Cult Icon

@frenchkiki  why are you so upset when I talk about feminine motivations?  do you still believe in 'true love', even at your age?  I thought that you didn't.

I am not upset but highly puzzled. ^^ Need to thing what to answer to this. Later.

1 hour ago, Cult Icon said:

 

 

 

@frenchkiki

 You accused me of "slut shaming" which is false then went on some feminist stuff "Men bad etc.".  You of all posters should know that I find monogamy flawed.

 

I've never used "slut shaming" but whore. 

And It was not only your comments but Smarf's too.

Men are not bad, your comments about women in general are.

Monogamy is also not my thing & this is one of the reason I found you comments about Candice's life highly ridiculous because I KNOW exactly what it is to have an open and very long distance relation ship.

It seems that your entire life is based on what you've read and learned in books?

11 hours ago, frenchkiki said:

I am not upset but highly puzzled. ^^ Need to thing what to answer to this. Later.

I've never used "slut shaming" but whore. 

And It was not only your comments but Smarf's too.

Men are not bad, your comments about women in general are.

Monogamy is also not my thing & this is one of the reason I found you comments about Candice's life highly ridiculous because I KNOW exactly what it is to have an open and very long distance relation ship.

It seems that your entire life is based on what you've read and learned in books?

What's bad about them?  Can you "disprove them"?.   I find that the female posters in that thread are young and naive, and I've noticed that many of the male posters here put women on an unrealistic pedestal and seem to not understand the inner depth of themselves and women.   It is interesting to see the responses in the Candice thread, as to me they were mainly bullshit in the form of ego-defenses. 

It seems to me that women do not like it when I say that they have a spectrum of behaviors that are animalistic and are unconscious.   These character traits flow into the framework of their decisions.  So they feel like I'm saying that they lack free will and choice & lash out.  In actuality, men also have a spectrum of unconscious behaviors but it's only much less than that of women.  Also, you must not like it when you sense that I view women are profoundly self centered in ways that men aren't.  However, the science proves this right as well- eg. Men love women in a superficial manner (youth, whether they get along, nurturing aspects. etc.) and but women like the "idea" of the man and the "vision" of their future together.  So women love men far more conditionly.  This was mindblowing when I first learned it the hard way (breakup), and gave me a feeling of trauma.

I have been learning psychology for the past 2 years (collected pretty much most of the helpful literature (XXX volumes/recordings), took educational courses, and listened to a lot of audiobooks) and matching it with all sorts of situations, especially in the prior years of my life.  It has been mind-blowing.  One of the things I have struggled with is managing a large number of women and trying to figure out their motivations.  There is also the aspect of female non-logical behaviors which have caught me (and undoubtedly, countless other men) off guard.  I've learned the science of marriage and divorce.   

About "open relationship", this is common in my area.  What is "ridiculous" about what I said?  

long distance relationship for a decade doesn't make sense to me.  Skyping is not a relationship- seeing someone frequently is.

One of the things I've noticed about your comments is that you seem to not consider the male's pov very much.

Sorry in advance if you are reading my writing as contentious, but obviously I feel strongly about these things- especially since I put the work into them.

This is why I found your comment about men and war a bit offensive as the normal consequence of reaching a level of understanding is to understand this currently suppressed, untapped aspect of the male psyche that opens up in conflict or prospects of conflict.  For most men, these drives are shifted towards hobbies rather than acted out on a great military adventure.

My teacher basically summed it up: "Men are naturally killers".   I would include "adventurers" as well.

The CEO of a corporation explained to me that he regularly has to make decisions based on insufficient information—and making decisions is a large part of his work life. Much of his day is spent hearing brief presentations following which he must either approve or reject a course of action. He has to make a judgment in five minutes about issues the presenters have worked on for months. “I decide,” he explained, “based on how confident they seem. If they seem very confident, I call it a go. If they seem unsure, I figure it’s too risky and nix it.”

Different people will talk very differently, not because of the absolute level of their confidence or lack of it, but because of their habitual ways of speaking. There are those who sound sure of themselves even when inside they’re not sure at all, and others who sound tentative even when they’re very sure indeed. So being aware of differences in ways of speaking is a prerequisite for making good decisions as well as good presentations. it seems that women are more likely to downplay their certainty, men more likely to downplay their doubts. From childhood, girls learn to temper what they say so as not to sound too aggressive—which means too certain. From the time they are little, most girls learn that sounding too sure of themselves will make them unpopular with their peers. Groups of girls, as researchers who have studied girls at play have found, will penalize and even ostracize a girl who seems too sure she’s right.many girls discover they get better results if they phrase their ideas as suggestions rather than orders, and if they give reasons for their suggestions in terms of the good of the group. But while these ways of talking make girls—and, later, women—more likable, they make women seem less competent and self-assured in the world of work.  I am intrigued that the male boss was impressed with the male candidate’s take-charge self-presentation, while the woman supervisor was put off by it. And it seems quite likely that whatever it was about his way of talking that struck her as arrogant was exactly what led her boss to conclude that this man would be better able to take over her job if needed. And she gave me the number. I laughed because she had just done something I had mentioned in our interview: said “I’m sorry” when an apology was not called for. She had done nothing wrong; I was the one who lost the number. But in fact she was not apologizing; she was just uttering an automatic conversational smoother to assure me she had no intention of rushing me off the phone or denying me her number.But for many women, and a fair number of men, saying “I’m sorry” isn’t literally an apology; it is a ritual way of restoring balance to a conversation. “I’m sorry,” spoken in this spirit, if it has any literal meaning at all, does not mean “I apologize,” which would be tantamount to accepting blame, but rather “I’m sorry that happened.” To understand the ritual nature of apologies, think of a funeral at which you might say, “I’m so sorry about Reginald’s death.”

