Goncharenko centre 2025-7-27: Book: Viktor Frankl: Man's search for meaning (1946)

Post event notes: See farther down on this page.

Translation: auto translation of this page into Ukrainian

Book: Viktor Frankl: Man's search for meaning (1946)

I am so far not impressed (I wrote this after having read about 30 pages, it didn't change when I was at about 73 pages, and further on, I will get to that below) in his descriptions of facts, and not about his text on how to interpret what he has written down. One fact on p.30 was interesting, but I knew it already, another 'fact' a few pages earlier I consider to be wrong. He claims you need to have experienced certain things to really understand what people think from when they are hungry all the time, I disagree. You can imagine. Also I disagree about various further points he makes, I will write it down from my notes here later. [ My analysis/comments are currently in German (quotes from the book) + my comments in Dutch + English, and I will need to make a version that is totally in English. ]

Speed reading

Meeting notes

I still need to add the entire analysis (list of comments) that was the basis for the topic this day. I added an overview on 2025-8-10 below of the points from my analysis that I used on this day (2025-7-27).

I didn't prepare what to say but just took my notes with me from reading the book. Well, partly, I still needed to read a bit more but there was enough to talk about already. So, who read the book?: Well, not many people. One person read a small part of the book, one person was told by her friend what the book was about, another listened to an audiobook which is the clever way to do it if you don't have much time or want to do less effort.

Points that I took for statements and questions to see what the attendees thought about it:

I started by mentioning watching a video of a young guy of 15 years old, sentenced to 40 years in prison in the USA where you have crazy crime such as car jackings, and children shooting with guns (sometimes 12 years old). Something in the comments caught my attention: Someone stated that he was 'forced' to kill a 'friend' by another 'friend' who had already killed 2 of their 'friends'. I asked what the attendees would do. This is similar to the situation in a camp: Do you go along with all rules, with commands? Will you harm others because you are given an order? (as the Capo's did in the camp. They are power hungry and/or anti-social people from the prisoners who are given the option to rule the other prisoners). One attendee said to do as ordered. I said "There is an obvious solution out of this problem". She guessed a little later. It is: to shoot that 2nd guy who already killed 2 others! This is justified and the best option. The problem is that that 1st guy obviously has no moral compass.

Group behaviour was mentioned (this is why people go along with things that don't make sense, in crime, but also in such camps, as the violent guards or the inmates, group behaviour is important to take into account when trying to understand what is going on): conformism can cause this a bit, but as I mentioned it depends on your personality (I am a loner and will not conform to the group unless it makes sense) and at 12-14 you already have a clear sense of what is right and wrong and nowhere is shown that "car jacking is a fun hobby" (except in a game such as "Grand theft auto" but playing games does not make you violent and it does not make you believe that what you do in a game is normal or acceptable behaviour in reality, that is caused by other things). In the USA in particular behaviour/upbringing in certain groups is very bad which partly causes this issue.

I asked why people go along with the rules in the camp, and why with the command that that 1 guy gave to another to kill one of their friends. Well, this is about authority, power structures. This is why for example a former bank director was now a Capo (inmate who is a guard, such people are usually ruthless and the reason for getting in that position is to get authority [ the reason for being ruthless is to stay in that position, to get a sort of 'respect' in the eyes of those in higher positions who are not inmates and from that a perceived safety of likely staying in that position. ]

About authority I said you need to keep in mind (to understand people's behaviour) that they want to follow leaders. What is the reason for his? Nobody knew but it is because of this: To evade having to make decisions (making decisions costs energy and people prefer to not spend any energy on anything except on things that they like to do [ see also the meeting from 2025-5-25 ]) and to not have responsibility. I mentioned that in school, pupils generally do not like to be a class representative but some 'idiots', as I said, still volunteer for that. One of the attendees then pointed at her friend :) Aha, well, I don't understand the appeal of being a representative, as it just gives tasks. Same as in NL, in school, they need to take a class book which keeps track of for example who was present in each class, and they need to take care of some other matters.

Why do psychologists not have a deep understanding of people? But, Someone said that they need to be able to help people. True, so is deep understanding really needed? They can help people to some degree but not well enough. A friend of my sister has visited psychologists for many years. She has no goal in life, is generally unhappy, and stated last year about going to see psychologists that: "None of it was of any use"...

