Examples of 'do/don't advice' that are used by certain types of people who wish to exercise dominion and display superiority over others.
Women who tell men to get in touch with their feminine side, then ten years later tell them to man up.
Doctors telling the population to avoid the sunlight to prevent them from developing skin cancer, then ten years later telling them to expose themselves to more sunlight for Vitamin D.
Nutritionists telling the poor not to spend their money on fresh fruit and vegetables as they were too expensive, then generations later telling them too eat more fruit and vegetables to discourage cancer.
Health advisers telling the population not to drink so much, as it’s bad for their livers, then ten years later telling them to drink a little as it's good for the heart.
During none of these examples did the 'adviser' either: a, consider they were wrong; b, admit their advice wasn't properly thought out; c, stop at a midpoint between the poles, which would be a happy medium (e.g. too much sunshine = bad, too much sunshine = bad, a moderate amount of sunshine = good); d, let the other person decide for themselves.
Even Goldilocks managed to figure out that the porridge in the middle was the best one too eat. And she's a character in a nursery rhyme. She didn't carry on eating the hot porridge until it scalded her mouth, and then eating the cold which tasted awful, which is the kind of advice that the 'advisers' would give. She sampled the hot and cold porridge, and found them unpalatable, so opted for the middle choice, to her advantage. (This is not to say that the 'middle road' is the best one, nor that you should determine the best road by dialectical method, as it'\s just stupid. Dialectical materialism doesn't work, see the USSR.)
The method of 'do/don't advice' is as follows:
The method of 'do/don't advice' is as follows:
One piece of advice is given (e.g. telling men to get in touch with their feminine side). Then a significant time later, the complete opposite advice is given (e.g. you need to 'man up'). In both instances, the person giving the advice plays the part of the 'knower' the one who is 'correct' and 'superior'. The one receiving the advice is viewed by the giver as 'inferior', ignorant, in need of educating. This view never changes, regardless of the advice that the giver gives. They always view themselves as correct, and the other person as incorrect. In short they have a single meme in their head:"I'm right and you're wrong". That's it. It's that simple. The so-called advice that they give is simply a means of demonstrating it within a particular set of parameters (e.g. being generous, benevolent, altruistic, charitable etc), and a particular topic/theme (e.g. gender, sexuality, sexual equality, harmony/balance etc). Whatever the person receiving the advice does to change/modify their lives will never ever be good enough. It's not that they can’t improve themselves; it's just that the person giving the advice out is never ever satisfied. If they were satisfied, then they would have to admit that the other person is equal to them and no longer inferior. And, as they are totally fixated on remaining superior, they never will admit that the other person
Doctors and health agencies that formerly used to advise against staying out in the sunshine for longer than 30 odd minutes, now advise the complete opposite, and encourage people to spend more time in the sun. Formerly they were advising people against staying out in the sunshine 'to reduce the number of people developing skin cancer', now they are encouraging people to spend more time in the sunshine so that 'they don't suffer from insufficient sunlight which is essential for the development of Vitamin D'. No where in between their former position 'avoid sunshine' and their current position 'seek sunshine' did they say: "Okay, well done, you are now spending enough time in both the sunshine and the shade that you don’t get skin cancer, yet can produce Vitamin D. We'll stop giving advice now, and get on with something else." This would have been the most logical advice to give, to ensure that people were exposed to enough sunlight to develop Vitamin D, yet not so much as to increase the risk of developing skin cancer. Yet they didn't take this position, or give such advice. Why? Because they would lose their status, their rank, their superiority over people which they have dedicated their lives to getting. Their position, job, career, status in the hierarchy, is dependent on being superior to someone else, in this case by giving advice, thus demonstrating their knowledge relative to the 'inferior' group. Additionally, if they are unable to 'create' or make any new discoveries about the cosmos, then they are dependent on existing knowledge/data in order to hold their position. In much the same way as animals fight over existing territory rather than moving to new territory.
Finally, this constant type of behaviour is enough to drive anyone into mental despair, neuroses, as you are forever telling them that to jump through a hoop, then immediately after they've done what you've just told them to do, you beat them, you punish them. Like hitting a dog whenever it fetches a stick that you just threw for it to fetch.
A Neurotic population is more prone to become psychopathic and sociopath. Presently, in the Western world, that is what is happening. Of course, every once in a while one of the victims of this great mind fuck will 'go postal'; which is an entirely justified response. It is the only way of destroying that which is insane, that which is irrational, that which is trying to destroy you. You have to destroy it, you have no choice. It's either destroy or be destroyed. Kill or be killed. You or it. In such instances, you would be wholly justified by your actions, because you are fighting for life, and it is fighting for death. By killing it, you are killing that which wishes death upon you. You are fighting for life.