Assuming you couldn't have stopped the attacks either.If you could've controlled where the 9/11 attacks hit the U.S. where would you have directed them?
rush limbaughs house. i hate that schmuck..If you could've controlled where the 9/11 attacks hit the U.S. where would you have directed them?
If u can't stop it having the building collapse sooner, would stop the people that went in to help from getting hurt but noone would have been able to escape the building. Rural areas would be ideal as far as hurting less people hence the lower population but, that was not what they were after. They would have kept trying until they got what they want.
middle of superior, or az desert
really low like on the 20th floor, so the building would collapse faster
Friday, January 22, 2010
The difference between controlling and 'directing'?
I just had a relationship end. She had a lot of arguements that I am controlling. I never said don't hang out with someone, or crap like that, however, I am in law enforcement and a pretty strong christian. So the things I am controlling about are basic things, almost as obvious as don't kill someone. I would try to tell her things along the lines of the law for her safet and for the safety of her kids. I did not want to control her, just keep her safe. So here's the question; At what point do women take a suggestion and twist it in their mind into some command?The difference between controlling and 'directing'?
If you are going around constantly telling her not to break the law or kill people, not only are you controlling, but disrespectful and obnoxious. I assume you also told her she could not get abortions and what not? Well, either give more examples or just accept you are controlling. You can't 'direct' a person. Especially one adult directing another. People should DIRECT people unless they're filming them. You can guide people (mostly just kids though).
You are controlling. Either accept it or change.
People don't need direction. If they want it, they will ask for it. Otherwise, you're trying to control them.
The very fact that you said not just this ONE woman, but the entire nation of women worldwide, 'twist' things...proves you are the one with the problem. I don't see why she represents the entire nation of women. Is she black, white? Does she represent all people of that colour too ? You have major issues.
If you are going around constantly telling her not to break the law or kill people, not only are you controlling, but disrespectful and obnoxious. I assume you also told her she could not get abortions and what not? Well, either give more examples or just accept you are controlling. You can't 'direct' a person. Especially one adult directing another. People should DIRECT people unless they're filming them. You can guide people (mostly just kids though).
You are controlling. Either accept it or change.
People don't need direction. If they want it, they will ask for it. Otherwise, you're trying to control them.
The very fact that you said not just this ONE woman, but the entire nation of women worldwide, 'twist' things...proves you are the one with the problem. I don't see why she represents the entire nation of women. Is she black, white? Does she represent all people of that colour too ? You have major issues.
Is it true that a woman is like an adult child who must always be controlled and directed by men?
I mean scientist have theorized that ';women preserves the infantile type ... physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child ... in the domain of pure intellect it is doubtful if women have contributed one profound original idea of the slightest permanent value to the world.';
By McGrigor Allan, ';On the Real Differences in the Minds of Men and Women,'; Journal of the Anthropological Society 7 (1869): 210.Is it true that a woman is like an adult child who must always be controlled and directed by men?
Things have changed since 1869.
You wouldn't use medicines from that year, and you shouldn't use philosophies from that year either.
A lot of women scientists, from that time and years after, were shunned for their sex regardless of how great a contribution they made to DNA and X-rays, etc.
Even in 1869 women did a lot more than men realized. Many of them worked the fields and in factories, while raising babies and providing meals for their men. The only thing that made women mentally inferior back then was that they didn't know they were supposed to enjoy sex. Men were just egotistical and wanted to believe that women Needed to be dominated.
Now days, I think a lot of men are content to let the women take care of everything around the house. Out of my married friends most of the women manage the finances and make the major decisions. A lot of women earn more money than their husbands too.
My husband washes laundry and does dishes while I fix the trap in the bathtub and change the oil in the car.
I don't think any less of my husband. In fact I think it's wonderful that we work together to get things done.
Another guy I dated wouldn't let me work on my own car because he took it as an insult to his virility...even though I'm more mechanically inclined than him, even though I was trained by the military and he was trained by no one, he insisted that he had to better with cars than me.Is it true that a woman is like an adult child who must always be controlled and directed by men?
