Roberto pokachinni

gardener
+ Follow
since Jan 21, 2014
Roberto likes ...
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
Forum Moderator
Roberto pokachinni currently moderates these forums:
Just a little guy with big ideas, trying to get it done in the Canadian Rockies.
Fraser River Headwaters, Zone3, Lat: 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
Apples and Likes
Apples
Total received
240
In last 30 days
25
Total given
73
Likes
Total received
1276
Received in last 30 days
93
Total given
271
Given in last 30 days
26
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Pollinator Scavenger Hunt
expand Pioneer Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Roberto pokachinni

My understanding of plants might differ from yours, so in speaking of this topic I will explain my understanding.  Plants like echinacea rise and fall with the seasons, and their energy does as well.  When your echinacea dies back visibly as you describe, it has already sent a lot of energy down into its roots for storage for next year's growth.  Your tincture will have some potency but not nearly what it would be if it were fresh and the energy full.  A tincture of the entire plant can be made when the flower is just in bud.  In the spring, fresh echinacea leaves can be tinctured.  This is when the leaves have the most potency.  That's where the energy is.  As the plant rises up to produce other products like flowers, these reach a peak of energy before they start to produce seed.  Many people make a tincture of echinacea flower.  This takes the least out of the plant's potential to store energy in it's roots.  The plant will be a perennial for quite a few years.  I'm leaving my roots in the ground for a minimum of 5 years before I tincture the roots.  Roots are either harvested in the late fall, or in spring as soon as the ground can be worked.  This ensures that most of the plant's energy is present in that part.  I hope that this is helpful.   
16 hours ago

With online dating, he mentioned not contacting certain women because they said they wanted a taller man. I think that's a mistake. I contacted whoever I wanted and let them look at my profile and vital statistics and decide for themselves if something in there was a dealbreaker. Now I know studies have shown that men tend to have a certain type of woman and that's that. Women on the other hand tend to change their type based on their current partner's appearance. My husband is nothing like what I always thought my type was, so don't rule yourself out. Let the other person decide. If your conversation and personality click with the other person I bet a lot of other stuff won't matter so much anymore.

  Well, I noticed that if a woman was being specific and detailed in their profile then their decision was made and pretty final.  That was my experience.  I did try to contact a few of these women, but they would most often be put off or slightly offended with the assumption that I had not fully read their profile. 

On most sites that I was on, a person could see whoever checked out their profile (unless the other person paid a fee to exclude that information).  So most women would know, already, that I was checking them out, because I never paid that fee.  Also, while I was searching, I would go through the women who checked me out, and after sorting out their profiles by order of priority, I would go on and create some search parameters, (like hiking cycling, gardening) and then scan the profiles that came up in the search and read the ones that I thought might be worthwhile based, primarily on location and if they were willing to relocate (as I was pretty set on eventually being on my land) but I was in the city (with a very different job). 

Most women that randomly found me were doing much the same type of search.  One found me because I wrote that I was a writer.  Another because I enjoy raw food.  Another because I dabble with herbal medicine. 

I sought women of different appearances and body type.  My primary parameter was that they were interesting and they had to have some level of attractiveness and fitness.  The next was that we had shared interests beyond the search terms that I had put in. 

But on the whole, I think your advice is spot on, Jan.  i think that people need to go for it, and let the other people decide.        
16 hours ago

Something that seems a lot of people are unaware of is how much this society (American, can't speak for the others) programs a woman to feel inadequate if she doesn't have a man. From the clothes for sale at the stores that are designed to appeal to men, the music on the radio that tells girls it will take a man to make her a princess, the female politicians who get harassed for not looking like a model, the ads for everything, the other women who openly pity a single woman, the movies that never seem to end with the woman walking off confidently into the sunset alone, it's really serious programming. Start watching it, it's horrifying when you look.

  I'd say that being a man is a lot safer (with some qualifications) than being a woman, and that includes safety from this high level of bullshit.  We don't have the fashion element so much, but looking good is still pretty important, but looking big and tough is better.  If looking good get's involved, then generally this also equates to narcissism, however.  We have our own stuff that we are told to be, but its not so blatant and its not always so destructive as what is done to women.  Women do not really notice that a man in North American society is expected to always be strong, and to not show his difficult to deal with emotions unless it is anger.  As much as social advances have helped society in general and women in particular in the post WW2 era, the world among men has changed only slightly.   This constantly being strong (not just physically, but emotionally) business takes its toll on men since everything else is buried or hidden from society, and comes out in the breakdown of intimate relations.  The type of strength that is acceptable in the society of men is one that either puts other people down or props himself up.  Strength of character need not be necessary for such man; his character has been undermined by these societal expectations.  If a male can successfully navigate the social labyrinth to both put other people down and prop himself up, then all the better.  If a man does not do these things, then he is not really manly enough for many social circles, especially amongst men.  The interesting thing is that a really well-rounded man, in this society, with these cultural expectations, will be able to do all that and still give the impression that he has a strength of character and the abililty to show true affection and love.  If he's able to pull off that neurotic acrobatic act then he's liable to be really really successful in this dysfunctional society. 

