My child thinks I am stupid / I think my child is stupid.

Both the Survivalist* and Idealist* people think the parent’s duty is to direct and support their child in their future life goals. HOW that’s done is a slight difference between the thinker types, and that makes all the difference in whether this relationship is functional or not.

Survivalist* and the Idealist* are rarely oriented toward the same life goals. When the Survivalist* wants bricks and mortar, the most tangible life goals possible, the Idealist* loves “spiritual” things: psychology, philosophy, moral dilemmas, and theories. EVEN WHEN a Idealist* is involved with something very physical, such as policing, firefighting, or being a soldier, they do it from an intellectual perspective: “I am stronger than others. Therefore, I owe others protection.” To a Survivalist*, the choice is a lot less philosophical: “My father was a firefighter; therefore, I am, too.”

When the Idealist* child doesn’t take instruction. At all.

Given the different mindset of the Idealist* child compared to a Survivalist* parent, they don’t take to the Survivalist*’s instructions and ideas. Everything they suggest is an insult to the Idealist*’ intelligence and personality. Everything the Survivalist* parent thinks is a lovely way to spend a lifetime, to the Idealist* is like a fukken life sentence in a hard-labor camp. They want time to think, ponder, and ideate, NOT waste time serving customers, talking nonsense to strangers, or worse yet, people who they’ve known since childhood and haven’t had anything new to say in 20 years – even as a group.

When the Idealist* doesn’t accept direction or has no interest in anything the Survivalist* parent suggests, the parent think the child is slow, stupid, and passive. Passive, even when they are actively pursuing a career path that they want desperately. However, because this path is not chosen or pointed to by the modern parent, they think the child is “passive” and difficult to manage. Difficult, even though the Idealist* is literally doing everything themselves without asking for help from anybody.

But the “difficulty” is this: “I cannot maneuver you so that we can have a close relationship.” And in that, they’re right. It’s almost impossible to maneuver a Idealist* person, who is inherently introverted, into doing something they don’t want to do: socializing with those who have different interests from them.

Stupid.

So when the Idealist* ignores their Survivalist* parent’s instruction, the Survivalist* parent thinks the Idealist* child thinks they’re stupid, or they may think their child is stupid or try to decide which one of us is stupid. All the while, the Idealist* don’t think stupidity is the matter; they think their parent is “smart but controlling” or “simply very different personality-wise.” They also don’t say those things as a way to “be nice.” They actually think that way.

The way the Survivalist* concludes the Idealist* child thinks the Survivalist* parent is stupid, by the way, is that they would not take guidance and advice from a stupid person. Unfortunately, the Idealist* are much more likely to take guidance from a stupid and selfish person than what they should be. However, if they trust their parent to want what’s best for them, they’ll ASSUME the parent will be OK with them pursuing a career that would make them happy.

“I agree my plan is not financially certain, and I suspect that worries you, mom/dad.”

That said, the Idealist* will focus on financial viability of their plan, and often agree it’s not great. Survivalist* are not worried about it, they worry about where is that path going to take you? They want their children close, not rich. Idealist* kinda prefer things the other way around; far away but loaded: Successful.

This also worries the Survivalist*, who think the Idealist* is punishing them or thinking they’re not good enough to stay around the “controlling” Survivalist* parent. “Controlling,” because that’s what the Idealist* has accused them of. They think  the Idealist* thinks they’ve been banished, or that the Idealist* has done something so bad they think they deserve to be banished for it, and that worries the Survivalist* parent who is trying to imagine all the possible horrible things that the Idealist* might be ashamed enough to condemn themselves for a life in exile.

Survivalist* parent just finds themselves dealing with something they have no idea how to manage. They’re not bad people, they’re just… Blind to certain things, things, that to a Idealist* person are the very thing worth living for.