I beg to differ because I swear the grown man living in my house is worse then my children. So the answer to your question is a big fat NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heres one for ya. Get a group of men together and a group of women together send them out separate directions for a social outing. See how they behave and then tell me.....who needs supervision?
No ,it is not true. The men are the ones out there doing monkey jobs and coming come expecting the meal ready and the chores done, kinda reminds you of a child ,doesn't it?
Ps: does it feel good that this is coming from a twelve year old?
utter nonesence!Could a child work ,raise 4 children and have succesfull career for over 60 yrs?? I did and I am a woman !
And your main source is from 1869? Nice try. :)
Let's see...
besides Marie Curie, there's Sally Ride, Florence Nightingale, Louisa May Alcott, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Clara Barton, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Caroline Herschel, Louise Freeland Jenkins, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Golda Meir....
These women are NOT the exceptions. They are shining examples of women who have succeeded even when discouraged and told they could not possibly succeed by men.
I suggest you stop reading antiquated ramblings by biased authors whose pseudo-scientific writings reflected the chauvanistic viewpoint of their times. Use your own mind and eyes and see how men are every bit a woman's equal intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. Women *are* physically different from men, true, but created in the same Image and every bit as valued.
One thing more... if you think we are the *weaker* sex? then try giving birth.
Ever heard of Marie Curie? I am guessing that your Dad beat and controlled your Mom. You can break the cycle of violence and teach your children to be respectful of all people.
one scientist? 1869? idiot
Is it true that male chauvanists keep their brains between their legs? The fact that an idiot over 100 years ago was too scared of the concept of equality to even consider the possibility that a woman might just be a match for him is not scientific proof. Look at:
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/cather鈥?/a> Catherine the Great, who doubled the size of her country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Ni鈥?/a> Florence Nightingale, who revolutionized nursing and patient care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie Marie Curie, who studied the effects of radioactivity and became the first woman (but not last!) woman to win the Nobel Prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I鈥?/a> Queen Elizabeth the 1st, under whose reign the British empire went from a handful of islands to the Empire upon which the sun never sets
And that's just scratching the surface. There are hundreds if not thousands of other women who can honestly say that they made a difference that we still enjoy today.
When was the last time you had a decent conversation with a woman? 1869...hummm what year are we in????? Try getting your head outta yer a@@ and live alittle. You will never find a woman like that at this rate, my friend.
and the person saying this is a control freak,a woman batterer????1869 huh? how very up to date that is?
I thought that was how men were.
1869? Yeah right! That's the kind of thinking that men used to make women obsolete and it's not true. Do you feel that your mother is infantile and immoral? Does your father share that opinion of her? It's the strength of women that made men and without them they would have had repeated failings as providers, teachers, healers, and so on. Have you taken a couple of minutes and thought about all the responsibility that a woman has especially as a mother? She does everything! I hope you respect and love yours.
No, it's not true.
And 140 year old research is not cuttinjg edge science, either
BWAHAHAH!
ahh the good old 1869's.. when men were men.. and women were property.
This is one of the most ignorant statements out there.. but im sure that there are some men who will say ';woo yeah!';
If your bf has been giving you this crap I would ditch him very quickly. He will end up abusing you.
You are quoting psychology from the 1800s and think that we women are the ones in need of direction?
I am a woman, not a child in any way, and I certainly do not need to be controlled by anyone. You, on the other hand, are in some serious need of an education in women, in history, in anthropology, and in plain old common sense.
By McGrigor Allan, ';On the Real Differences in the Minds of Men and Women,'; Journal of the Anthropological Society 7 (1869): 210.Is it true that a woman is like an adult child who must always be controlled and directed by men?
Things have changed since 1869.
You wouldn't use medicines from that year, and you shouldn't use philosophies from that year either.
A lot of women scientists, from that time and years after, were shunned for their sex regardless of how great a contribution they made to DNA and X-rays, etc.
Even in 1869 women did a lot more than men realized. Many of them worked the fields and in factories, while raising babies and providing meals for their men. The only thing that made women mentally inferior back then was that they didn't know they were supposed to enjoy sex. Men were just egotistical and wanted to believe that women Needed to be dominated.
