Background

No "Wrong" Partner, Other Moronic Relationship Advice

Uploaded 1/21/2022, approx. 10 minute read

Okay, ba'ulzonim, svanpanim, and bonbonim, the three new categories of students.

And yes, for those of you who are lucky enough to not be my students, my students are labeled Ba'al Vazon, Svanpan, Chmadmad, Bonbon. That way, I'm propagating the knowledge of Biblical Hebrew around the world. Am I a holy man or what? Yes, sirree.

And today we are going to discuss online nonsense. What else?

Stupid, moronic, counterproductive, self-defeating, idiotic, and counterfactual, not true, advice given by self-help gurus and other savory characters.

And we're going to focus today on two of these tips.

And actually, I'm thinking of making this into a series because there are so many wrong tips, wrong pieces of advice that lead you astray all the time.

As I said, today I'm going to focus on two of them.


And the first one is finding the right partner.

Yes, everyone and his dog or his cat will tell you that you need to find the right partner or that you keep selecting the wrong partners, the wrong mates. They will tell you that something is wrong with your mate selection.

Here's breaking news for you. There is no such thing as a wrong partner. Your mate selection is always on point, always on target, always right for you. Every single partner you've ever had was the right partner for you.

Yes, yes, I know, I know. How can it be? I had been abused. I had been molested. I've been raped. I've been attacked. I've been smear campaigned. I had been through hell and back. And you're telling me that this guy was the right guy for me?

Yes, honey, I am. Let's try to understand what I'm saying.

When we select a mate, we usually select the right partner for us. And there's a simple reason for that.

Mate selection is a skill that had been honed over millions of years. It's the outcome of an evolutionary process that took millions of years to mature among human beings.

So it's very unlikely to be wrong. It's very, very unlikely to go awry. Things that evolution processes that evolution had perfected over millions of years rarely go wrong, rarely go awry.

And if you say that your mate selection is wrong, something's wrong with you, not with your mate selection, because evolution is always right. You are probably wrong.

For example, if you are a self-loathing and self-trashing masochist, you hate yourself. You are self-destructive. You're sexually self-trashing or otherwise self-trashing. You're an alcoholic, for example.

What is the right partner for you? What is the right mate for you?

An abusive narcissist. If you're this kind of person, an abusive narcissist is the right partner for you. And he's the right partner for a one night stand, or he could be the right partner for decades to come. But he's the right partner for you because you crave pain. You want to destroy yourself. You self-loathe. You hate yourself. You disgust yourself. You want to punish yourself. You are your own worst enemy.

And so you select the right partner to accomplish this unconscious goals of self-destruction and self-defeat. It's the right partner for you.

Something is wrong with you because you are a self-defeating, self-trashing masochist. You need help.

But as long as you are like that, your choice of an abuser as your partner is the right choice for you because this is the way you become self-efficacious.

By choosing this kind of partner, you guarantee that you will be abused, molested, mistreated, maltreated, denigrated, degraded, humiliated, rejected, etc. Which is exactly what you want. It's a form of self-efficacy and your mate's selection is perfect.

Take another case. Imagine that you are a loner, a schizoid at heart. You dread intimacy. You hate being vulnerable. You're afraid of it because you anticipate heartbreak. You know that love goes with pain. That the flip coin of attachment is hurt. And you don't want this.

So you have something which is called avoidant dismissive attachment style. You approach and then you avoid.

And so if you have an avoidant dismissive attachment style, an avoidant dismissive mate, an avoidant dismissive intimate partner, an avoidant dismissive boyfriend, an avoidant dismissive husband, that's a match made in heaven. That's exactly the kind of man or woman you need. If you're avoidant dismissive, that's what you need. Another avoidant dismissive.

Having a true intimate partner, someone who really loves you, someone who wants to be with you all the time, someone who seeks intimacy would only enhance your anxiety. It would make you feel bad and depressed. It will amplify your insecurities to the point of paranoia.

You don't need this. You need someone who is aloof, someone who is detached, someone who wants to see you minimally. You need a long distance relationship. You need to meet each other once or twice a week and have the equivalent of casual sex. You don't need to go deep. You don't need to talk too much. You don't need intimacy. Intimacy is bad for you.

So if you're avoidant dismissive, avoidant dismissive is the right partner for you.

What about if you are thrill seeking, reckless and defiant?

Well, then the right partner for you is a psychopath. You're going to gravitate towards psychopathic intimate partners, psychopathic mates. And that would be a perfect match.

Because if you are thrill seeking, the psychopath would provide you with thrills. If you're reckless, the psychopath is risk taking. And if you're defiant in your face, the psychopath is going to reciprocate.

That's what you like. That's what you want. That's what you need. That's the right partner for you.

Your attachment style is who you are. It's lifelong. It's immutable. It could never be changed.

Don't misunderstand me. Your life goals can and do change. They can be modified. Choices can and do change. You can make choices. You can alter your behaviors in relationships. You can change all these things. You can play with all these things. One year you can be needy. The other year you can be avoidant. You can make choices of who to be with or who to not be with. You can set life goals, which will dictate certain kinds of behaviors and certain kinds of things to avoid.