I had interactions with psychologists, for example for a job at some job agency and the person interviewing is a psychologist. I found that they are all incompetent. My sister has had the same type of experiences and feels the same way. Reading books and articles I saw the same again and again, and my views confirmed time and time again.

Why is this? A big part of the reason is the reason why they start to study psychology (and not just people who study psychology to then put it into practice, but also researchers). A lot of psychologists tell me this reason for why they started to study psychology, themselves, without me asking...

What is this reason? In most cases it is about trying to understand themselves. I stated that if a person doesn't understand himself/herself after 18 years, then that is not going to happen with 4 years of studying psychology... The knowledge will be theoretical then, not as internal feeling which you need to properly understand people. You get the same issue then as I mentioned with Patric Gagne. [ see farther below ] You then cannot properly understand people because understanding from concepts takes too much time.

I mentioned a video interview by a psychiatrist with kitboga (who is an anti-scammer) [ As previously discussed: meeting from 2025-4-6 ]: This psychiatrist is a psychopath... There are issues with that in understanding people and in interacting normally with people, and thus also in helping people. Conversations don't flow, they don't make the right deductions, they don't ask the right questions. They are inherently not interested in other people which means they cannot properly interact and thus help others.

As an example of incompetence and inability to use proper analysis is: I watched a video of a woman who had written books psychology, sexuality and other topics. She figured that the reason why men tend to look to the side of a woman with whom they talk (but not just women, also men), is evolutionary. So men tend to look beside other people, women want eye contact to have the feeling of having a deep, meaningful, conversation. Why this difference? Well, she stated that long ago men needed to keep an eye out for a zebra that they might need to catch for food. I asked: Can you disprove this theory? Think of something that shows that this is not correct. Why does this actually happen? The suggestions put forward were that it is about intimacy, feeling uncomfortable looking someone in the eye and possibly that someone else feels the same. Well, that can be part of it but there is a much more prominent reason. After a while one of the attendees then stated "to concentrate". Yes! That is the main reason. I mentioned my experience in which I did this, so, talking to a woman and I looked beside her to concentrate. I realised it at the time that I did it and why I did it, and I thought back to this (which happened quite a few years ago) when watching that video in 2024 about no direct eye contact. This researcher could have just asked men why they do this! Surely some will be self-aware enough that they can tell her, just like I am and can tell about it. I watched a video about a Russian getting getting interviewed in Russia about the war that Russia started and this process of looking to the side to concentrate was very clear; He looked at the interviewer, then at the sky, then down, then briefly to keep 'contact' with the interviewer he looked at him, then continuing with looking at the sky/ground. This is to concentrate to make sure he said the right thing, especially in Russia where you can go to jail for saying the wrong things.

How to recognise some people who are not competent: In particular an expressionless face points to a psychopath. An almost always present half smile points to an anti-social person who tries to hid his/her personality (after all, with appearing friendly you usually get more done; in my case the half smile and that it doesn't change is a clear sign to a problem, i.e. of someone to be avoided [ and so it doesn't work on me ]). Then one of the attendees asked about whether in the UK or USA people are being taught to smile. I had not heard about and I have not seen it on my trips in the UK. I mentioned that I would expect it more in the USA as there there is a tradition to be overly (fake) friendly in stores. An example of something I watched, in an old video, was that people from the UK were discussing how you were treated after doing grocery shopping in the USA. When leaving the store, the cashier would say "bye, missing you already" which is fake and sounds obnoxious. This was an old video but this type of fake-friendliness is typical of the USA from what I have watched.

Then we got to whether people actually take advice and listen and change: Someone mentioned a friend who sent him videos of going far too fast in a car, which seemed stupid. Then he got into a car accident and realised the issues... The good student (who figured out that 'to concentrate' was the main reason for men looking to the side in talks) also apparently doesn't always answer messages or very late, a year was mentioned :) Well, I've had that I overlooked messages/emails, I just didn't get round to answering and then other things were on my mind. One email took more than a year to answer after this person emailed me again about something, I checked my emails and it seemed that I didn't answer [ I then asked him to make sure... ]. These issues are about the need to reply (and there isn't always a need and that people are busy [ or they do not want to do effort. For example quite a few people whom I meet and with whom I had an interesting conversation do not reply to anything after exchanging contact information... I keep this in mind as being "that is how it goes in life". ]

Someone asked then whether psychopaths and schizophrenic people could be good psychologists. She watched a video of a psychologist, who was then revealed to be a psychopath. Hmm, those are not exceptions!