There is also the arm candy element.  Men are supposed to find themselves some arm candy, and settling for less than some total fox is not considered acceptable even though total foxes are somewhat rare, and a great % of the ones that exist are actually more messed up than the ones who aren't total foxes.  I've dated a few.  The impossibility of every man finding himself a total fox does not seem to be part of the math in this department.  It is simply expected, and not to be questioned.  Pravda.  A man with a less than total fox on his arm is then needing his character to be intact, and as such, he actually becomes a much better human being, but is much less of a 'real man'.  The feminist movement and the peace movement helped a lot of men get comfortable with the idea that they did not have to be a dickhead in order to function in society and get a great lady so this element is changing... but not fast enough (otherwise the Me Too movement would not exist).  In general, a man in North America is programmed to feel inadequate if he cannot attract total foxes, and if he is not both physically strong (able to protect himself and his lady from the brutal world of real men) and emotionally strong (not showing his feelings, so that he seems invulnerable).  Vulnerability, in any way, is not allowed; not unless it can be masked with bravado/machismo. This is also one of the reasons that narcissism, as well as other forms of sociopathology, are rampant among men.

I was fortunate in some ways because I had and do have a lot of female friends/mentors/associations.  I lived in cooperative houses that were dominated by strong-willed women.  I had a great older sister and a strong relationship with my mother and grandmother.  I have many mother figures.  Women in my valley are strong advocates and passionate community members.  Even though I don't like most of their politics, both of the Mayors of my local villages are women.   My favorite politician is a female.  I grew up with a lot of aunties, and a big family that was run with a lot of equality amongst the sexes.  I leaned toward being a punk and a hippy and that took me out of the norms of society, and into becoming, I think, more well rounded in my character.  Most men do not have these elements in their lives.  They've bought the lies that society has taught them.    

I was on a few dating sites for a couple years and read a lot of profiles.  I preferred detailed ones over the sparsely written profiles.    One detail came out more often than not:  I don't know how many women had it in their profiles that they were looking for a guy who was considerably bigger than themselves.  A 5'3'' woman looking for a guy 6' or over was not uncommon.  At 5'5'', I didn't have a chance.  I had a friend who was my height that lied in his profile, saying that he was 5'8'' and added a few pounds to boot.  The girls never noticed because he had a gregarious personality that filled a room.  I was grateful, however, that these women had this in their profile though; I then could just carry on with my own search without involving the impossible. (once in a while I would tell them that I was disappointed that they were not interested in shorter guys)  But the volume of women with this in their profile was shocking to me.  This shock was not because I didn't already believe (through an almost constant barrage of societal cues) that I was too damn small in this society of men who were expected to be the toughest thing in town, but because it was so blatantly sought by so many women that my dating pool became extremely narrow.  But I refused to also make it shallow.  As such, since I am also not a bulky guy at all, I was tempted to add a ten or thirty pounds to my weight, but I didn't.  Honesty, I felt, was my best bet.  I was relying on strength of character to get me through, and as such, I got very few hits on my profile.  Another limiting factor was that I was extremely detailed in my profile and also about the type of woman I was looking for.  For instance, after a while of reading so many profiles that excluded me, I decided to go with it.  I wrote something right off the start that said basically, "if you are looking for a great big guy with big hands, then I'm not your man."  The result of these limits, though, was that the ones that did respond were generally of quite high quality (not necessarily total foxes, but totally great gals who had their shit together).  I sometimes got a message that thanked me for my detailed profile.  They didn't always want to date, but they found it refreshing that a guy was so open and detailed and honest.  I guess that was rare on that site.  This was contrasted by my experience early on when I had a less detailed profile and a lot more hits from fewer women of real social qualities and more total foxes.   It was through boredom in meeting these women that I decided to get detailed.