Now days, I think a lot of men are content to let the women take care of everything around the house. Out of my married friends most of the women manage the finances and make the major decisions. A lot of women earn more money than their husbands too.
My husband washes laundry and does dishes while I fix the trap in the bathtub and change the oil in the car.
I don't think any less of my husband. In fact I think it's wonderful that we work together to get things done.
Another guy I dated wouldn't let me work on my own car because he took it as an insult to his virility...even though I'm more mechanically inclined than him, even though I was trained by the military and he was trained by no one, he insisted that he had to better with cars than me.Is it true that a woman is like an adult child who must always be controlled and directed by men?
I beg to differ because I swear the grown man living in my house is worse then my children. So the answer to your question is a big fat NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heres one for ya. Get a group of men together and a group of women together send them out separate directions for a social outing. See how they behave and then tell me.....who needs supervision?
No ,it is not true. The men are the ones out there doing monkey jobs and coming come expecting the meal ready and the chores done, kinda reminds you of a child ,doesn't it?
Ps: does it feel good that this is coming from a twelve year old?
utter nonesence!Could a child work ,raise 4 children and have succesfull career for over 60 yrs?? I did and I am a woman !
And your main source is from 1869? Nice try. :)
Let's see...
besides Marie Curie, there's Sally Ride, Florence Nightingale, Louisa May Alcott, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Clara Barton, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Caroline Herschel, Louise Freeland Jenkins, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Golda Meir....
These women are NOT the exceptions. They are shining examples of women who have succeeded even when discouraged and told they could not possibly succeed by men.
I suggest you stop reading antiquated ramblings by biased authors whose pseudo-scientific writings reflected the chauvanistic viewpoint of their times. Use your own mind and eyes and see how men are every bit a woman's equal intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. Women *are* physically different from men, true, but created in the same Image and every bit as valued.
One thing more... if you think we are the *weaker* sex? then try giving birth.
Ever heard of Marie Curie? I am guessing that your Dad beat and controlled your Mom. You can break the cycle of violence and teach your children to be respectful of all people.
one scientist? 1869? idiot
Is it true that male chauvanists keep their brains between their legs? The fact that an idiot over 100 years ago was too scared of the concept of equality to even consider the possibility that a woman might just be a match for him is not scientific proof. Look at:
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/cather鈥?/a> Catherine the Great, who doubled the size of her country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Ni鈥?/a> Florence Nightingale, who revolutionized nursing and patient care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie Marie Curie, who studied the effects of radioactivity and became the first woman (but not last!) woman to win the Nobel Prize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I鈥?/a> Queen Elizabeth the 1st, under whose reign the British empire went from a handful of islands to the Empire upon which the sun never sets
And that's just scratching the surface. There are hundreds if not thousands of other women who can honestly say that they made a difference that we still enjoy today.
When was the last time you had a decent conversation with a woman? 1869...hummm what year are we in????? Try getting your head outta yer a@@ and live alittle. You will never find a woman like that at this rate, my friend.
and the person saying this is a control freak,a woman batterer????1869 huh? how very up to date that is?
I thought that was how men were.
1869? Yeah right! That's the kind of thinking that men used to make women obsolete and it's not true. Do you feel that your mother is infantile and immoral? Does your father share that opinion of her? It's the strength of women that made men and without them they would have had repeated failings as providers, teachers, healers, and so on. Have you taken a couple of minutes and thought about all the responsibility that a woman has especially as a mother? She does everything! I hope you respect and love yours.
No, it's not true.
And 140 year old research is not cuttinjg edge science, either
BWAHAHAH!
ahh the good old 1869's.. when men were men.. and women were property.
This is one of the most ignorant statements out there.. but im sure that there are some men who will say ';woo yeah!';
If your bf has been giving you this crap I would ditch him very quickly. He will end up abusing you.
You are quoting psychology from the 1800s and think that we women are the ones in need of direction?
I am a woman, not a child in any way, and I certainly do not need to be controlled by anyone. You, on the other hand, are in some serious need of an education in women, in history, in anthropology, and in plain old common sense.
