This is not a “how-to” for the smoker. This is a “how-to” for people whose loved one smokes.
So I stopped smoking. Exactly how I always knew it would stop.
As nearly 100 % of the smokers, I started smoking in my teens. My friends were smoking, and I heard it made managing emotions easier. That wasn’t true. Not only did it not help dampen the emotions but also added the stress of bullying. (Did you notice that bullying is not ok unless the bullied person is fat or a smoker?)
I hid my smoking. I got really good at choosing places and angles to not get much of the smell on me or my clothes. But then someone would at some point shout really loudly and triumphantly “UGH! Who has been smoking!! It stinks!!”
I tried to explain to people that people who were just having a smoke a few minutes ago are exactly the ones who don’t need the added stress of being called out. But, you know how people are when they know they have an infallible argument. They yelled over me “SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU.” Some even laughed.
I hid my smoking even better, and it’s been a few weeks since someone called me out in public.
And, just like that, I found myself not smoking.
I’m not saying this is something your loved one needs in order to stop smoking. Some people do need to be nagged into quitting. But it is very important that you nag because that’s what’s helpful for that person not because you need an outlet for your frustration of that person’s smoking. And the fact you can’t control their smoking.
I’m currently looking in to researching what kind of questions researchers are asking.
Because the question is I hear a lot is “why are you choosing death?” And the researchers seem satisfied with “because I see no other option.”
We need to ask “ok, so you are seeing death as an option among non-options instead of death also being a non-option. Why is death an option?”
Because I believe that’s where we need to work. Making it a non-option requires us to know what makes it an option.
The famous example is the seppuku (aka “harakiri,” the act of suicide by samurais to prove their clean conscience). The people were convinced that suicide is an option toward their ultimate goal.
We need to ask about the goal and the options that gets you to the goal in order to make suicide not an option.
Psychologists struggle and debate and argue over the definition of the word “intelligence.” Spearman, Thurstone, Gardner, Sternberg…
And one thing I see in common with them is this. They allow for the assumption that “intelligence” is a commonly and consistently understood entity that people are trying to qualitatively and quantitatively define. And this assumption is wrong.
The debate over the term “intelligence” will not ever be over unless they all agree that no one is thinking the same thing when they talk about “intelligence” and that’s why it can’t be defined this way.
Say, you and I agree that “beauty” is something that is pleasing to the eye and touches a soul. But once we start defining it qualitatively and quantitatively, I say a curvy woman, and you say a lean muscular man. I say a green forest, and you say a vacant rocky shore. To define “attractive,” I say “helpful, considerate, and insightful,” and someone may say “someone who can help me gain better social approval and self image.”
My point is that some things can only be defined as a concept, not what it actually looks like.
“Intelligence” is the “naturalcor acquired neural predisposition to excel.”
And it’s OK if everyone has a different definition from there on. Just make sure you add an adjective. Like the “g” intelligence, emotional intelligence, athletic intelligence.