So your attachment style is set in stone, but everything else is pretty fluid. But your attachment style makes sure that whoever you may end up with is always the right partner for you.


I want you to listen to this very carefully.

You're making reasoned and rational choices in accordance with your attachment style.

You may end up being in a lot of pain. You may end up being in a lot of hurt. You may end up having one heartbreak, heartbreaker for another, but that's precisely what you want. That's what you seek.

You home onto the kind of partners who will cater to your emotional needs. And if your emotional needs are self-defeating, self-destructive and reckless and crazy making and what have you, you're going to find a partner. You're going to find a partner to provide you with the kind of input and the kind of support for these kinds of behaviors.

Now, these kinds of behaviors may be, of course, self-destructive. They may be pathological. Actually, they are pathological, but that's who you are. That's who you are.

Your childhood had shaped you irrevocably, irretrievably. There's nothing you can do about it. We are all shaped by our early years. That's why they are called formative years because they form you.

Now, all the nonsense online and in self-help books and this whole industry, this whole industry is con artistry. These are con artists. They are not updated with psychological research. They just spew out utter nonsense. I don't know where they're getting this from, but be careful, be careful because they're telling you what you want to hear. They're fostering self malignant, pernicious hope, malignant optimism in you.

Having false hope, in my view, is worse than having no hope at all.

Choosing partners by prescription is worse than choosing partners the right way and the only right way is to find someone who resonates with your pathologies, with your insecurities, with your psychological makeup, and above all, with your attachment style.

Don't shit on yourself. Don't force yourself into a box because some idiot guru told you so or because some YouTuber with no qualifications had convinced you to behave in a certain way. Don't do this to yourself.


Here's another piece of moronic advice. One of the most moronic correctness bits of politically correct advice online is the following.

Your partner's sexual, social, and psychological histories, your partner's past, they're not relevant. What do you care to know about your partner's past? You have no right to inquire about the sexual history of your partner, the relationship history of your partner, your partner's predilections and proclivities, your partner's propensities and choices. You have no right to go into all this.

If you do this, you are being patronizing and condescending and onerous and even intrusive and stockish. I mean, you shouldn't do this.

Only present choices, decisions and behaviors matter. Don't be retroactively jealous, for example. It's wrong to inquire about your partner's past. You should be concerned with the present and the future.

This is, by far, the most stupid advice anyone could give you. I mean, you need to be a chimpanzee to give this advice. And yet, there are many chimpanzees online, with or without fur.

By far, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I'm going to repeat this for your edification and benefit. Listen well.

By far, the best predictor of the future behavior of your partner is the past behavior of your partner. Recidivism, defaulting to past misconduct, is rife and rampant and prevalent.

If your partner had behaved in a certain way in the past, he's extremely likely to repeat this behavior pattern.

More than 80% of alcoholics restart drinking, restart to drink again. Within a year, a year from rehab, almost 70% of criminals repopulate their erstwhile sales. Criminals commit crimes.

Why? Because that's what criminals do. Alcoholics drink. Why? Because that's what alcoholics do.

Having cheated once, you are three times as likely to cheat again. It's a fact. Unpleasant, unpalatable, politically incorrect. You're supposed to say that everyone can change and anyone can change, you know. You can reform yourself.

Poppycock, utter blood, blood dash. Total nonsense. You cannot change yourself fundamentally after age 21. End of story.

Neuroplasticity, my dear. You can change some fundamental issues after age 21.

I repeat this. If you had cheated once, you're much more likely, hundreds of percents more likely to cheat again.

Promiscuous women, for example, slip around, extra diatically outside the couple. Much more often than the regulated boundary sort.

If you had been a promiscuous woman in your past, you are extremely likely to be a promiscuous woman again. You may have a period or even a long period without promiscuity, but it's going to happen again. There's nothing you can do about it. It's a form of addiction.

By all means, interrogate your new potential intimate partner. And I'm using the word interrogate judiciously. Interrogate your new potential intimate partner. To the greatest possible extent. Be intrusive and insistent and persistent. Do not take obfuscation for an answer. Do not allow your partner to get away with some fuzzy generalization, insist on details and data. It is your only protection against future nasty surprises.

I mean, the proliferation of wannabe psychologists, armchair psychologists, online YouTubers with and without academic degrees, which are not relevant to the field they are talking about. I mean, it's a miasma. It's a swamp. We need a proverbial Donald Trump to drain this swamp. I just don't know. Don't know how to do it. Now that he's gone. Oh, the heartbreak.

Ok, Shoshanim. It's not been too long, has it?

Have fun with your intimate partners because they're the right ones. They're always the right ones for you. But make sure to know everything about them before you render them intimate partners, before you grant them access to your world. Be safe in every possible way.

If you enjoyed this article, you might like the following:

2 Types of Bad Partner: Too Present, or Too Absent

Marriage and divorce rates indicate a significant trend of individuals selecting unsuitable partners, with many adults remaining lifelong singles. Two primary types of bad partners are identified: those who are emotionally absent but threaten presence when needed, and those who are overly present but withdraw when feeling suffocated. Individuals from dysfunctional families often develop insecure attachment styles, leading to flawed mate selection as they unconsciously seek to recreate unresolved childhood conflicts. This results in a cycle of alternating between these two types of partners, as they attempt to compensate for the emotional deficiencies experienced in their upbringing.


