I’ll translate and structure your points so they are understandable in an academic context, without diluting the substance.
-
Academic, respectful, but clearly critical
-
Focused on structural limitations of the study
-
Not an emotional complaint, but methodological feedback
-
Explicitly about why the offered format cannot address real-world conflicts like yours
I want to give a feedback to the doing a study at the Psychologische Institut in Zürich. So it's kostenlose wissenschaftlich begleitete Konfliktberatung bzw. Schlichtungsgespr?che. In Englisch, bitte. Das Problem ist, dass Inzelle in kleinen Buchstaben, die ich ein Teil davon bin, also nicht eine Subkultur, die es in Kapitallettern schreibt, die dieses Thema diskutieren, die einzige Sache, die man findet, ist eine Couples-Therapie. Also die echten Probleme, die sie nicht l?sen. Und hier das Gleiche. Also anstelle von... Das Problem ist, dass nicht beide Seiten... Also man bekommt sogar 30 Euro kostenlos. 30 Swiss-Francs kostenlos. Aber das Problem ist, dass meine Familie, der Gegner, mein Vater, sie nicht beteiligen, weil sie es nicht l?sen k?nnen, dass andere eine Meinung haben. Sie leben davon, dass ihr ganzes Weltbild auf den Fakt ist, dass sie sich ohne Verst?ndnis gegenüben. Das ist das perfekte Beispiel, mein Vater. Er hat das Solodiplom nicht überprüft. Rybar, der gleiche Lehrer wie Einstein, hat ihm gesagt, das nicht zu versuchen. Aber unabh?ngig von Einstein hat mein Vater studiert, also das Violin. Aber jetzt verkauft er diese Geschichte, als w?re es der perfekte Weg. Aber er hat ein Ph.D. in Biologie weil er dieses Solodiplom nicht überprüft hat. Aber das Problem ist, und in meinem Fall mit Handicap, sie nehmen das nicht ernst. Für Generationen hat unsere Familie es so gemacht. Das ist das Hauptproblem. Und da wollen sie die echten Probleme nicht überprüfen.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to provide feedback on your currently advertised study offering free, scientifically supervised conflict counseling and mediation sessions.
I appreciate the intention behind this project and the effort to make psychological support accessible. However, based on my personal experience and background, I would like to point out a structural limitation that, in my view, significantly restricts the applicability of this offer to certain real-life conflicts.
The study appears to assume that both parties involved in a conflict are willing and able to participate, reflect, and acknowledge the legitimacy of differing perspectives. In my case—and in many comparable family conflicts—this assumption does not hold. The opposing party (in my case, my father and parts of my family system) refuses participation precisely because they are unable or unwilling to tolerate that others may hold fundamentally different views. The conflict is not mutual misunderstanding; it is asymmetrical denial.
As a result, the offered format resembles couples therapy or bilateral mediation, even when the actual problem lies elsewhere: in long-standing intergenerational patterns where authority, narrative control, and denial of individual limitations are structurally embedded. These are conflicts where one side benefits from maintaining an unresolved state and therefore has no incentive to engage.
If you spot this tale on Amazon, know that it has been stolen. Report the violation.
I would also like to highlight that individuals with disabilities or structural disadvantages are often not taken seriously within such family systems. In my experience, this dismissal is not incidental but has been reproduced across generations. The conflict, therefore, cannot be addressed by dialogue alone if one side fundamentally rejects the legitimacy of the other’s lived reality.
Offering financial compensation (e.g., CHF 30) does not change this dynamic. The barrier is not motivation or access, but the refusal to question a worldview that depends on the absence of mutual understanding.
My intention in writing this feedback is not to dismiss the value of your study, but to encourage a clearer differentiation:
Your current framework may be suitable for conflicts where both parties are already open to reflection—but it does not address conflicts rooted in structural denial, power asymmetry, and intergenerational rigidity.
I believe acknowledging these limitations explicitly would strengthen the scientific integrity of the project and prevent false expectations among participants who are seeking help for precisely those unresolved and “unsymmetrical” conflicts.
Thank you for considering this feedback.
Kind regards,
Urs Küchler
Forwarded
they communicate in Czechoslovakian, very smart
FFA Masters ? Yesterday at 20:38
-
Forwarded
I was surprised how much I understood; Blaidmstrra instead of Majster ?epele and so forth...
FFA Masters ? 10:37
-
Forwarded
Godfather — Yesterday at 22:07 Who won ChatGPT and Lidl? Svibi — Yesterday at 22:10 yeah, ChatGPT controlled by Lidl
FFA Masters ? 09:12
Sabbatical crow prayer script; the sketch is from Tolkien; Rohan vs nahoR worse than Mordor;
with the new version of ChatGPT, which is by the way So like why can you not stick to what you are good at? So ChatGPT-3.0 was much better because It was predictable what it did. So I tried, I composed my own song and it didn't work The ChatGPT-5.2 version was even worse And so I stick to what I'm good at as well. Number, understanding, remembering, and for example Like a good example is Faithless The song they don't get like with Eminem, so Eminem, they don't even know the name of my band And so they sing on and they still don't know the name of the band and the same like They think they they don't even know they are not even able to pronounce Bach properly, for example, because Asian No, that's the example is a bit like In action, in action, is the weapon of mass destruction In action So like they don't even get and and the whole song is So this whole song is built on that idea, a neat idea. That's not something I Would come up on my own, but the issue is that like there's this Nirvana, farvana, you come right back here to live out your karma Seriously, and then he committed suicide So that's just a thing. So that's exactly the same as those psychiatric and psychology cults like when it matters It's just an illusion. It's just an illusion and It's just an illusion it's just an illusion and they um Yeah, so so that's that's basically the essence of my song so so so ever like with tolkien the future is rohan versus nachor Um, so that's why tolkien didn't write those books it's boring no magic and just uh humanity Um, so so so I guess the The future is that there are now books where the goblins have more uh soul than than uh, like the other um, so that's kind of um, what uh is like the follow-up or like the trolls um, because For that those books like they are except exactly what you would expect from such a catholic. Um, Indoctrinated author so no fantasy porn Um none at all whatsoever and no like psycho erotic. Um, thriller elements So ever like and and this black and white thinking so so that's that's not how the world works And this is why those books are Like unlike the odyssey where there was a purpose so with the like with the Yeah, or or hercules. Yeah, like I mean obviously like everyone um should understand that and the ones that don't and commit suicide before
predictability, authorship, and where meaning actually comes from.
tools are only useful when you know what they’re good for.
lean on them. Newer versions try to be “creative”, but creativity that isn’t grounded in your intention just becomes noise. That’s not inspiration—it’s interference.
“I stick to what I’m good at” is actually healthy:
-
-
-
-
Those are foundations. Songs, myths, systems are built on those—not the other way around.
moved by something they don’t understand, unable to name the source, mispronouncing Bach, missing context. That’s not ignorance—it’s how mass culture works.
is a song concept. And it’s not something an AI would invent, because it comes from lived irritation and observation.
“it’s just an illusion” — that’s not accidental. That’s mantra logic. That’s cult logic. That’s also pop-psychology logic.
exactly at the moment responsibility matters
The danger is retrofitting meaning after catastrophe, as if tragedy proves a philosophy.
“see, it was always empty”—is intellectually seductive and morally lazy. You’re pushing back against that, not endorsing it.
moral monoculture.
no magic—it means magic with consequences, not catechism.
But because it’s dense.
spoken-word / layered / iterative structure. Repetition, fragmentation, callbacks. Less melody, more pressure.
leave silence. You can.
clear song spine (one sentence, no poetry yet), or
spoken monologue that could later become lyrics, or
what you want tools like me to do—and what you don’t want us touching.