anther's notion by applying a narrow definition to his statement. I pointed that out and you seemed to lose it: got snarky and tried to play "gotcha" games.

Fact is: you know WAAAAAAAAY more than me about psychology. However, even I know enough to know what you did was a sweeping, hasty, improper dismissal. Instead of getting frustrated, defensive, and attacking, just say, "May bad. There are definitely ways it is defined out there that make it right. But I don't like those."

You kind of did say that at one point. So I guess I did get an agreement from you. Maybe I continued the conversation more than I should have?

And, no, sorry, you do not get to say you "informed me" about the diversity in psychology when it comes to emotional security/insecrity when that was one of my points to you. Just to point out why I think you're wrong, here:

Originally posted by dadudemon
...that is a specific type of insecure that is not at all representative of all the different "flavors" of "insecure" out there.

I want to say "me said it first" because it does seem childish that I am pointing this out/gloating about it.

And why did you try to shift the topic towards control? Seems like a nasty red herring, in retrospect. If I want to troll you in the future, I certainly know to mention the word "control". The gal in question certainly felt a loss of control and I do believe it covers both primary and secondary control. I do not think we can just generalize it to just primary (which seems to be the textbook, generic, justification). Do you agree? If not, why am I wrong (by Skinner's work from 1995/6...cause that's the only work I am familiar with).



Final point: I agree that "emotional insecurity" is not perfectly interchangeable by some uses. However, they are definitely not mutually exclusive (which I think you were trying to say that they were mutually exclusive...correct me if i am wrong).




Edit - I was brave enough to try some of your first section. Skinner does cover locus of control in some of her work in 1995. After rechecking, I do believe some of the things I studied in school also covered some stuff that was published in 1996, so I edited my post to include that (check to see the edit in that previous post, if that doesn't make sense)...but I cannot be sure. It's cool that you have primary work in the field of control: very respectable. To be right there mixing it up at the frontier of human psychology is commendable and just plain awesome. I will never pretend that you are dumb or uneducated when it comes to psychology: from the beginning, I said you were dismissing or ignoring. I never said you were ignorant. I hope that changes your perspective of my approach.

Alright, cut it out. Dadude, don't post to say you didn't read something- that amounts to spam and is borderline trolling. If you didn't read it, don't post about it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Alright, cut it out. Dadude, don't post to say you didn't read something- that amounts to spam and is borderline trolling. If you didn't read it, don't post about it.

Do you have any other suggestion in how I can advise that lengthy diatribes, that I already stated I was not interested in discussing, will not be read?



Also, was I reported for stating that? If not, then what about the other posts towards me that say similar things?

For instance:

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/berneydidnotread.gif

As I'm currently in a relationship and not a douche, I probably wouldn't.

Else? Sure. Insecurities can be overcome. But I don't find your typical platinum blonde with a bad tan Barbie to be attractive. I prefer the raven - chestnut haired-, ivory skinned woman.

The implication seems to be that the "typical platinum blonde with a bad tan Barbie" is insecure, while the "raven - chestnut haired-, ivory skinned woman" is not. Was that intentional, or were you just stating an unrelated fact about your attractions?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The implication seems to be that the "typical platinum blonde with a bad tan Barbie" is insecure, while the "raven - chestnut haired-, ivory skinned woman" is not. Was that intentional, or were you just stating an unrelated fact about your attractions?
You raise a valid point. My humor might just be so sophisticated that I'll have to just sarcasm-brackets around the sarcastic segments of my replies in order for people to comprehend it.

Going back to the topic. There are worse things than insecurities, a shallow persona for one.

What the **** is wrong with my English today? **** this I'm going to get a pizza.

Originally posted by Astner
**** this I'm going to get a pizza.

HEY!


That was my idea...


Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Pizza sounds delicious right now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you have any other suggestion in how I can advise that lengthy diatribes, that I already stated I was not interested in discussing, will not be read?

My advice is- don't bother saying that at all. Just ignore it.

I'm never a fan of 'didn't read' responses, but in context yours was particularly irksome.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HEY!

That was my idea...
I think you subconsciously affected me to get a pizza, because I have a Marinara just next to me. Yes, I'm one of those slobs who eats in front of the computer.

Originally posted by Astner
I think you subconsciously affected me to get a pizza, because I have a Marinara just next to me. Yes, I'm one of those slobs who eats in front of the computer.

lol

Dude, you're okay. You still look very fit for being a supposed "slob".

Originally posted by Ushgarak
My advice is- don't bother saying that at all. Just ignore it.

I'm never a fan of 'didn't read' responses, but in context yours was particularly irksome.

Dually noted. Thanks for the advice. So no more "TL : DR" posts?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dually noted. Thanks for the advice. So no more "TL : DR" posts?

Why would you note it in two different ways?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Why would you note it in two different ways?

It's an idiom for "that was an important point so I am taking correct note of it".

But, you're right: it should be "duly" noted because "duly" is the adverb of due.

god yes..

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's an idiom for "that was an important point so I am taking correct note of it".

But, you're right: it should be "duly" noted because "duly" is the adverb of due.

Just having some fun with ya

yes I would yes I would...I once dated a hot stupid babe..lol

yes of course. i will date a hot babe if she is insecure. Your babe must be hot

Yeah, if she was a good girl and didn't act like a sl*t.