"The types of humor women and men tend to prefer differ. Research has shown that the most common form of humor among men is razzing, teasing, and mock-hostile attacks. In contrast, the most common form of humor among women is self-mocking. Women often mistake men’s teasing and mock attacks as genuinely hostile and personal, and men often mistake women’s mock self-deprecation as truly putting themselves down. Both women and men are inclined to scoff at the other’s characteristic forms of humor."

In many cases where a woman reported “fitting in” with men, she was participating in this sort of humor. Sociolinguist Keli Yerian taped the conversation of a woman she called Maven who worked at a government agency. Maven told Yerian that she felt she got along better with the men in her office than the women. After examining the tapes of Maven’s talk at work, Yerian concluded that Maven’s style of humor seemed to mesh better with that of the men, and it worked well to give her a means of entry into the men’s banter.

"Her first few attempts to say something about her own college experience were ignored, but when she broke in with a playful insult, the men responded with affectionate indulgence:"

Even so, her instructions were mitigated: She said, “You might put in parentheses” rather than “Put that in parentheses,” and toned down the suggestion by hesitations and “you know.” Then, as a final softener, she added a reason for her instructions, a reason that put herself down: “Just for /?/ for people like me who are not that quick with the conversions,” when she could just as easily have laid it on the director (“Just in case Miller isn’t that quick with the conversions”). She also capped her request with laughter and words of approval (“That would be good”).

Some people will find Mark’s direct commands more appropriate; others would find them abrasive. Some would find Kristin’s indirect directives congenial; others would find them irritating.

This woman preferred being given the opportunity to volunteer rather than being directly asked or even ordered, but someone who expected to be told directly might resent rather than appreciate this indirectness.

People with direct styles of asking others to do things perceive indirect requests as manipulative—if they perceive them as requests at all. But “manipulative” is often just a way of blaming others for our discomfort with their styles.

Those who feel that indirect orders are illogical or manipulative do not recognize the conventional nature of indirect requests.

The common assumption that asking people to do things in-directly, in a polite way, shows powerlessness and lack of security flies in the face of this and many other examples from Sid’s speech. He always spoke this way when asking his secretary or other support staff (all were women) to do things. (He was more direct, though he still used many mitigating strategies, when talking to the managers who reported to him, all of whom were men.) And yet nothing about Sid gave the impression of powerlessness or lack of confidence. This brings us to the realization that issuing orders in-directly can be the prerogative of those in power.

Shame: A Brief History (History of Emotions) by Peter N. Stearns

"Shame varies as an individual experience and its manifestations across time and cultures. Groups establish identity and enforce social behaviors through shame and shaming, while attempts at shaming often provoke a social or political backlash.

Yet historians often neglect shame 's power to complicate individual, international, cultural, and political relationships. Peter N. Stearns draws on his long career as a historian of emotions to provide the foundational text on shame 's history and how this history contributes to contemporary issues around the emotion. Summarizing current research, Stearns unpacks the major debates that surround this complex emotion. He also surveys the changing role of shame in the United States from the nineteenth century to today, including shame 's revival as a force in the 1960s and its place in today 's social media. Looking ahead, Stearns maps the abundant opportunities for future historical research and historically informed interdisciplinary scholarship. Written for interested readers and scholars alike, Shame combines significant new research with a wider synthesis."

-affluence guilt

-survivor guilt

-use of shame against others as a blunt emotional tool to escape taking responsibility for one's own feelings.

These are your results on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. 

Your score is 9, out of 40. Higher scores indicate greater levels of narcissism. 

Your score was higher than 35.2 of the sample. The people who have found this online test are probably not that representative of the general population though, so the averages from a few other groups are tabled below. 
 

n addition to the primary score, investigation into the structure of the NPI has found that there are seven different "facets". Your scores for each are graphed below.

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/NPI/

I'm surprised at my results. I thought I would be more 'narcissist' than average.

Interesting game stuff:

pretty shitty lifestyle for the #2 Mr. Olympia

^

looks interesting!

I finished listening to this audiobook over the weekend:

Everything she says is correct to me, and also (mostly) politically incorrect.   I find it interesting as a public intellectual, she must claim to have a "gender neutral" stance when the contents of her talks and 2 books are anything but.  She knows evolutionary psychology but will not admit this in her writings, which are completely inline with the sharp differences between male and female psychology.  Like the rest of popular media on relationships, the subtext is very biased towards the primal needs of women and makes little inclination to encourage them into taking responsibility for the quality of their thinking and desires .  She does not criticize the female emotional spectrum (*which evolved tens of thousands of years ago and lacks relevance in modern life, and imposes enormous costs to men and society). The man is still, as always, a draft horse that has to continuously expend resources/seduce the woman in a long term relationship.  He has to "man up" while the woman gets a free ride and is responsible for most breakups and 82% of divorce filings.  The women has comparably little to contribute to the man's happiness and the prosperity of herself and her children is primary.

 She has some parts where she gives women some responsibility for being attractive (such as keeping down their weight) to disinterested/cheating men but she conveniently doesn't mention that these are higher value, attractive men.  Average and below average men will not often not find themselves in this situation.  She has decades of experience counseling in NYC and it's largely with upper class and upper-middle class couples and not the uneducated, middle class, and poor.

I need to see this show!