I hear you. It wasn't necessarily directed at you. Just the whole thread, Jesus, and my neuroticisms showing in full force.

I think, my real point was that cognitive distortions only manifest after the fact. So, no harm meant. — Wallows

No worries. My last post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, I'm not actually upset. Mostly, I just want to say 'I feel you.' It's hard to live with this kind of thing, but I think it's possible.

(The LSD stuff was probably what people in AA call 'war stories' where you play up stuff that you officially regret, for the pleasure of recounting it, and seeming interesting. A temptation to be avoided, if possible.)

I think hookups is like shooting yourself in the foot or an attempt to replicate something that's sincere and genuine. Hence I stay away from such things.

I really want to fall in love though. Ehh...

Oh! Different meanings of 'hookup.' There's the romantic one - one night stand, etc. There's also the drug one. 'I know a guy who can hook us up.' The latter is what I meant. I just meant I knew someone who could get me drugs, and I was torn up, so I took them up on it.

I just meant I knew someone who could get me drugs, and I was torn up, so I took them up on it. — csalisbury

Oh, shit. I was on a different wavelength totally. LOL.

And you paid too much. Look into 1P-LSD. Same shit, cheaper, and more tested so that you don't buy any poorly synthesized stuff.

Hook me up! :wink:

Hook me up! :wink: — csalisbury

The taxes in this market are too high. And my conscience won't allow it. But, hey I gave you a hint. :cool:

I think there is value in Vygotsky's approach to schizophrenia. He helped form many ways of thinking of the use of concepts as the "internalization" of social relationships and processes (cf. Piaget,etc,) but also argued against the "regression to older ways of thinking" as only a matter of individual development.

His emphasis on comparing what "normal" people do with what schizophrenic people cannot is not framed in the context of individual development. The approach militates against the language of identity formation such as put forth by such psychologists as Erik Erikson. Vygotsky insisted that regression of abilities is never simply growth moving in reverse.

It occurs to me that my observations made above may not be read as an attempt to address the OP regarding the ideas of a self going through changes and how other people may perceive them. I mean to challenge that framework as inadequate to the task of dealing with the suffering that prompted people to start trying to understand this sort of thing.

I am more open to the idea that people are wrong about the nature of something perceived than saying the entire project of looking into problems is actually an agenda for something else. The first sort of mistake can correct perception. The second leaves the problems for someone else to solve.