archives main |
EXPECTATIONS AND HAPPINESS
Lately, I've been thinking about the power of expectations. Or more like the downside of having too many of them. I've decided that one of the biggest contributors to unhappiness is when expectations don't align with reality.
When I was pregnant with David, Jake and I took a baby prep class and a month after our kids were due, we all came back to the same hospital to meet and talk about our babies and how things went, etc. We noticed, at the time, that the couples who had an unexpected problem (however small it was) felt like their hospital/birth experience was terrible and in the cases where everything went smootly, the parents thought the hospital was amazing. There might have been some cases where the staff varied enough to cause this, but I really think it had more to do with the alignment of expectations vs reality. If you go into it thinking you'll have a one night stay at the hospital and end up having to stay 3 days, suddenly it's the hospital's fault or something went wrong. Instead of focusing on the good, like how your baby is healthy, you focus on how things didn't go as planned. This is true in the smallest things in life like getting caught in a red light when you expect to be somewhere at some particular time. It's also true in the biggest things like career, love, home, etc. I've been trying to figure out what this means to me. Do I lower my expectations? Do I purposefully not set expectations? But aren't expectations also a bit of a driving-force behind acheivement? How are they different from goals? I am not entirely sure of the answers. But I did decide that I will spend more time thinking about the crux of the issue and try to figure out what matters most to me and hope that, that particular thing goes well and try to refrain from having any more expectations than that. So, for example, concentrate on having a healthy and happy baby and let go of getting to control the timinig, location, and other, smaller issues.Or focus on getting somewhere safely even if it means I have to be a few minutes late. Cause safety matters more. Spend the extra few seconds to hug or calm David down even if it means I get that much less sleep. I guess it's a way of learning that you can't have it all and you should stop expecting it. And it's also taking your expectations, especially the subconscious ones where you just take things for granted, and living each day more aware of them and making sure you're not expecting more than what's realistic and, more significantly, more than what matters. EXTROVERT VS. INTROVERT - TAKE II
In the last few weeks, I've become the office joke because I had the
audacity to claim that I
am not extroverted. Anyone who's met me under most normal
circumstances will quickly realize that I talk. A lot. Really. A lot.
With a few exceptions, I make friends quickly and feel comfortable
chatting up random people. I speak my mind. I tend to talk quickly and a
lot, so people think I talk without thinking. People make judgments
quickly and, unless they spend considerable amount of time with me, they
don't get to see how I spend all my time. So they tend to "figure me
out" quickly and yet incorrectly.
Here's what wikipedia says about extraversion and introversion: Extraversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self". Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. An extraverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They enjoy risk-taking and often show leadership abilities. An extravert is energized when around other people. Extraverts tend to "fade" when alone and can easily become bored without other people around. Extraverts tend to think as they speak. When given the chance, an extravert will talk with someone else rather than sit alone and think. Introversion is "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life". Introverts tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and relatively non-engaged in social situations. They take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, drawing, watching movies, listening to music, inventing, designing, programming and using computers extensively. An introverted person is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people (although they tend to enjoy one-to-one or one-to-few interactions with close friends). They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate. Introversion is not the same as shyness, though introverts may also be shy. Introverts choose solitary over social activities by preference, whereas shy people avoid social encounters out of fear. An introvert is energized when alone. Introverts tend to "fade" when with people and can easily become overstimulated with too many others around. Introverts tend to think before speaking. When given the chance, an introvert will sit alone and think rather than talk with someone else. I added the underlines to show what pieces of each are true for me. While I am chatty and enjoy the company of people, I hate parties. I don't like large social gatherings of any kind actually. I prefer the company of a good book to 98% of people, including my friends. I spent years writing. Even scrapping is something I prefer to do in the solitude of my home. I spend hours thinking about my life, my choices, the people around me, etc. I would say, for the most part, I am not shy and, depending on who it is, I certainly get energized with people around me. However, I always prefer solitude. I loved working from home. So maybe, in the end, I am not an introvert, but an ambivert. A term wikipedia describes as: Ambiversion is a term used to describe people who fall more or less directly in the middle and exhibit tendencies of both groups. An ambivert is normally comfortable with groups and enjoys social interaction, but also relishes time alone and away from the crowd. I don't know why the distinction matters so much to me. I don't know why I try to convince my work mates that they are wrong about me. It shouldn't matter much, I suppose. In the end, it's just a label. And, as with many others, neither of these labels fit me well. People are allowed to think however they want. I guess I mostly mind that how I see myself doesn't seem to match how others see me. Does that really matter? OBSESSIVE PATTERNS
One of the comments Jake's brother made at our wedding was about Jake's tendency to obsess about things. He mentioned how he had a thing for remote control cars. And then he had a thing for something else and he'd obsess about that endlessly. We all laughed at the time, mostly because it was so true. Jake does obsess about things and delve into them wholeheartedly. So much so that it's as if nothing else exists. He gets to be a complete expert on that particular thing. And then he moves on to the next. Cars, comic books, computers. While this is definitely true about Jake, I've been noticing that it's slightly true about me, too.