I got out of the internet dating scene because (in addition to a few other factors) at my present job I never know when I'm done any work shift-day to day, because my time off is extremely limited (almost no vacation time and my weekend is sometimes shortened by a long Friday shift), because I actually need some time alone (introversion) generally in the forest, and because I live in a hamlet that is remote from many population centers (where most of the ladies that hit on my profile are at).  I want to be able to devote a certain amount of time to a relationship and that is not really possible in my present situation.  If I just wanted hook-ups (and fancy arm candy), I could probably do that; but I'm interested in a real relationship.   Now that the land is paid for, I can consider leaving this job in the next couple years and possibly consider putting myself out there more.

Maybe this post will help women understand a few of the things guys are dealing with.  At least some of what I can see from a guy's point of view.
18 hours ago
10 Tips to Talk to Anyone About Anything:


Here is another article written by the same psychologist that might help with this thread. 
21 hours ago

This situation you describe, along with your feelings about it, and the fact that you keep talking about fear really makes me think that what you're talking about is social anxiety.

Yes, you are probably right there.  Introversion is a genetic trait that we are born with, but it should be added that most people are not introverted or extraverted; They have some levels of both depending on the setting that they find themselves framed in in any given moment and these elements within this spectrum do tend to change somewhat throughout a person's life.  That's what the modern studies seem to say.  People can have more or less introverted tendencies, but they are generally not just introverted.  It's more of a spectrum issue, rather than one of Black and White, This or That. Here's an article about this from Psychology Today ;   I think of it more of something like Aspbergers.  There are so many different levels of it, that it's really hard to nail down to a set definition. 

So I'm going to add to what you said, Jan.  I'm introverted genetically on a lot of fronts, but I have a social element that appreciates the extraversion angle on occasion.  I am both socially anxious and socially awkward, but I'm not always this way in all circumstances.  I think the elements of introversion that can create a problem with reaching out and developing relationships are mostly fed by and added to by learned behaviors based on past experiences or unnecessary social pressures and this leads to further complications on defining introversion.  I believe that a lot of what people think of as introversion is actually predominantly social awkwardness (or greatly enhanced by social awkwardness) that is learned by social programming. 



          
21 hours ago
Just so everyone knows, I'm a long way from not being an introvert.  I am working on it, but it's a lot easier to give advice sometimes than to take it myself. 

I was at a social event last night (The Banff Mountain Film Festival, travelling best of show).  A woman who I was even acquainted with already, who had been sitting near me was standing near me at the snack table at the intermission.  She is quite attractive to me, and as I said, I already know her a bit, but then just as I was going to head up to her to chat, two other goddesses in the same realm walked over to her.  It was apparently too much for me to connect with.  I diverted my approach, and walked across the room to talk with some guys about the films and about meeting up for a hike.

  A laughed at myself about it afterward as I drove home... reminiscing about this thread.

  Interestingly, the part that I wrote about your world opening up as you reach out was so apparent, by the opposite feeling that I felt.  There is an overwhelming closing-in feeling that doesn't feel as though it can be challenged.  I know, from past experience, that it immediately dissolves when you break free of it in the moment.  It is like the fear of falling.  I remember at age 17 standing on the edge of a logging bridge without a railing and wanting to jump off it into the creek 40 feet below with my friends and I was so afraid that I wasn't sure I was ever going to do it (i stood there for so long that I was worried about being sunburned), but as soon as my feet left the bridge, the fear was gone.  I had accepted the fear or the consequences, and there was no problem to do it the second time.  I need to remember to make that move.  Lose the fear with that movement.  I think it's a powerful lesson, and I know that I need to remind myself of it as much now as ever.


Did he show how to get one of these blocks that first inch or so off the ground? 

  I didn't see any other videos that showed that.  I assume that he must have dug under it so that he could gain the initial teeter totter effect and or the rolling lubricant of pebbles.  I've been onto other 'research' and haven't gotten back to exploring this.
To the introverts out there, I'd like to add that I can relate.  I was an extreme introvert for a long time.  I had a friend though that pushed me to talk to people (women) and helped me break out of my shell.  That and I've had relationships break down and have sought council, and have done work on myself.  A lot of people refuse the last two mentioned things because they feel that it is a sign of weakness.  I used to believe this as well.  But I have learned that seeking help is a sign of strength.  It is possible, and it is of great benefit to break out of introversion.  Your world will open up for you.  The main concern that a lot of people have (and why the are introverts) is fear of rejection.  But this is primarily self-doubt that a person is reflecting outwards onto others, and thus experiences it falsely as the judgement of others.  There is a lot to be said for Self Compassion, and really truly understanding those fears that are holding you back from becoming social.  I highly recommend the work of Brene Brown, and also Kristen Neff in these regards.  Heavy introversion is not a natural state, it is learned behavior from listening to an inner voice that is telling you that you are not good enough for the group to accept.  At least that was the case for me.   I shouldn't write that about everybody generally.  But that is how I understand it, particularly after finding these types of teachers and looking at my own behavior and listening to what my thoughts were actually saying to me.  I can also appreciate those people who will say after reading this, that I simply do not understand their level of introversion.  But believe me when I say that I was a very serious introvert and that I definitely can relate.

Here's Brene Brown's 8.4million hit ted talk: 



And here's Kristen Neff's over 1 million hit TedX talk:

Dating taught me some of that too. To begin with I wanted to be openminded and not rule out people based on what felt like prejudices. After a couple dates I started ruling out people who labeled themselves spiritual or religious or had kids or smoked pot. I didn't want to be that kind of person but it turns out I am and just like you shouldn't choose a partner who you want to change, don't try to change yourself to be with someone either. 

A person can create criteria that make a person acceptable or not to be a partner.  I would not call this prejudice; that's common sense about knowing yourself and your own needs, in my thinking.  I'll explain with an example from my world:  I'll never find compatibility with a tobacco smoking woman.  It's an automatic turn off for me.  It's a deal breaker.  And I'm O.K. with ruling out ladies who smoke tobacco, even if they are otherwise attractive and potentially compatible in lots of different ways.  The nature of loving someone is going to mean accepting their flaws, but it does not mean that when searching for a partner you have to compromise things that you just can't live with.  There is a difference between passing judgement on someone and using discernment towards getting what you need. In the former, I would say that people who smoke tobacco are such and such a type of person, blah blah badmouth, blah blah, judge judge judge.  In the latter, I would say, "I'm the type of person that does not want to live in a tobacco smoke environment.  I grew up in a household with constant smoke and I really didn't like it then; not one little bit.  I don't like to be downwind of smokers, let alone cohabitate with them, so I'm choosing to not advance my relationship with this person as a partner, and even as a friend it will be challenging as I will always have to be upwind."  The way I see it, this difference between discernment and passing judgment means that prejudice does not need to be involved in the former.  Discernment is about making good decisions for yourself; it's not really about the other person.  

Sorry if this is slightly off topic. 

To put it back on topic:  I agree with the idea that Jan presented in the above quote, that you should not be changing yourself to be with someone, but I would qualify that by saying "at least at first".   A good working relationship involving personal growth (anything less is going to stagnate and become toxic to a degree) is going to have an element where a couple of people are going to be able to nudge each other in the directions of becoming better people.  This is part of a nurturing relationship, and should be expected.  Not right away, but as the relationship matures there is an element of compromise and accomodation that takes place where personalities become more malleable.  This only comes naturally after people are comfortable with each other, and after the initial romance.  It is not easy to change yourself to become a better person on your own, and it is an even harder thing to swallow when someone else asks it of you, but if you are strong in how you feel about your partner (you love this person and want it to work), and are confident in your own strength of character (even if you change you are still the same person deep down), then changing for the better, with the help of your partner, can be quite loving and enjoyable experience.  It can also be a harsh whip.  So, when this comes up, it's up to you to make your partner aware that the approach to such subjects is as important as the content.  Creating the right setting (a strong relationship bond), and framing the wording right (using compassionate language), goes a long way toward helping another person to change a slightly difficult aspect of their personality.        
Until internet dating came into vogue and I was in the city, I never actually actively "dated" anyone in any kind of way that would be recognizable if one is trapped in the ideas that are portrayed in the media.  I hang out and do things that I like to do.  I met most of my long term partners while dancing at music festivals or hanging out with friends, or working on interesting projects.  You have to have some kind of social element in your life in order to date me, as I'm generally too shy to put myself out directly to someone right off the start.  But if we are part of the same social network, or group, then there is a chance to talk and to say, something like, "I'm going for a day hike at Mount Robson next Sunday, probably going to go for a slow walk off the trail into the Cedar Rainforest, and scramble about on the boulders and generally geek out on pikas and lichens, anybody interested?"  Chances are that if a chick is into that sort of relaxed geeking out, she's probably worth hanging out with in general.  :)  Also, if I say, I'm going to do climb such and such Mountain without a trail, then that is going to potentially attract a different sort of geek.  Also, it should be noted: Everyone Is A Geek.  The ones that call someone else a geek just don't acknowledge their own geek side.