quest


I am a woman of 65 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:
marulaki@hotmail.com


The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.


Friday, April 10, 2015

733. Motivation For Behavior: The Difference Between Deficits And Benefits

733.  Motivation For Behavior:  The Difference Between Deficits And Benefits

I value rationality as one distinctive and superior quality, by which human individuals differ from instinct driven animals.  This is a premise, which many people do not share with me.   I am fully aware that those, who value being guided and determined by unconscious instincts and inclinations more than by rationality, cannot and will not agree with the following application of rationality on how to live.      

As I myself am both a non-breeder and non-religious, both are for me expression of the same rationality.   As a member of a non-breeders' group, I asked some puzzled question to religious non-breeders.    
In the entries 656. The Placebo Church  and 441. An Ingenious Self-Deception I have already expressed my wondering about the weird Unitarian Universalist placebo church.   My question to a member thereof concerning what needs and deficits were met, ended as an impasse.  

I did not get an answer, I did not even succeed to convey my question.   The exchange has inspired the following thoughts.

 
A rational person has an awareness for the importance of evaluating behaviors and actions by the consequences and by comparing them with alternative options for its causes and reasons.

1.  One important factor is the baseline.   Behavior improving the subjective wellbeing can have one or both of these effects:  It either restores the baseline to the neutral state of neither pleasure nor displeasure, or it adds pleasure above this baseline.  
This is an important distinction, because I consider only this baseline of not suffering as a human right, while seeking pleasure can only be justified when nobody else is harmed or taken advantage of.  

2.   People, whose behavior is caused by a deficit, often get additional benefits above the baseline.   Sometimes they consciously only recognize the benefits as if gaining these were the original purpose of the behavior.   They are unaware or in denial that the initial purpose was restoring the baseline.   

3.   Another factor is the experience of cognitive dissonance, when people want to be more rational than they really are.  They want to consider themselves as rationally seeking benefits and not as if they were helpless robots succumbing to urges.   The denial of urges and deficits is a method to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance.

4.   There are different kind of subjectively perceived deficits.   Deficits can be innate or acquired, they can be physical or cognitive.   Rational behavior requires thinking about all relevant factors and about the long-term consequences before coping with the perceived deficit.   Just following the urge is often irrational.   

 
A rational way of life requires people to scrutinize carefully all their inclinations to behave.   For this purpose they ask themselves several questions.   The ones in the not comprehensive following list are important
  • Which is my baseline? 
  • Do I only get benefits or are there needs, deficits, urges, wishes, discontentment, dishomeostasis hidden behind the experienced benefits?
  • What would happen, if I resist the inclination to this behavior?
  • What alternative behaviors are there?   
When interactive behavior includes reciprocal impacts by and upon others, rational persons apply these questions to others as much as upon themselves.   Not only the choice between respect and disrespect depends upon this, but also the choice between supporting and refusing to become a victim, between continuing the interaction and avoiding the person.

A few examples:

1.  Food
 
When a hungry, not obese person eats, this is rational.
When a not hungry but also not-obese eats something for the pleasure of the taste, it is unnecessary but not irrational.  
But when an obese person eats because of boredom, stress or a similar reason, then this is irrational.

2.  Alcoholism as an addiction
 
2.1.  There is no physical or real need for drinking any alcohol at all.   Not drinking is completely rational behavior. 
2.2.  When someone drinks restricted quantities of alcoholic beverages with sufficient intervals in between, this can be be considered as rationally enjoying the taste.  
2.3.  But in the case of someone feeling an urge for alcohol intake to reach the baseline, then this is an addiction.  
In the case of denial, the addict claims to drink for pleasure and does not recognize and acknowledge the urge.   He is not aware of the irrationality of his drinking.    
2.4.  An alcoholic having asked and answered the questions can admit, that his urge to drink alcohol needs an approach, which is anything between self-control and therapy, but not drinking. 


When irrational behaviors are reinforced or even instilled by a social norm, they become an even more devastating problem.   This is unfortunate for the many people, whose life would be better without acquired, harmful urges.   
There are special dynamics at work.  People are trapped, because they are allowed to consciously experience some benefits.  These benefits do not suffice to rationally justify the amount of sacrifices, which are required.   But unconsciously these people also experience the additional relief of some urge, of which they are consciously in complete denial.   This denial impedes them from considering and attempting other, more rational methods to deal with the urges.  
The urges instilled by the social norm lead to behaviors, which override any healthy individualistic approach towards living in a balance of giving and receiving in the exchange with the social environment.   By these social norms, people are deformed towards willingly allowing to be exploited and taken advantage of while being mistaken as being important and useful.   
These victims are not aware that the social norm serves only the interest of those, who use their power, influence and greed to usurp more such advantages. 

