As this module comes to an end, Jesse has asked us to write a blog on what we have learned from this module.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the education system is in dire need of repair. This generation of learners are being taught, but not educated. We are taught skills that are poor at adapting to new situations, such as memorisation and regurgitation of information. We are not taught how to think for ourselves, but how to tick boxes and attain grades. Extrinsic motivation strings us along to attain what we are told are achievements in education, but are little more than variations upon the question “How much stuff can you remember?”
Personally, this module has made me look back upon my previous modules. As I re-examined my grades from first and second years, I noticed that I excelled in the subjects I found interesting. I attained incredibly average grades for the subjects that I wasn’t interested in but studied for in order to pass. I’ve never really been consciously aware of how much harder intrinsic motivation has made me work, but throughout this semester I’ve noticed it more than ever. I really do think we should be able to pick our modules for second year rather than having a set course. This would let people actually study what they’ve come to university to study, and actually be enthusiastic about their course rather than complain about it (as I’ve heard many do, including myself).
So, aside from my observations upon intrinsic motivation and how key it is to my learning, what else have I learned? The second thing that springs to mind is that of student centered learning. We have hit a stage of education where we don’t need to be spoon-fed and have our hands held through learning. We are capable of learning for ourselves, and I believe that teachers should exist not to give us information, but to guide us as we find information for ourselves.
I’ve also discovered an entire network of skills that aid us throughout our education. Metacognitive awareness and skills, rational thought, critical thinking, logical thought, confidence, mindfulness, creativity, happiness, cognitive flexibility, deep-level reasoning, and the Socratic method. All of these things tie in to our education and give us a much deeper level of understanding, allowing us to learn about the kinds of concepts which are taught in higher education. We are taught next to none of these throughout our education, and I will be surprised if we ever are. I am glad that I have had the chance to investigate these things, as I would never have had the chance in a module that restricted my learning. I’ve been really interested in each blog I’ve done, and have put quite a lot of work in each one. I hope to use the skills I’ve learned so much about in order to advance my learning throughout my third and final year of my undergraduate degree, and hopefully my masters. This module, above all others that I’ve taken throughout the last sixteen years of education, has let me discover for myself and find new ways to teach myself and advance my own knowledge.
So, there we have it. The state of the education system, intrinsic motivation, student centered learning, and the skills I have investigated for these eight blogs. I feel like I have learned, truly learned, quite a lot throughout this module, and feel that as a learner I have come away much better for the experience.
You put it all perfectly, this module has shown us what the true meaning of student centered learning is. I think that even though we are still going to have to go back into classes where information is just dribbled from the front, it will give each of us a different approach to our education. We have learned to question, to ask ourselves if what we are being told is really how it is, and the value of our own educations. I know from this I will treat the material that is presented to me in a different manner, that critical analysis is not providing extra research that our teachers have already encouraged us to look into. Instead it is the studying of material that interests us.
I completely agree with you, the education system focuses on memorisation and regurgitation. These skills are no longer needed in today’s workplace, especially with the internet. Technology has allowed us access to an abundance of information via our phones and computers. With this in mind it is now more imperative that we teach our children how to sort through this information. This should be focus of our education system, to help guide this country into the technological age.
Duncan, your new middle name should from now on be… Metacognition!
Duncan Metacognition Shillan. How does that sound? Seriously though, I now know no better source of research, literature and expertise than your blog. I shall book mark it for many years to come. And how valuable this experience has been. I also came to university expecting to take part in discussions, projects, and other networked activities. I genuinely believe the university experience is a down turn from college or 6th form pedegogy. If students had complained and tried the silent treatment like they do at university (claiming it even as a right!) there would have been trouble.
And then metacognition, Just, metacognition. You know, METACOGNITION, It has all the answers. Why can’t people reason for themselves, it’s because they have no real concept of self, they have no metacognition. People without metacognition have no soul!
It’s Duncan’s world now…
Thanks for the comments everyone. I’m glad that you all agree with me. Psue34 puts it very well, I’m definitely going to be disappointed by any modules that rely purely on lectures, midterms, and final exams. I know that one of my next modules doesn’t follow such a strict pattern, but I am worried for the other one. Psychology has given us such great research, it is a shame we do not put it to better use.
As a final note, I’d also like to add in the link to Salman Khan’s TED talk, which Jesse mentions quite a lot. Its the kind of education I’d like for future children to receive, rather than what we have today.
Duncan, I was googling after our discussion and found your blog! This is great stuff, and chimes with the work I’m doing with doctor-educators…
Exciting!
You are right in the theories you talk about, but you have missed the point. People who did not go to university still knew where to find the information they needed, and were metacognitive in balancing their priorities, such as finding food for their family. I picked up The Naked Ape in a box outside a shop on the highstreet in the summer, but it confirmed things I knew before. There is no point in life outside of survival and love, there is too much information and expectation to copy people who are in mass-culture. Three hundred years ago, a farmer knew little beyond their village. They knew who they were. Narcissism, as I understand it, is believing yourself less worthy or more worthy than other people. The truth is that the only important thing in life is being valued by people and loving them. People born from the 60s onwards often don’t understand that.
Simon,
I have never spoken about those who opt not to continue their education in my blogs, although I believe that metacognitive skill and awareness are higher forms of thinking that enable a person to critique themselves and adapt in the moment. Therefore, fulfilling basic needs, such as providing for your family, seems to me to require a modicum of rational thought, which does not depend upon a metacognitive component.
I think quite a few philosopher’s would disagree with you on your views on the point of life. “Why are we here?” has been asked too many times for me to go into detail on any one particular argument, however you are correct in saying that we live in an age of information abundance. In my opinion, this is a good thing. Never in the history of our entire species have we all been so connected to each other, and so knowledgeable of the world and each other. I must ask you though, what “point” have I missed? The Naked Ape, of which you speak highly, can not hold all the answers. Why do people from the 60s onwards not understand this “truth” of which you speak?
It is narcissistic to think that you know what it takes to survive in a situation you have never been in. A modicum of rational thought? How about knowing how to relate to other people so they respect you and love you. Anybody can be a philosopher, and home-spun truths outlast any philosopher’s writings. Some people from the 60’s, who don’t understand that people have the right to love and freedom, don’t understand that being valued is the gold of life.
The point is that people are meant to live in stable groups that self-police, not societies were people don’t learn to abide by the rights of others.
It is worst in people our age because things come easily to us. Free education, parents paying for everything, easy service sector jobs. No obligations.
Also, you can’t speak for other people because you don’t understand their circumstances. You’ve done it throughout your comment. That is naive petulance. I highly doubt you have experienced much of the responsibilities in life.
What responsibilities in life have you had to deal with? Why the 1960s? Why do you think its narcissistic for me to believe that its a natural feeling to want to feed your family, and not a higher order metacognitive skill? Any one can be a philosopher, but there are some people that are really good at it, called philosophers. I don’t see any home-spun truths from 500BC hanging around today, but I do still see people taking into account what Plato and Socrates had to say. If people aren’t meant to live in societies, then why are we living in them? People have learned to abide by the rights of others, those that don’t go to jail, that’s how our society self-polices. What is worse because your parents pay for everything? What easy sector job are you taking? What “point” did I miss? What obligations are we meant to have? Where have I spoken for other people? You can call me as childish as you like, but you have no evidence to back up any of your claims so far. Your thinking is magical, conceptualising ideals rather than speaking of reality.
You haven’t looked at my evidence because you are arrogant and insecure.
This is a pointless talk to have, just change so that you can treat people better.
I don’t write very clearly, but I gave a history of the industrial revolution and why before that there was less of a class system. Work it out.
You haven’t given any evidence for me to look at yet. I’m neither arrogant or insecure, yet you seem to be attempting to gain something from starting this argument with me. If this talk is pointless, why did you start it? What do I do to treat people badly? Last I checked, you were the one with a criminal record for harassment. When did you give a history of the industrial revolution? Before that, we had a class system: peasants and lords. If you honestly think that’s better than what we have today, you are sorely mistaken. What am I meant to be working out from this? For the third time: What “point” have I missed with my blog?
Lords and peasants aren’t natural. Scotland and Wales weren’t like that until relatively recently, in comparison to England. Men like you, raised with an inflated ego, are corrupted and feel entitled to land and make those of less social intelligence work on it. The idea that we are overpopulated apes is behind this, groups split after 150 members, as evidenced from primate neocortex sizes, tribal societies, the Doomesday Book, a recent Twitter study. Then laws are made by the most socially and generally intelligent (Why Beautiful People are More Intelligent paper, specifically general intelligence as a domain adaptation), and possession is 9/10ths of the law. The law of harassment is not meant for people like me, it is meant for people who are not socially or generally intelligent enough to work in service industries, which involve providing friendly customer service. Wonder why Bangor is a ghost town? It is the same reason less intelligent men are more aggresive, because social skills are passed on through mating via natural selection over generations. The world outside of African Savannah where we became homo sapian, and left 150,000 years ago, may have novel problems like building a warm enough hosue, that explain the selection of general intelligence. Females are more involved with the emotions of others than males, because they have to take care of young. There was a study that showed men’s brains were on average less connected between the two hemispheres, which said it was to do with the seperate evolutionary roles. The General Intelligence paper explains the selection theory with a lot of supporting evidence.
The country we live in, because of the decisions of the Conservative party in the 80s to go completely free-market as America was, as well as gettting education free (1% payback per-earnings), as well as the service and technical jobs British people do, means that children don’t learn that they are valuable just as feeling, social people. This was what the 60s music was about, going back to nature. Rock came with it, which was in the same spirit. Division of labour and globalisation has made it so people working for large companies are just parts of a machine making money for the owners, and not even getting thanked in person. Red Hot Chili Peppers lyric: “I knew a girl who worked in a store, she knew not what her life was for.” Also the next line explains the when self-interest, an trait that all mammals have, prevails in society: “They told her she would never look like the girls in a magazine, she bought it with her pay.”
A bit I left out was that it is more the male-brained people i.e less involved with the emotions of others, that tend to be in law now. Natural selection for health, beauty and male dominance doesn’t fulfil itself when money allows the more male-brained to rise to positions of power e.g. in law, which attracts females. Women are attracted to strong and social men. However, women now have more choice with female rights, so the balance should be going back to normal. The thing that worries me is what will happen when the brain is able to be changed artificially. Hopefully by then science will be the governance of society, with the knowledge of social group size, so society could be made into smaller units and people can live in peace with renewable sustainble energy. The smaller unit size happens in Switzerland, or somewhere, where there are city states. That’s how Venice survived many wars as a little island state.
So for the fourth time: What “point” did I miss?
Secondly, what does this have to do with my post on metacognitive awareness, rationality, and the education system?
Lords and peasants are social constructs, as a social animal I think its safe to say that they occurred naturally.
Exactly what part of my upbringing has inflated my ego? I’ve never really wanted to own land, at least not like a Lord, but you seem to know me better than I do, so if you could explain that, that’d be great.
When I attain this land, how will I manipulate the less socially intelligent to work on it?
Can you define what you’re speaking about when you say social intelligence? There are several constructs you could be talking about here, and you have made no effort to determine which one you’re speaking of.
Do you have any evidence that those that made our laws were beautiful?
The fact that you have been arrested multiple times for harassment seems to indicate that the law was in fact designed to stop people like you from contacting those that do not wish your contact. Your excuse is ludicrous, you have earned your punishment. The police do not arrest those not working in the service industry for harassment, they arrest those that harass people.
I don’t wonder why Bangor is a ghost town. It is small, but it still has 30,000 people living in it. I have friends here, there’s a very active student community here.
Social skills aren’t passed on through mating, social skills are taught to a person by their parents.
Females take care of the young because they are more emotional, not the other way around.
Which General Intelligence paper?
Why do you quote an album that was released in 2006 to show the height of music in the 60s?
You seem confused that big companies require large amounts of people to work them. If this weren’t the case, they wouldn’t be big. Division of labour is required in order to make anything that can be sold to more than a hundred or so people.
I think the rise and progress of the feminist movement thwarts your argument that only men are in power. The feminist movement didn’t give women a choice in who to marry, it gave them a choice in what to do with their lives.
Do you have any kind of census data to validate your comment on British people’s work with technical and service jobs?
You seem to be idealising again, with science being the forefront of society in the future.
Your arguments are flawed. I have a lot of questions for you and all you seem to respond with is telling me that I’ childish and should “figure it out” when I press you for evidence when I challenge or question your views. You’re rambling on, and I don’t know what for. You say I am narcissistic for believing I can survive in a situation I have never been in, but you generalise entire generations into simple sentences. You can see from my post how many flaws those last two posts alone have, and that’s not taking into account how many inadequate responses you have made for your previous posts. If you wish to start an argument like this, at least bring soun and solid arguments to the table, rather than floundering as you have for so long.
Jesus, I thought that would at least throw up a few problems in your world view. You really know nothing that is true about people. Oh well, can’t say I didn’t try. I don’t like you but I still tried to help you.
General Intelligence As A Domain Adaptation, S Kanazawa
Why beautiful people are more intelligent, same
You will wish you had listened when your life goes down the drain.
The key to this, which might unlock the door to you understanding people who have situations different to your own, is the sentence in the article i posted about young people being narcissistic. It said “They have trouble even understanding other peoples’ points of view”.
Simon, you have difficulty understanding other people’s points of view, you’re generalising entire generations, as well as specific people such as Chris and I. You’re so unbelievably wrong, its almost painful to read your ramblings. If you don’t like me, stop commenting here. How exactly is my life going to go down the drain? I’m on track to get a fully funded Masters and PhD, have loving friends and family, and am a happy individual. I think its your life that has already gone down the drain. You now have to start arguments on the internet and throwing childish insults in order to feel superior to others. I pity you, and all your misguided thoughts.
I will leave you to your sad lonely life and rage.
I have insulted your ego, not your wortjh as a person. You insult my very existence. You are a pretty nasty piece of work.
Read the papers to understand
Sad? Lonely? Rage? You start arguments with people who used to know you on the internet in order to gain a semblance of social interaction. You have attempted to insult my ego with half made arguments and pointless ramblings that reveal to me how very strange your thinking is. You have insulted me, and I respond in kind, yet now my insults are the ones that hurt? You need to re-evaluate your decisions as of late. Put the Naked Ape down, go outside, and see the world with your own eyes, rather than through prejudice and hate.
Ok, you can have the last word. But I know that I am better than you.
I should say one thing though: stop trying to be right and read the book I used. I didn’t give critical analysis of it, but I looked at a few key papers. It would have taken a long time to look at all of the papers, there were a lot, but this book hasn’t been criticised by anyone, that I could find, in anthropology. The field is older than psychology, it began properly with Darwin (well the few people before him, can’t remember their names). The key thing is the 150 number, and that has a lot of evidence for it. That links to attachment styles and social psychology like obedience and conformity. The evidence is overwhelming. Look at Chris’s last comments, or maybe on the second to last blog, to see how metacognition applies to society and how you have to be either comprimised ethically or oblivious to the plights of people in third world countries to work high up in a company, or even buy products as a consumer. So renewable energy should stop this scale of corruption.
chris’s blog: http://christopherjwwilkins.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/evolution-or-revolution/#comment-126
If you know that you are better than me, why did you feel the need to come back to my blog and leave another reply? I am not going to read The Naked Ape, your borderline fanaticism to it has made me more than repulsed by it. This is why I believe metacognitive awareness and skill is required within schools, your inability to leave a critical analysis leaves yourself open to retort, a fallibility within any scientific text, or reference to one. Your book speaks of looking at humans as apes. We have a science, known as psychology, which looks at humans as, well, humans. It seems to be much more apt than anthropology at understanding exactly how humans operate, and so is the key area of progression and criticism within the scientific community. I believe that this is why your book has escaped criticism, not because it is “perfect”. Many fields are older than psychology, and many fields are older than Darwin. This does not make them better than psychology at understanding how we think. Humans have lived in cities for hundreds of years, we seem to be doing fine so far.
What evidence is there for this “it” you speak of? How does it link to attachment styles and social psychology? You fail again and again to deliver any evidence for your argument. I do not try to be right, however you make it ever so easy to see how you are wrong. In his last comment, Chris states in that metacognition can offer so much, he details over his blogs and comments with you exactly how much potential it has. He also notes that all you comment upon is critique, of metacognition, of society, even of our undergraduate degree, which you yourself are enrolled upon, with no offer on how to improve. Surely if it is so terrible, you would have pulled out of our degree by now?
I have not seen you comment upon how to improve within our arguments either. How do you avoid compromising yourself ethically in order to be able to purchase anything? How does this relate to metacognition? Is the energy that you use in order to have this argument with me renewable? How will renewable energy stop this scale of corruption? Again, your argument lacks evidence or backup. Your statements critique all that you see, but offer no solution, leaving us with the knowledge we already have.
You may consider yourself better than me or not if you wish, but you have failed to address these points. Your arguments are incredibly weak, I would work upon your ability to reference scientific literature and your ability to make both rational and coherent arguments that make logical sense in order to discuss such matters in the future.