Stalker Psychology

Stalking is a form of abuse that continues long after a relationship has ended, with the majority of abusers getting the message. However, a minority of abusers, the more vindictive and obsessed ones, continue to stalk their ex-partners for years to come. These stalkers are typically lonely, violent, and intermittently unemployed, but they are rarely full-fledged criminals. Contrary to myths perpetrated by the mass media, studies show that most stalkers are men, have high IQs, advanced degrees, and are middle-aged.


Why No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Cognitive dissonance arises when individuals feel shame and helplessness in response to the good deeds of others, leading to resentment and aggression towards those do-gooders. This reaction stems from the realization that their own shortcomings are highlighted by the altruism of others, causing feelings of inferiority. Additionally, suspicion and paranoia about the motives behind these good deeds further exacerbate the negative feelings, as recipients often question the sincerity and intentions of the benefactor. Ultimately, this combination of shame and distrust results in a backlash against those who attempt to help, reinforcing the notion that no good deed goes unpunished.


Coping with Stalkers: Psychopaths, Narcissists, Paranoids, Erotomaniacs

Stalkers come in different types, including erotomaniac, narcissistic, paranoid, and anti-social or psychopathic. Coping techniques suited to one type of stalker may backfire or prove to be futile with another. The best coping strategy is to first identify the type of abuser you are faced with. It is essential to avoid all contact with your stalker, but being evaded only inflames the stalker's wrath and enhances his frustration.


Spree Shooter's Psychology

Spray-shooters typically exhibit severe interpersonal dysfunction, often stemming from early childhood trauma, leading to feelings of exclusion and inadequacy. Their pent-up aggression manifests as uncontrollable rage, often directed at marginalized groups, which they scapegoat to justify their violent actions. During the act of violence, they experience a temporary sense of belonging and relief from anxiety, while their subsequent suicide is a defiant gesture that reinforces their self-perception as failures. Life crises often trigger these violent outbursts, marking a descent into despair before their ultimate demise.


Why People Commit War Crimes and How to Prevent Them (TalkTV with Trisha Goddard)

War creates a disorienting environment that can lead individuals to cross moral lines, as the experience is often perceived as a detached reality where normal rules do not apply. Soldiers face dilemmas that force them to choose between two evils, complicating their moral decision-making under extreme stress. Upbringing and personal experiences significantly influence whether a soldier commits war crimes, with those raised in environments that instill strong moral values being less likely to engage in such behavior. Education and social conditioning can play a crucial role in preventing war crimes, suggesting that a soldier's background must be considered in their training and preparation for combat.


Psychopathic Bully and Stalker

Stalking is a crime and stalkers are criminals, yet the horrid consequences of stalking are often underestimated. Many criminals, and therefore many stalkers, suffer from personality disorders, most prevalently the antisocial personality disorder, formerly known as psychopathy. Psychopaths regard other people as objects to be manipulated, in instruments of gratification and utility. The best coping strategy is to convince the psychopath that messing with your life or with your nearest is going to cost him dearly.


Mass Shooters: Mentally Ill or Show-off?

Mass shooters are typically young, white males who engage in mass shootings as a spectacle and a way to gain immortality and control. They often have a strong presence on social media and are driven by grandiosity, negative emotions, and perceived grievances. The psychology of mass shooters differs from that of terrorists, as they are not ideologically motivated. Preventing mass shootings requires threat assessment, intervention, and addressing the issue of gun control.


Addicted to Trauma Bonding? WATCH TO THE END! (with Stephanie Carinia, Trauma Expert)

Trauma bonding is characterized by a strong, unidirectional attachment formed through unpredictable and abusive reinforcement, leading to a power imbalance between the abuser and the abused. The dynamics of trauma bonding involve the abused person confusing intensity with love, often mistaking abusive attention for genuine affection, and experiencing extreme separation anxiety that drives them to remain in the relationship. The abuser creates a dependency by isolating the victim and instilling feelings of helplessness, while the victim internalizes the abuser's negative beliefs, leading to a distorted self-perception and a cycle of self-deception. Ultimately, trauma bonding can be seen as a collaborative process where both parties fulfill their psychological needs, albeit in a destructive manner, making it difficult for the victim to break free from the relationship.


War as Narcissistic Fantasy (with Trisha Goddard on TALKTV)

War often leads to the dehumanization of the enemy, a psychological defense mechanism known as splitting, where one side is portrayed as entirely good and the other as entirely evil. This process allows individuals and societies to justify violence and destruction by viewing the enemy as subhuman or demonic, which is reinforced through language and media narratives. Additionally, war fosters a sense of identity and bonding among those on the same side, often leading to a collective belief in divine favor or moral superiority. Ultimately, while war is associated with positive values like heroism and courage, it is also a manifestation of narcissism and antisocial behavior, obscuring the harsh realities of conflict.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2024, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2024
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy