I can assure you, through years of experience, that the only "resilience" self-destruction brings is learning how to repeatedly pull yourself back from the metaphorical cliff edge you nearly flung yourself over
-
-
Replying to @violentkeysmash @chaosprime
yeah idk that's how I'm thinking about it too. I guess some sense of positive/constructive resilience is what I mean by resilience. idk, maybe I'm missing something?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sadmoonanalog @violentkeysmash
hm. consider a plan of: 1. identify a situation where one responds to stressors with fragility 2. develop an idea of how to respond more resiliently 3. intentionally expose self to situation 4. evaluate idea, refine, repeat is this not intentional resilience development?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @sadmoonanalog
self-destructive behaviour doesn't involve this much planning, dude this is more like, idk, self-constructive behaviour?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @violentkeysmash @sadmoonanalog
i'm not trying to identify that structure with "self-destructive behavior", just going back to the original thing about resilience never developing because you want it to
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @sadmoonanalog
maybe? the framework you've outlined is similar to therapeutic frameworks for building distress tolerance ("resilience"). but if you're equating "want to" with intentionality, and since the framework requires intentional planning, one can only build resilience if one wants to.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @violentkeysmash @sadmoonanalog
sure. the original assertion is that is itself not sufficient, that things you can do to build resilience aren't things that will happen because of wanting that / that you can choose / that you can consent to. i think i see a point there but i'm questioning how complete it is
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @sadmoonanalog
280char kinda stunts completeness.. the point was you have to *want to* plan around the distressing situation and *intentionally* build resilience to it through the plan, or the framework doesn't work, and nothing about your resilience changes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @violentkeysmash @sadmoonanalog
which point? because that sounds like an opposite assertion to "unfortunately, the opportunity to become more resilient is never something you consent to."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @sadmoonanalog
the point I was making in thread.. in a way it is an opposite assertion? in that resilience won't automatically build on its own simply by exposure, it requires intentional planning and controlled (consensual) test situations for said plans.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
k it is opposite in that if resilience building opportunities are not something you can consent to, then the whole consent-and-planning based structure both you and i have described is impossible, which makes it confusing that you seem to be arguing for them both together
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.