Like I said to Chris, I don’t care what you want me to do. I’m not your research assistant or a friend. I can’t be bothered to put much effort into this argument because I don’t value you much as a person. I’m only doing it because I have nothing better to do with my time at the moment. I’m arguing on a basis that we have both done the same degree, so we should know what I’m talking about. You put words in my mouth. You speculate wildly about things without thinking about them much. You don’t care about other people in the world, only getting a funded masters, which if you read my talk with Chris is a waste of time. You are the very definition of narcissism, you put yourself above everyone. I’m on this degree because I didn’t do science a levels, and I have had a lot of problems in my life. You brush me off as a madman, a waste of time. You think the strength of a scientific argument determines someone’s worth or the probability that they are right, you can’t be bothered to find out, even on a topic as interesting as this. This relates to ‘state or trait’ theory of self esteem, whereby you believe actions and beliefs determine worth, not feelings.
Also, stop being condescending to me. It’s frustrating to be condescended to by someone who is really ignorant and petty. Don’t use my name and don’t wildly speculate about me. I do not want you to talk about my beliefs or abilities, because you have no right to. You think you can talk down to people, but one day you will get your come-uppance for it. That’ll be when you have to work alongside other people.
Cool Simon, you sound about fourteen right now when you talk about how little you value me and how you don’t care what I do. I’m sure you’re a very strong and independent person who is far above me in terms of social grace, intelligence, and vision. If you have these qualities, why are you starting arguments on the internet rather than making grand changes in our society? I speculate wildly? What have I speculated about? Most of my comments here have been questions for you, which you have failed to reply to. If I don’t care about other people in the world, why do I have friends? What do you do to put others above you and avoid this narcissism? I sense jealousy in your comments on my fully funded masters. I do usually brush you off as a madman, you have previously made statements indicating yourself in favour of eugenics, and your arguments are not exactly coherent. You make a comment, I respond, then you call me childish and talk about something else.
When arguing over science, I think the strength of your argument determines your worth within the argument. Also, evidence does help to make you right. This topic isn’t interesting, I came to University to study psychology, study humans as humans, not as apes.
If you find it frustrating to be condescended to, I would advise you to pick up your game, your arguments need considerable work before you can truly call them arguments rather than comments.
Simon, I already am working alongside other people. Rachel, Matthew, Chris, Jesse, Katie, and Kim are all wonderful people, we have helped each other learn and educate ourselves. How is this my comeuppance? What for? I believe I can talk down to you because you are acting like a child, I can only ask you questions on your arguments because they are so poorly made that you leave gaping holes in them. You never clarify your statements, only blindly ramble on, leaving nothing but confusion in your wake.
Ok, lets end this because you are driving me insane. I hate to let you finish it this way but I know whatever I say you will have a response for it. I have made quite a large attempt to make you see sense but I guess you are really screwed up.
And by screwed up I mean completely unaware of the real world.
Actually, it would be better put that you are a child in an adult’s body. A completely narcissistic, arrogant, nasty little child.
Ah but you wouldn’t understand that either. Ok, by child I mean the narcissism of a child without the care-taking behaviours that children learn, as well as having trouble understanding a responsible adult’s thought processes. By arrogant I mean so falsely confident, really being so insecure that you resort to putting words in my mouth and calling me jealous. Finally by nasty I mean resorting to intense humiliation which belies your ignorance of a lot of things you talk about.
That is the way in which arguments and conversations work. You haven’t made any sense throughout this argument, only detailing how I’m “completely unaware of the real world”. I am not the one who needs to validate myself by insulting others over the internet. You are a hypocrite, claiming that I cannot insult you, but spewing these childish insults at me. Grow up Simon, your immature behaviour is creating nothing but pity. What “responsible adult’s thought processes” am I missing? I am very confident in myself, arrogance is far from my perception of being happy however. What words have I put in your mouth? Are you so alienated from your ramblings that you do not recognise them when I question you on them? If you feel humiliated by being asked questions on what you speak of, I would suggest you do not speak of them until you are ready to answer these questions. I talk of little, but question you a lot. Your arguments are hard to follow, as you never follow up on them, leaving half-made statements without clarification or errata. You can call me as narcissistic, arrogant, and irresponsible as you want, but you are still the hypocrite throwing immature insults and arguing over pointless concepts.