I spent five years trying to write novels and short stories. I studied Japanese non-stop for six months and then continued regularly for two more years. I learned to knit and knit anything I could get my hands on. I picked up wire jewelry and made earrings I never wore. I picked up photography and that particular obsession took me all the way to starting a small business. I have always been more breadth oriented than depth, but I still find myself obsessing about things. I find that the initial excitement of learning something new is so intoxicating that I momentarily become unable to think about anything else. This is also true when I meet new people. I want to know all about them. Their life, their thoughts, their preferences, their ideas of right and wrong. I can talk to them nonstop for several weeks before the newness wears out and I prefer to come up for some air. I am wondering whether this is a trait particular to people like Jake and me or does everyone experience it to a certain extent. Are we crazy obsessive people or is it just human nature? Does your brain actually secrete something different when you have a new experience or learn something different? I hope so, cause that way makes me sounds a lot less crazy. POPPING PILLS
I recently finished reading Opening Skinner's Box. It was one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking reads I've had in a while (not that that says much since it's been a while since I've read but I am restarting, even if ten pages a night). There's been a lot of controversy over this book. There are articles on whether the author made stuff up or misquoted some of the psychiatrists she spoke with. Regardless, it's an interesting read and I would recommend it. The book talks about ten experiments the author claims are the greatest experiments of the twentieth century. One of these experiments is about psychiatric wards. I will summarize very quickly and apologize if this is not clear. A researcher got eight of his friends to go to prestigious and public psychiatric clinics and they were to say that they heard a voice that said "thud" and see if they would be admitted. All other details they gave were to be 100% accurate and once inside, they were to act completely normal. All the patients were admitted and spent from 9 to 53 days at the wards. This was to prove that psychiatrists don't recognize sane people. This experiment caused a lot controversy and pissed many people off. One pyschiatrist claimed that such an experiment would never work today. So the author decided to try it out. Just like the original nine, she didn't shower or brush her teeth for a week and then went in and said she heard a "thud." Partly due to the experiment I explained above patients are never admitted anymore unless they are a danger to others or to themselves. As such, the author was not admitted anywhere but she was diagnosed in all places as a schizophrenic or some other equally serious disease and she was prescribed over 50 pills in total. All this after a ten to fifteen minute diagnostic solely based on her hearing "thud." Reading that gave me the chills. For some reason, right around the pregnancy I became very anti-medication. I am not saying there aren't legitimate times that call for pills that are tremendously helpful and necessary. But I find that in our society, today, we over-medicate. Most of the medications have strong side effects that then reequire other medication. Fact is, medicine rarely works long term. Your immune system adjusts and you need to up the dosage or change pills. All you're doing is intrdocuing a lot of foregin, not well tested stuff into your body for short term relief (not that it isn't really needed at times). This coming from someone who took Vioxx for almost two years. So I wasn't always such a pill-hater. But now I am. And reading the author's experience only made me more sure that doctors are too quick to try to solve stuff with pills, especially if they don't really know what's wrong with you. When David was six weeks old I thought I might have thrush and called my pediatrician. The nurse was going to write me a 21-day prescription over the phone. Without even seeing me and making sure I did have thrush. I told her that I wanted to see someone and be sure. She gave me an appointment and lo and behold it turned out not to be thrush. If I weren't so adamant, I would have been taking unnecessary medicine (not to mention giving it to David through my milk) for three weeks. How scary is that? ps: For those of you who've been following the no-sleep saga, things have improved slightly. David now wakes up three times a night, around every three to four hours. I would be okay with twice a night and am praying that it's coming soon. Some of my sanity is already coming back and I am really glad. Thanks for listening and being there. HAPPIE JOY JOY