Does anyone actually believe that BB isn't controlled and directed?
I met 2 actors who 'claimed' they had been paid and advised as to their behaviours in season 2. Do ppl not realise its controlled? That viewing figures, phone line profits and 'popularity' are the motivation??Does anyone actually believe that BB isn't controlled and directed?
Well of course they are, Why do you think that all reality TV shows have conflict or ppl become enemies/friends. Before the series start the director and producer bring evryone nto a room and tell them each how they are suppose to act either loud, annoying, happy, grumpy, star critisising someone to become enemies e.t.c
';Reality TV'; is far from realityDoes anyone actually believe that BB isn't controlled and directed?
of course its all fake. people who go on it are just mad desperate idiots who are hungry for their five minutes of fame.
Well of course they are, Why do you think that all reality TV shows have conflict or ppl become enemies/friends. Before the series start the director and producer bring evryone nto a room and tell them each how they are suppose to act either loud, annoying, happy, grumpy, star critisising someone to become enemies e.t.c
';Reality TV'; is far from realityDoes anyone actually believe that BB isn't controlled and directed?
of course its all fake. people who go on it are just mad desperate idiots who are hungry for their five minutes of fame.
Who directs and controls elections in the US?
the legislative, electol colledge the citezens WHO? this is soo confusing HELPWho directs and controls elections in the US?
The devilWho directs and controls elections in the US?
I would tell you but I doubt you will accept the answer. Let's just say it's the same bunch who have pretty much controlled major events since around 1600.
Either the elected candidate is already ';in the pocket'; of these unseen power brokers or the elected candidate is immediately persuaded to change his ways. A close election can and has been altered. Ask JFK what happens if the president shows signs of rebellion and threatens to expose the evildoers.
Repeat after me : spellcheck spellcheck....
The DNC and RNC holds conventions and then State, county, and city precincts tally the voters.
Unofficially, the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve, in cohesion with international boards truly decide the nominee.
just like everything else in this country, the government does
we are so capitalist! oh ya!
Hopefully not the same person that taught you how to spell.
Certainly doesn't seem like the American Citizens do, that's for sure!
george Sorosacne scars
The devilWho directs and controls elections in the US?
I would tell you but I doubt you will accept the answer. Let's just say it's the same bunch who have pretty much controlled major events since around 1600.
Either the elected candidate is already ';in the pocket'; of these unseen power brokers or the elected candidate is immediately persuaded to change his ways. A close election can and has been altered. Ask JFK what happens if the president shows signs of rebellion and threatens to expose the evildoers.
Repeat after me : spellcheck spellcheck....
The DNC and RNC holds conventions and then State, county, and city precincts tally the voters.
Unofficially, the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve, in cohesion with international boards truly decide the nominee.
just like everything else in this country, the government does
we are so capitalist! oh ya!
Hopefully not the same person that taught you how to spell.
Certainly doesn't seem like the American Citizens do, that's for sure!
george Soros
How does an anti depressant help in controlling or directing emotions?
It controls brain chemicals that are inbalanced, or releases new ones to even them out.How does an anti depressant help in controlling or directing emotions?
An antidepressant is a medication designed to treat or alleviate the symptoms of clinical depression. Some antidepressants, notably the tricyclics, are commonly used off-label in the treatment of neuropathic pain, whether or not the patient is depressed. Smaller doses are generally used for this purpose, and they often take effect more quickly. Many antidepressants also are used for the treatment of anxiety disorders, and tricyclic antidepressants are used in the treatment of chronic pain disorders such as chronic functional abdominal pain (CFAP), myofascial pain syndrome, and post-herpetic neuralgia.
The main classes of antidepressants have similar efficacy, but the newer types are generally regarded to have a more benign side-effect profile and less risk of lethality if taken in overdose.
Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)
Tricyclic antidepressants
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)
Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)
Selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARIs)
Dopamine reuptake inhibitors (DRIs)
Opioids
Selective serotonin reuptake enhancers (SSREs)
Novel antidepressants
Tetracyclic antidepressants
Norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors
Fluoxetine - of the SSRI class (Prozac, Sarafem, Fluctin, Fontex, Prodep, Fludep, Lovan)
Sertraline - of the SSRI class (Zoloft, Lustral, Apo-Sertral, Asentra, Gladem, Serlift, Stimuloton)
Venlafaxine - of the SNRI class (Effexor)
Citalopram - of the SSRI class (Celexa, Cipramil, Talohexane)
Paroxetine - of the SSRI class (Paxil, Seroxat, Aropax)
Escitalopram - of the SSRI class (Lexapro, Cipralex)
Fluvoxamine - of the SSRI class (Luvox, Faverin)
Duloxetine - of the SNRI class (Cymbalta)
Bupropion - of the DRI class (Wellbutrin, Zyban)
The therapeutic effects of antidepressants are believed to be related to an effect on neurotransmitters, particularly by inhibiting the monoamine transporter proteins of serotonin and norepinephrine. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) specifically prevent the reuptake of serotonin (thereby increasing the level of serotonin in synapses of the brain), whereas earlier monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) blocked the destruction of neurotransmitters by enzymes which normally break them down. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) prevent the reuptake of various neurotransmitters, including serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Although these drugs are clearly effective in treating depression, the current theory still leaves unanswered questions. For example, concentrations in the blood build to therapeutic levels in only a few days and begin affecting neurotransmitter activity immediately. Changes in mood, however, often take four weeks or more to appear. One explanation holds that the ';down-regulation'; of neurotransmitter receptors鈥攁n apparent consequence of excess signaling and a process that takes several weeks鈥攊s actually the mechanism responsible for the alleviation of depressive symptoms. Another theory, based on recent research published by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, suggests that antidepressants may derive their effects by promoting neurogenesis in the hippocampus.Recent research suggests that antidepressants act on transcription factors termed ';clock genes';, which also are involved in actions of drugs of abuse and possibly in obesityHow does an anti depressant help in controlling or directing emotions?
anti depressants (called SSRIs) control and balance the level of serotonin in your brain - the chemical that controls mood.
An antidepressant is a medication designed to treat or alleviate the symptoms of clinical depression. Some antidepressants, notably the tricyclics, are commonly used off-label in the treatment of neuropathic pain, whether or not the patient is depressed. Smaller doses are generally used for this purpose, and they often take effect more quickly. Many antidepressants also are used for the treatment of anxiety disorders, and tricyclic antidepressants are used in the treatment of chronic pain disorders such as chronic functional abdominal pain (CFAP), myofascial pain syndrome, and post-herpetic neuralgia.
The main classes of antidepressants have similar efficacy, but the newer types are generally regarded to have a more benign side-effect profile and less risk of lethality if taken in overdose.
Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)
Tricyclic antidepressants
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)
Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)
Selective noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (NARIs)
Dopamine reuptake inhibitors (DRIs)
Opioids
Selective serotonin reuptake enhancers (SSREs)
Novel antidepressants
Tetracyclic antidepressants
Norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors
Fluoxetine - of the SSRI class (Prozac, Sarafem, Fluctin, Fontex, Prodep, Fludep, Lovan)
Sertraline - of the SSRI class (Zoloft, Lustral, Apo-Sertral, Asentra, Gladem, Serlift, Stimuloton)
Venlafaxine - of the SNRI class (Effexor)
Citalopram - of the SSRI class (Celexa, Cipramil, Talohexane)
Paroxetine - of the SSRI class (Paxil, Seroxat, Aropax)
Escitalopram - of the SSRI class (Lexapro, Cipralex)
Fluvoxamine - of the SSRI class (Luvox, Faverin)
Duloxetine - of the SNRI class (Cymbalta)
Bupropion - of the DRI class (Wellbutrin, Zyban)
The therapeutic effects of antidepressants are believed to be related to an effect on neurotransmitters, particularly by inhibiting the monoamine transporter proteins of serotonin and norepinephrine. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) specifically prevent the reuptake of serotonin (thereby increasing the level of serotonin in synapses of the brain), whereas earlier monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) blocked the destruction of neurotransmitters by enzymes which normally break them down. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) prevent the reuptake of various neurotransmitters, including serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine. Although these drugs are clearly effective in treating depression, the current theory still leaves unanswered questions. For example, concentrations in the blood build to therapeutic levels in only a few days and begin affecting neurotransmitter activity immediately. Changes in mood, however, often take four weeks or more to appear. One explanation holds that the ';down-regulation'; of neurotransmitter receptors鈥攁n apparent consequence of excess signaling and a process that takes several weeks鈥攊s actually the mechanism responsible for the alleviation of depressive symptoms. Another theory, based on recent research published by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, suggests that antidepressants may derive their effects by promoting neurogenesis in the hippocampus.Recent research suggests that antidepressants act on transcription factors termed ';clock genes';, which also are involved in actions of drugs of abuse and possibly in obesityHow does an anti depressant help in controlling or directing emotions?