I could leave it here but it’s annoying me that you think you have come out of this on a moral highground. I didn’t try to argue about scientific theory with you, although you have taken that as my intention and criticised me for not using evidence. You put so much of your ego into using words like errata, logical and rational but you haven’t seen the conclusions you have jumped to about my intentions without any evidence. I can see that you are a child by the associations you make and then assume I mean. I don’t give a damn about helping you, as you have never shown me any concern, but I am doing it so that you can help others in turn. That is what responsible adults do. I hope you can see that, and if not, please think of this whenever you feel guilty about your lack of concern for people.
Actually I do care about helping you. You’ve said you don’t want help though but I can see the way your life will go as you currently are. Nothing you can say to insult me actually has any effect because it has no truth to it. You just tell me that I lack abilities and am mad, which is funny because you are on a psychology degree.
My vocabulary is precisely that, my own. If you are offended by how I write, I would advise you not to continue this argument with me. You can call me as childish as you like, but you are the one throwing insults over the internet. If you don’t give a damn about me, stop arguing. You’re not better than me because you want to help me despite not liking me, just pretentious. You are not grown up by doing this, if you think you are, you are gravely mistaken. I feel no guilt over my lack of concern for others, for I feel for others every day. My friends, family, colleagues, and social groups.
I don’t want help from you because I don’t need help from someone thinks as magically as you do. Where will my life go? You think we should all live in villages and listen to 60s music. That is mad Simon, you just cannot see it.
Your vocabulary is not your own, language is a method of communication. This is not an argument, it is me giving you advice. I said I do give a damn about you, but you have this problem where you only hear what reflects well on you and then turn everything else against the speaker, in very imaginative ways. I have heard someone say something like this before. It’s funny because you say I do things like think magically but I can see that you are projecting your own insecurities onto me. Science is the opposite of magical thinking, so you should stop that one. You also try to hide behind scholarly words, which is pretension when you are saying very little and is a way of distancing yourself from any insult. I can see right through everything you say, so there is no point turning things against me. As I said, it has no effect anyway.
This comes down to state or trait self-esteem. Narcissism is trying to defend a self-concept that is made of traits, whether they are held in high esteem or low. When you are liked for being nice then you don’t have to defend yourself.
You evidently have no idea what vocabulary means. It is an argument, because your advice is illogical, I believe that you are trying to prove to yourself that you are “mature”, or at least better than me. You can call me as imaginative as you like, but read what you have said and tell me in all seriousness that it is not fantastical. I project nothing onto you, for that is what I see you as. I should stop thinking scientifically? Your compulsion against using evidence only furthers my belief that your thoughts are a disordered chaos. You can see nothing, only your blind belief in your own thinking. If what I say has no effect, then why did you feel the need to come back and continue this argument?
I think you are projecting onto me. You are not liked by many, but you continue to paint me as the bad one here. I think you need to take a step back and look at your life. Its quite clear that you are growing obsessive over this argument with me.
You make me so angry. I am so done with you. I could repeat what I said in my last few messages but they are there for you to read without preconceptions.
And if you can, DUNCAN, read the TWO papers I posted.
I mean can be bothered.
And here is the worst thing you have said to me, to get you started. 1) You made out I was in favour of eugenics, basically saying I am as bad as Hitler.
I think that one alone makes me more mature than you.
And lastly, being not liked by many is a very different thing to being disliked by many. Think of how your relationships have ended and tell me they like you.
And don’t comment on my relationship because you do not understand what makes a relationship work in the slightest.
And I know now what went wrong in mine.
I’m leaving this here, I know you won’t want to but I’m not coming back to hear what drivel and hate you have to say.
You’re not grown up, just trying really hard to prove something to yourself. I don’t know what you want out of this, and to be honest I don’t want to know. You’re also a hypocrite, seeing as how you don’t want me to write your name but then write mine in capitals. You can write as much as you want about how mature you are, but it doesn’t make you grown up. You know nothing of my previous relationships, but I still think that I know more about how relationships work than you do. I have mixed relations with my ex’s, but none of them have a restraining order against me. Trying to attack me for engaging with others is pathetic. I’m glad you have finally realised that you are in the wrong in this argument and are not coming back. I am not the one moronically speaking of the faults in our society, and generalising others, that is you. Your words are those filled with drivel and hate, not mine.
Reblogged this on Psychined Index.