I don't have much to say today. Or at least I am not in the mood to say it so I thought I should point you to Oso's thought-provoking post on happiness. It's worth the read. I commented that I tend to be less happy when I'm free and he replied that he does that, too, but it's mostly due to avoidance. I agree with him partially. Sometimes there is a genuine issue brewing under and in that case it's really a bad idea to avoid it and repress it down further so it's harder to recall next time. Some stuff gets represed so much that we don't even know it's there anymore. That's bed news cause it is bound to come up eventually and it's not a pretty picture when it does. Having said that, I do think that sometimes it's best not to have too much time to think. There are times when I have nothing better to do and so will take a small thing and blow it right out of proportion. I will spend a huge amount of energy stressing about it and I will make myself miserable. All this not because the issue really warrants being sad, but because I have too much time on my hands. How pathetic is that? The good news is, once the baby comes, too much free time won't be a phrase I can utter until the baby is in college. THE POWER OF MANY
I have heard that some scientists think that what makes humans superior to other creatures is that we're social. MISJUDGMENT
So, at the end of last semester, I signed up for a class called 'the pursuit of happiness.' Actually, at the end of last semester, I signed up for a class called 'theories of learning.' It appears no one else thought learning theories were interesting because the class was cancelled due to low enrollment. KARMA
For every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.- source THE WRONG PATH
Aren't you sick of my happiness class just yet? TRACKING HAPPINESS
As promised, I think it's time to talk about keeping track. BOUNDLESS
Ready for another happiness entry? Don't say I didn't warn you. SATISFACTION
A person should be satisfied with his life not because he feels satisfied, but because he has good reason to be satisfied. - Bertrand Russell TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE
Another Monday, another happiness day. IDEA VS. REALITY
I firmly believe that many of my not-so-close friends like the 'idea of me' as opposed to the 'reality of me'. HEDONISM
Today was another Monday, and such, another happiness day. Nozick is concerned that if we accept hedonism, we will loose sight of those aspects of life which are most important to us; namely, what kind of person we want to be and what kind of life we want to live. In order to illustrate this problem, Nozick imagines a science-fiction type story in which it is possible to plug our brains into machines which would provide us with any kind of experiences we could possibly desire. It is very important to note, here, that Nozick's experience machine produces experiences of such perfect clarity that we cannot tell the difference between these experiences and reality. Therefore, says Nozick, there is no reason why we would not "plug in" to an experience machine. [ source ]The teacher gave us the above setting and asked us whether we'd choose to be plugged in to this machine or not. No? Come on! Here's a machine that will make you feel like you're getting all that you desire, are you sure you don't want to take it? Well, Nozick claimed that people would not want to be hooked up to this machine. The above-linked article goes on to say "[ Nozick says that] we are concerned with more than just our experiences of pleasure or pain (or any other experiences, in fact); not only do we want to experience things, we want to do things and be a certain way. Nozick contends that we would not be happy if we were plugged in to an experience machine because we would know that we are not actually doing the things we experience." So, if I understand it correctly, he claims that having pleasure come to us without our doing anything isn't what humans want. Does that mean that part of the pleasure is accomplishing something or achieving in the face of adversity? I can't put words in Nocik's mouth but I must agree that I wouldn't want to be plugged in either. As far as I am concerned, if I agree to be plugged into this machine, I am agreeing to give up who I am as I know it. I am choosing delusion over reality. Even the certainty of positive delusions doesn't convince me to give up reality. Artificial is artificial no matter how pleasant. The idea of exchanging fake for real sounds creepy to me. How could I consciously choose to stop being me? After the class agreed that most of us wouldn't hook up to this pleasure machine, the teacher put a twist on the scenario. Imagine, he said, you're an Ethiopian suffering from starvation and disease, would you now agree to be hooked up? Some people nodded. It seems there is a limit to human suffering where delusion becomes way more desirable than reality. I assume it's correlated to the amount of lost hope. Maybe even the helplessness that usually leads to extreme measures such as suicide. Long after the class is over, I'm still thinking about the question. Still trying to properly pinpoint the reasons behind my extremely strong instinct not to agree to be hooked up. Which, once again, proves to me that this is indeed an interesting class. Even if it's thoroughly frustrating. What's your answer? Would you choose the pleasure machine? Previously? TV. PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