Two of these instilled behaviors are breeding and religious behaviors.  Breeding and religion have one aspect in common with alcoholism.   There are enough non-drinkers, non-breeders and non-religious people as evidence of the existence of alternatives.

3.  Breeding
 
3.1.  In modern western societies and even in some others too, there is no individual need for breeding.   Not breeding is a completely rational behavior. 
3.2.  Under some limited circumstances in the past and in some remote places, the survival of old people depended and depends on raising children.   These people have no need to belief in alleged benefits of breeding, they are succumbing to a necessity.  
3.3.  But someone feeling an urge to breed only for reaching the baseline has a serious problem, like an addict.    
As children cannot be undone, once the mistake was made, breeders are usually in denial of any remorse.  They insist that breeding has brought them benefits.   They do not recognize and acknowledge to have succumbed to an instinctive or instilled urge.   They remain unaware of the irrationality of breeding.     
3.4.  While breeders are consciously in denial, they implicitly often show a glimpse of belated rationality, when they stop further breeding after the first child.   But this is not a conscious change to rationality concerning breeding. 

4.  Religion

4.1.  A rational way of life is not deranged by any religious behavior.   A rational, responsible and considerate treatment of others requires rationality and the absence of any religious behaviors.   No rational person is religious.   No religious person is rational.
Religion manifests itself by observable religious behaviors, which not only include personal sacrifices of money, time and comfort, but even worse it also determines how others are treated.   
Weird ritualistic body movements only impact one person.   But often religion can cause as much damage as an alcohol addiction.     When someone wastes the family money on church donations and his time at the church service instead of with his partner, he inflicts damage on others for irrational reasons. 
Worse are those, who transgress, acquire religious forgiveness and feel free to continue transgressing.   A man, who by following his polygamous religion copulates with other women, deeply hurts his monogamous partner who experiences this as cheating. 
4.2.  Religious behavior is an expression of a belief, which can never rationally be justified.   What is based upon science and evidence, is not a belief.    Only pretending by outwardly imitated religious behavior can sometimes be rational self-defense, when needed for self-preservation.   
4.3.  Religious people's denial is extreme.   I have repeatedly asked religious people, which urges, deficits and experienced dishomeostasis causes them to be religious.   Asking this questions seems futile.  They just seem not to understand.  They enthuse about all their emotional benefits and even feel offended, when I keep on asking about the deficits.  These deficits are the core of what makes them religious and distinguishes them from rational people.     
4.4.  Some religious people overcome their denial.   When they finally get rational, the only possible reaction is to free themselves of all the religious beliefs.   But while remaining a believer, no religious person will ever admit, that they feel urges towards merely reaching a baseline of basic wellbeing, which rational non-religious people already have without any religion.      


Therefore, breeding and religion are as irrational as alcohol addiction, the only real difference is the social norm, which encourages breeding and religion, while alcoholism is considered deviant.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

732. How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

732.   How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

This continues entry 702. The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women, which seems to have been misunderstood.    So I add some clarification:

An unpartnered man, who respects women as humans with a brain and a personality, behaves following these guidelines: 

He recognizes the risk of making himself a nuisance to women and the necessity to avoid this.   He accepts to prevent causing any harm to women and to his own ability to respect woman.   He never copulates like an alley dog, not by payed abuse nor by taking advantage of the consent of women without self-respect.   His need to cope with his recurrent physiological tensions requires a non-abusive method to maintain his homeostasis.

This method is the unrestricted use of his hand but with the clear cognitive attitude and goal of this being a merely mechanical way of cleansing.  
He is motivated to not jeopardize his respectful attitude towards women.   Therefore he avoids anything, which would desensitize him and which would trick his subconscious mind to automatically confound female bodies as toilets for his body waste.   
He distinguishes cognitively between mechanical cleansing and physical intimacy as a facet of a longterm monogamous bonded attachment.  

Therefore he never looks at pornography.  
 
Pornography has been made by abusing real women.  The customer of pornography is mislead towards the cognitive pseudo-justification and trivialization of watching women apparently enjoying copulation.  He avoids cognitive dissonance by the complete denial, that abused and disgusted women have only feigned and pretended in front of a camera, what appeals to the animal in him.  
The realistic quality of photos and movies tricks the male mind to confuse the combination of his manipulations while merely watching as if he himself had also experienced the performance of what he does not recognize as abuse.   The result of habitual exposure is a fatal desensitization and subconsciously learning and enhancing the automatic and spontaneous degradation of women as objects.   
Exaggerated male urges for female bodies have evolved over millions of years.   Photography only exists since 200 years.  Therefore a man needing mechanical relief can perform this without pornography.  

He never fantasizes about any really existing woman.  