anti depressants (called SSRIs) control and balance the level of serotonin in your brain - the chemical that controls mood.
Not able to control which parts of vision i notice things not in consiously directed central vision?
I have developed a very weird problem - when im around a person/people I look at them in my periphery without meaning too, even if i am trying to look 180 degrees away from them. Some part of my brain becomes fixated on them and they become part of what im looking at, even if they are sitting all the way to the side of me and at the limit of my periphery (e.g on a bus) and im tryin to look exclusively straight ahead at a object in the distance. It also happens at home when I watch tv alone, I could be sitting there watchin tele then suddenly it will come to my attention the issues im having in public etc and then somehow i will select an object in my periperhal vision randomly and become fixated on it, and the only way i can get out of this mode is to try and forget about it (zoning out of it unknowingly while paying attention to the tele ) but when im around people they constantly move etc so i think this just perptuates the problem to an exttent (i think someone has already asked this question)...But on top of this problem, another, even WORSE problem has developed where when im talkin to people face to face, regardless of gender (btw im a heterosexual guy) and i end up noticing their private parts in my peripheral vision aswell being able to look at their face with my central vision at the same time whilst in conversation with them .Im not sure why im doing it, but i think its gotten worse in a very short space of time because I have gotten panikcy about whether people can notice me doing it and so i have limited conversation with anyone but close friends and family . This latter problem is what has now made me apprehensive about asking a psychiatrist about in person because its sounds so pathetically embarrasing, and ive only mentioned the horizontal peripheral vision issues thus far to my gp and friends. I just wanted to know from the members of this site, particulary women, if they can notice when men are engaged on their private parts with their periperhal vision while in convo with them (because im sure some men must do it from time to time, or so ive read), because i think this has made the problem persistent , maybe because of a loop created in panicky circumstances??? I'd appreciate any adivce at all, and thanks....Not able to control which parts of vision i notice things not in consiously directed central vision?
I think you should just chill out and relax. The more you're getting paranoid about this the more of an issue it's getting for you and the more you're noticing. Everyone finds themselves doing things like this occasionally, and once you notice something and get embarrassed about it it's quite hard to stop noticing lol. Particularly if it's something like the way a guys trousers are sticking out or something! Seriously, don't worry about it and once you stop thinking about it you'll stop noticing as much. It's completely normal.Not able to control which parts of vision i notice things not in consiously directed central vision?
You sound as though you're developing an obsessive compulsive habit. I think that a therapist might be a good idea. This isn't anything to be embarrassed about. I wish I could give you better advice about the root of your preoccupation but I have no background on you. Therapy might help.
I think you should just chill out and relax. The more you're getting paranoid about this the more of an issue it's getting for you and the more you're noticing. Everyone finds themselves doing things like this occasionally, and once you notice something and get embarrassed about it it's quite hard to stop noticing lol. Particularly if it's something like the way a guys trousers are sticking out or something! Seriously, don't worry about it and once you stop thinking about it you'll stop noticing as much. It's completely normal.Not able to control which parts of vision i notice things not in consiously directed central vision?
You sound as though you're developing an obsessive compulsive habit. I think that a therapist might be a good idea. This isn't anything to be embarrassed about. I wish I could give you better advice about the root of your preoccupation but I have no background on you. Therapy might help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)