Mondays at 3:45 I was supposed to take a class in Introduction to Theories of Learning. I thought the psychology class would give me a little insight into education theories, but obviously others didn't. I got a call on Thursday to inform me that the class was cancelled. GOOD VS. EVIL
Well, today's psychology issue is deeper than usual. As we started studying humanists, our teacher raised the issue of evil versus good. Freud believed that humans, in their core, were evil beings and that they needed to repress their inclinations to live in society. And then came along the behaviorists who thought that humans were neutral and how they turn out is an outcome of their conditioning. Finally we have the humanists who believe that people are good at core. Humanists say that we are all born with the tendency to grow to actualize our own potential. The teacher made an analogy to a flower seed. Assuming it gets the right light, care and soil, a seed will actualize its inherent potential by becoming a flower. I immediately thought of Fred which proves the humanists must have had some correct ideas. The question of whether humans are born evil or good is extremely well discussed, controversial, and most likely to stay unproven. Some very famous people resisted the notion of inherently evil humans even though they had huge hardships. Most people who believe that humans are good in the core, tend to "blame" parents or upbringing for the seeding of evil. The humanist Carl Rogers said that we establish conditions of worth, which are ways in which we need to act so that our parents will keep loving us. For example if my mom made me feel like she didn't like me each time I threw a tamper tantrum, I might take than in as "for my mom to love me, I need to not show my anger.' And then I grow up never showing my anger, even when I should. So now I'm living with what I think my mother wants me to be. I'm not sure if I made it unclear, but to me it makes perfect sense why this totally screws up a human being. The more psychology I study, the more scared I get of being a parent. So many possibilities of failure. Of ruining another human's life. As I sat in class today, I tried to think about my beliefs. Do I believe in the evil-born human? I'm not sure. My tendency is to go with the humanists and say that I believe all babies are good at heart. Which, then, puts incredible amount of pressure and responsibility on the parents. Do you think humans are born good or evil? Previously? Lacking Questions. CONDITIONING
Tuesday is psychology day here at karenika. Since I have a Theories of Personality class on Tuesday mornings and spend most of the rest of my day pondering about my class, I inevitably write something to do with the class topic. Today's class was all about conditioning, so here's a bit of what I learned (or what I think I learned): A Russian physiologist named Pavlov did many experiments with his dog. He discovered classical conditioning while studying the digestive system of dogs. He would feed his dog and study how the dog digested the food. One day he walked into the dog's room, without meat, and saw that his dog was salivating, which is the dog's reflexive response to seeing meat. He couldn't understand why the dog would salivate without the presence of meat and decided to do some tests. He showed the dog the image of a circle, which of course didn't make the dog salivate. He then started to show the dog the image and then gave him meat immediately afterwards. After doing this several times, the dog started salivating to the image of the circle without even getting the meat. This is called classical conditioning and it's only used for reflexive behavior, such as salivating. One important thing to note is that if Pavlov kept showing the image without giving the meat, the dog would eventually stop salivating. Which is called extinction. Now that you know all about conditioning, I want to talk about a study my teacher mentioned. One of B. F. Skinner's students did an experiment with dogs. He took a room divided into two by a short fence. One side of the room's floor was white and the other black. He let the dog in on the white side and wanted it to jump the fence, so a few seconds after the dog was let in, he electrocuted the white floor, which naturally made the dog jump to the black side. After a couple of times, the dog would automatically jump to the black side as soon as he was let in. This is called avoidance, as the dog is trying to avoid the electrocution. The interesting thing about avoidance, however, is that it never extinguishes. So the dog will always want to jump away from the white floor even if it never has electricity ever again. Here's how you totally screw up the dog. If you then start electrocuting the black floor, the dog will come in on the white side, immediately jump to the black side, to avoid electrocution, and then jump back when he gets shocked on the black side and since he knows the white side to be bad, he will jump back to black and then jump back to white, so on and so forth. Even if you stop electrocuting both sides, the poor