High risk / Certainty

Both the Idealist* and the Survivalist* think the other is completely materialistic and money-focussed. Neither is. While both agree you need money to live, the Idealist* focus on what they want to do in life, and that something is usually a high-yield-high-risk plan. Survivalist* want to do something nice and cozy in their own community, a plan that to the Idealist* feels MIND-NUMBING and boring and fucking retarded if you pardon my French. The way the Idealist* sees it, they’d have to get a lobotomy to want to do it, and can’t see ANY OTHER POSSIBLE REASON for anyone to do it other than the need for certain money and security. Certain outcomes. You’ll MAKE MONEY doing it.

Idealist* focus on whatever they want to do, whether they will make money out of it or not is not important. The only thing they worry about is are they costing money to someone else chasing their silly dreams. THAT is often the reason why they give up and return to fold: I have to give up on the life I want because my dream has proven to be too costly for other people. This is also the reason why the Idealist* may refuse help: “I don’t want you to have the leverage of telling me we’ve already sunk Massive Dollars to your idiotic plan and you have to give it up, it’s not going to work.”

Money is not the primary motivator in life choices for either thinker type, but they certainly think it is for the other type.

Sexuality

The two thinker types also view sexuality through a very different lense. Suffices to say that the life plans that the Survivalist* and Idealist* chase, also have to do with their sexuality. Idealist* fear nothing more than a sexless marriage, but if you stuff them into a suburb or a little town with a spouse and a marital bed, that’s exactly where they’ll wind up in. They’ll hate themselves too much for sex, as they’ll feel BORED with themselves. They won’t see themselves as the kind of person anyone would love to share a bed with, so they’ll lose their interest in it completely, no matter how excited their partner might be about it… Or how much they still yearn for the feeling in another life, another place, with someone else.

To a Survivalist*, sex with a very familiar person is the only way they can think of it. Their biggest sex kink is: “I’ve known you since we were both children.” To a Idealist* it’s like: “I’m sorry but I can still see the snot running from your nose that day at school and yeah no. Sorry. No.” Survivalist* see it as “oh it’s so wonderful how such a snotty-nosed brat could mature into this glorious adult running a brick-a-brack store right here in town…” (“Oh lord kill me,” I think being a Idealist* and all.)

Boy in a man or a man in a boy.

And now we’re getting into another big difference between the Idealist* and the Survivalist*. Survivalist* very much love you for the inner child, the incapable, not the one with a vivid imagination. Idealist* love you for the adult you will grow up to be; the man in the boy.

When the Survivalist* try to love you, they try to infantilize you. They imagine you as the child you once were, and love the child. Idealist* love you for the adult: They try to envision the child you will become, the most grown up version of you, and they love the adult, not the child that is just a potentially impressive, beautiful seed for the adult that will be.

Idealist* try to help people grow up, and the Survivalist* try to remind themselves and you of the child you were. And the Survivalist* feel stressed if they feel they have to “adult” too much, and the Idealist* feel insulted (and icky) being thought of as the child they were. (Icky? “What are you, a fucking pedo?! Why do you picture me as a child when you try to love me, ewwwfuck!”) (Speaking of pedos, Idealist* pedos see the adult in a child, where as a Survivalist* pedo sees a child as a child… Maybe even a child in an adult.)

Old age

When the Survivalist* parent gets older, the Idealist* child would be happy to be there… But from a distance. A Idealist* child will love an aging parent with money, not by presence. If they have no money, they have very little in the ways of showing love to an aging Survivalist* parent. An aging Idealist* parent they have no issues with loving, as they both love by words, emotion, presence, and connection, but with a Survivalist* parent, those things are just not there. They haven’t got ground to grow on, typically or often. Idealist* child need to feel like their absence and ambition paid off and they can return to the parent with a head held high: I can give you something for my foolishness, but if the money is not there, they have nothing to bring to a Survivalist* parent (who is money-obsessed in their view, mind you.)

A cashed up Idealist* person can love a Survivalist* parent with money, as I said, and the Survivalist* parent will accept it with concessions: “Well, they are very materialistic, so… They’re doing their best. It would be nice if they could do something nice for me personally, but this is the best they can do, and I can accept they’re trying…”

Subscribe to get a Daily Message