This made me think of Patric Gagne: A psychopath, who worked as therapist/psychologist. Her understanding of people is emotionally at a 4 year old child's level. [ My site: Analysis of article about/with a psychopath called "Patric Gagne" ] Is what she did useful? She mentioned meeting a guy ~~on a train~~ [ I was thinking of some other situation ] at a dinner party, who, because of her being a psychopath, confided in her about wanting to kill his wife.

I asked the attendees what they would do in such a situation. It was not a situation of doctor-patient so she could openly talk about it. One said to call the police. But no crime has been committed...

What did she do with that? Convince him to just get a divorce? [ that is what I would do ] She didn't say in the article, which is odd. Which means almost certainly that she didn't do that. Also odd that the interviewer didn't pose my question... It shows not doing anything useful with this 'ability to let people confide in her because of being a psychopath' which negates her point that it is useful!

I then mentioned one of the tools in understanding people is to put yourself in their position and imagine what they think. This is possible if you are normal, you can adjust small things and some big things even. You can even emulate the thinking of an autist this way as I discussed with an example of a commenter on a forum for photography. I thought he was trolling, everyone else thought so, then when someone said this he said he was serious, I emulated his thinking and realised: Aha, if he is serious, well, that is possible but ony if he is autistic (or some form of it, like asperger). [ His reply was interesting when I stated that but that is for another time ]

[ The other way around is very difficult or impossible. An autist or psychopath cannot emulate my thinking... ]

About an expressionless face: I have experienced this with a woman I dated in Cherkassy. [ And with a woman I dated in Kiev, an actress/model/singer who is a psychopath as I later realised. She hid it better with a quarter smile but that situation was more problematic in that her true nature was more hidden and thus it took me more time to realise the problem, because I usually met her with her friend. See the meeting from 2025-3-30 and meeting from 2025-4-6 ] She looked normal in her older pictures but in later ones it was as if she had a fixed expression, and I noticed that especially during dates. I don't think you can change that much, so it was in her but I do think that being in modelling made this come out and made it worse.

Emotions are important in life to understand life and to connect with people. I wondered whether women in Ukraine are generally less emotional. One attendee said that women in Ukraine are in his experience less emotional than in western Europe. This seems to be so in my experience too. One of those where it was clear was that photo model (for photo shoots they often have an expressionless face, doing that can cause also change in behaviour). In earlier pictures she looked normal but when I went out with her she was emotionless in her face as if her face was paralysed. [ I could write a book about my dating experiences... ] Interestingly she asked whether I had been in Russia, no I said, only in Crimea which I do not consider Russia. What about St.Petersburg? No, I haven't been there though that would be interesting. [ This was before 2022, and my intention at the time was that I would not go there until after Russia gives up Crimea. ] She then said that women in Russia are more 'cold' than in Ukraine. So I met this woman with an almost expressionless face, who further wasn't serious about the dates and thus wasted my time and wasted my effort, who dared to state that women in Russia are colder. Perhaps this is true, but she can't judge that, and she was herself like from a freezer, so there was no point for her to criticise Russian women! [ It was likely projection: She criticises others of being what she is herself. I analysed why this happens, and what is stated on wikipedia is wrong, from my analysis there are several reasons why this happens. ]

Related to doing in life what makes sense, and not following groups (as in the camp): About giving advice: Not many people take advice. Why? The real reason is that people cannot follow advice unless they are ready for it. Someone tells them the solution to a problem in their life and they don't follow the solution because they need to feel on a deeper level that they need to change. Only when they are at that stage will they accept/follow advice.

I mentioned about scams that I watched a bit of a video about manipulation. At the start I thought: Aha, so it is about that guy, he looks like a religious scammer! (face, facial expression, as one of those tele-evangelists who are begging for money). Then it turns out that that guy is Cialdini who wrote the (quite flawed) book "Influence, science and practice", which is more a showcase of psychologists not understanding people and of being mentally unstable... Then it was mentioned a bit later in the video that he had been a scammer!!!!! Aha, my impression was, yet again, correct. [ how this works I explain in my project, to come later this year. ]