dog will now forever jump back and forth the two sides. When you know its conditioning history, the dog's actions make perfect sense. But imagine if you didn't know it and walked into this room and saw the dog jumping back and forth. What would you think? That the dog is completely out of his mind, right? Well, that's the point behaviorists try to make. Humans exhibiting neurotic behavior might really be doing it as an outcome of their earlier experiences with conditioning. Another sad experiment also made me think. A bunch of students took some dogs and put them in a room where they had no escape and electrocuted them pretty badly. And then they took these dogs and put them in to the segmented room mentioned above. When the white floor started electrocuting them, they didn't even attempt to jump. This phenomenon is called "learned helplessness." While I'm sure humans and their problems are not as simple as behaviorists wanted to make them, these studies made me rethink my life and some of my learned behavior. And why sometimes I can't stop worrying even if I know I should. This is assuming, of course, that you believe there is no difference between humans and animals, which Skinner did. No matter what your personal beliefs, conditioning has a lot to do with our daily life, with the jobs we choose (or don't choose), the people we surround ourselves with, and many other life decisions. I spent most of today trying to figure out which one of my actions was related to what past conditioning. Can you think of a few of yours? Previously? Interdiciplinary. EXTROVERT VS. INTROVERT
I hate the Meyers-Briggs test. Each time I've tried to take it, and I've taken several versions, several times, the results came out completely differently. More importantly, my answers were continuously preceded with "it depends." The questions have no solid context. When they ask you how you would act at a party, they don't tell who's throwing the party, how many people are at it, where it is, etc. My behavior often depends on my surroundings and my mood. I don't think a test so vague such as this one can determine one's personality well. The result set often shows that I am perfectly aligned between extroverted and introverted. According to Carl Jung, every person has extroverted and introverted attitude types in them but they're born with one more developed than the other. And they must learn to develop the other throughout their lives. As a child, I was extremely introverted. Attached to my mother's skirt, I used to cry almost non-stop. I wouldn't talk to anyone. I wrote diaries daily and wouldn't divulge personal information to anyone. Everyone marked me introverted, and that was that. During high school, I must have opened up cause I had many parties and was often the center of attention. Most of my classmates knew me. The same phenomenon continued in college. Half the school knew me, and most people took me to be very extroverted. I've often wondered about the dichotomy and assumed that somewhere between childhood and adulthood, I must have changed. Well, as my teacher explained Jung's theories, I realized I hadn't changed after all. Most people associate introverted ness with shyness, so as I became less shy, I assumed I must have become extroverted. Jung, however, defines the two as such: an extrovert is someone who finds meaning in life outside of himself such as friends, etc. Outside things hold more meaning to an extrovert. Introverts, on the other hand, find meaning in internal and subjective phenomenon. They're interested in what's inside them. Jung also said that introverts have a harder time during the initial phases of their life and extroverts have more trouble later on. Well, looking at it in that context, I am most definitely an introvert. A book and some hot chocolate will always be more appealing than a night in town. A chat with a single close friend is so much better than a party. I might not be shy but I still believe what's inside is much more interesting. I'm glad I finally cleared that up. But I still hate the Meyers-Briggs. Previously? Risks. IT'S NOT ABOUT ME
If you haven't already figured out the pattern, Tuesday is psychology day. Mostly cause I have my theories of personality class today at 10am and the teacher always leaves me with many thoughts. I decided that one of the most important tools to have in a relationship is the "it's not about me" thought process. This doesn't only apply to romantic relationships. It works with parent-child, friend-friend, worker-boss or any other scenario you can imagine. Here's how it works: while the opposite party is reaming you a new ass for having failed at such and such, you mentally repeat the words "it's not about me" over and over again. After a while, it becomes easy to do and easy to believe. The thing is, in most cases, it's not about you. Think of the times you yell at someone. Are you really yelling at that person cause they did something bad? I believe we tend to yell at the person who we think will let us. If I'm really pissed off one day at work, I come home and yell at Jake over a set of dishes. It's not because the dishes are so important but I need to get this anger out of my system and I know Jake will let me vent and get it over with. Same thing at work. Your coward boss yells at you cause he can't yell at his boss. Your mom screams over something stupid cause she was really stressed or worried about something totally different and hopefully something much more legitimate. Obviously, you can now use this knowledge to make sure you never yell at an undeserved person. (Not that anyone deserves being yelled at, it accomplishes nothing. If you need to get it out of your system, it's often a better idea to yell at the walls or sing loudly or do something physical, like exercise.) Next time you make a mountain out of something tiny, try and think of the repressed root of your anger and work on resolving that instead of creating more unnecessary problems. As for when you're being yelled at, try the "it's not about me" technique and when things are calm, remind your loved one or your friend or your boss that no one has the right to yell at another human being. Ok, done being psychologist for this week. Previously? Disappearing Act. UNATTAINABLE GOALS
Don't particularly want to harp on all the psychology knowledge I'm acquiring, but the more I find out, the more questions I accumulate, it seems. I've talked about Adler before and along with his theory of "wanting to improve yourself" comes the idea of having an end goal. Something you want to be. The trick is that if your end goal is unattainable, you are neurotic (yes, neurotic is a big thing with these psychiatrists). Obviously it's cause you're setting yourself a goal that, somewhere deep down, you know you can't possibly achieve. Therefore, you will forever strive towards a goal that you will never reach. So you must be neurotic to put yourself in that situation. It all makes perfect sense to me. The teacher gave an example of a mediocre high school student who wants to make it to the NFL. Up until that point, I was happy with Adler's theories. I don't know if it just was a bad example on the teacher's part or if Adler really did imply such cases, but I wouldn't have considered that high-school student neurotic. Which, of course, brings to surface the question of what's an unattainable goal. While I'll admit to its being a little drastic, my opinion is that everything is an attainable goal. Short of biological/scientific limitations, I truly can't think of a wish impossible to reach. Yes, you can't be younger. Yes you can't go back to the past or future. But I'm talking about life goals within the confines of science as we know it today. I can think of some dreams which would be hard to reach. I'm 26 and I have a technical background. If I decided to be an anesthesiologist, I'd have to work really hard and be extremely patient. I'd have to fulfill all the perquisites to some of the biology courses needed to get accepted into medical school. I'd have to do several years of medical school and many more of residential experience and etc. But it is possible. Same with any other profession. Or traveling the world. Or wanting to publish a novel. Or jump out of an airplane. Or fall in love. Or anything. Maybe my imagination is limited. Maybe you can think of other goals. Is there really such a thing as the unattainable goal? Given enough drive, motivation and hard work, what can you not do? Previously? Sweet Dreams. I'M NOT NEUROTIC, YOU ARE! I've always been blamed for being too nice. Too many so-called friends have stepped all over me. But I kept assuming the best of humankind. I insisted on trusting (in a non-naïve way) and giving. It's not so easy to become my friend, but once you do, I will forever be there for you. All my friends have told me that this attitude towards others will bring me nothing but pain. While it's true that I get disappointed and hurt often, I also receive the advantages of having a true friend and a trustworthy companion. It's amazing how magical a relationship becomes once both parties are non-cynical and open. So, over the years, I've consistently chosen to love with all my heart over being protective and distant. When in doubt I've given unexpectedly. I don't mean to say that I'm an angel. I make mistakes. I hurt people. I say stupid things. But I always try to be the best I can be and I always try to assume the best of people with whom I haven't previously interacted. I get bitter when hurt and I get angry, but I know that I'd still rather be me than a selfish bastard. Maybe cause I can sleep better this way. I've continually struggled with the idea of how I could be selfish. So have Six and Owen, I think. And somehow I've always come around to realize that this is the way I was built and this is the only way I can live with myself. It all made sense when my psychology teacher started talking about Adler. Adler had this theory, which says that every human feels inferior as a child. So we, humans, compensate by striving to be the best we can be. Trying to be better than others happens when this feeling is perverted. And Adler says that if you're selfish, then you're neurotic. Now, that, I like! Previously? Shitty Manners. |
©2008 karenika.com |