Alley dog copulation without longterm emotional attachment and respect for a woman's brain and personality are mutually exclusive.  
When a man's animal instincts make him feel the urge to copulate like an alley dog, his choice of subsequent behavior makes a big difference only for the targeted woman.   If a man approaches her suggesting the physical abuse of her body, this informs her of his disrespect.   If he only abuses her in his fantasy while finding solitary relief, she usually does not even know it.  
But for the man's subconscious mind in both cases the experience is similar.  It is the successful and pleasurably rewarded degradation of a woman's body as a toilet.   Thus his respect for her person is damaged in both cases, no matter if she has agreed to real abuse or if her agreement was only a part of his fantasy.   
Only the woman, who is approached, can show her indignation and adjust her behavior towards him.   In the case of fantasized abuse, the targeted woman is impeded from appropriate reactions by the ignorance of his unnoticed disrespect.   While due to her unawareness of his hidden degradation and insult she continues to be friendly to an unworthy man, his subconscious mind is prone to misinterpret her lack of any indignation as consent or even encouragement.   
The side effect hereof is the deformation of his expectations and his accompanying loss of respect for women.  Instead of acknowledging all degradation and objectification of women as an outrage, he gets mislead to consider the indignation of women with self-respect as a defect in comparison with too many women appearing to him as if not bothered. As the result of this desensitization he considers only those women, who seem to comply with their own objectification, as healthy and appealing.    
Preserving the ability to respect women requires to avoid this effect.   

Any man, who disagrees with these guidelines, does not respect women.  

Saturday, March 28, 2015

731. Could Alley Dogs Be Lured To Use Oxytocin?

731.   Could Alley Dogs Be Lured To Use Oxytocin?

I am a realist.  I have no hope that those men, who are inclined to copulate like alley dogs, would ever be sufficiently motivated to fight against this devastating urge by nothing other than consideration for their wives' or partners' emotional needs.    Such men perceive monogamous attachment not as a precondition for happiness, but as a rejected restriction on behaving as ruthless animals.  

But maybe there is a trick towards improving such men:   As is known, alcohol brings out the worst in men, including lowering the threshold towards cheating.   But after drinking too much, men also risk consequences for themselves like getting caught and heavily punished when driving.     Even those men not bothered in the least by the risk of cheating may well be inclined to do anything to avoid the unwanted consequences of noticeable drunk behavior.
   
As an attempt to fight the signs of alcohol intoxication, men may even be sufficiently desperate to resort to taking oxytocin.   
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150223164442.htm

"Oxytocin, sometimes referred to as the 'love' or 'cuddle' hormone, has a legendary status in popular culture due to its vital role in social and sexual behaviour and long-term bonding."

"Now researchers from the University of Sydney and the University of Regensburg have discovered it also has a remarkable influence on the intoxicating effect of alcohol,"

"When the researchers infused oxytocin into the brains of rats which were then given alcohol it prevented the drunken lack of coordination caused by the alcohol."

"The researchers demonstrated that oxytocin prevents alcohol from accessing specific sites in the brain that cause alcohol's intoxicating effects, sites known as delta-subunit GABA-A receptors."

"This 'sobering-up' effect of oxytocin has yet to be shown in humans but the researchers plan to conduct these studies in the near future."

"It's worth noting that oxytocin can't save you from being arrested while driving home from the pub."

"Some people might worry a drug which decreases your level of intoxication could encourage you to drink more. As it turns out, separate experiments conducted by the researchers and other groups have shown that taking oxytocin actually reduces alcohol consumption and craving in both rats and humans."

"Their findings could see the development of new oxytocin-based treatments for alcohol-use disorders that target this mechanism."
It is highly improbable that ever any promiscuous man would take oxytocin for nothing else except for the explicit purpose of enhancing his underdeveloped emotional attachment to his partner.  
Yet taking it to reduce the noticeable effects of alcohol may have an unplanned side effect to the advantage of women:  When coming home while still under the effect of oxytocin, a man's emotional attachment to his partner may be enhanced and even his inclination to cheat may be reduced.  

This could result as the first time in history, that a man's consumption of alcohol would be beneficial for women.  

Monday, February 16, 2015

730. Research Concerning The Distinction Between Alley Dogs And Nice Guys

730.  Research Concerning The Distinction Between Alley Dogs And Nice Guys

In previous entries I have been speculating about the observed strong distinction between annoying predators and nice considerate guys. 

Long ago, while still being ignorant of evolutionary effects, I naively thought most men to be nice guys, and the predators to be sick exceptions.   I attributed being approached by too many disgusting men as an envisaged target for abuse as bad luck.   

Then I learned the sad reality from evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.   Predators were and are those most successful in forcing procreation upon women.   Because there also were some decent nice guys, I started to speculate about what then seemed the most plausible, which is a continuous scale of instinctivity between two extremes.     Yet following also my admittedly biased inclinations derived from my personal experiences, I compared the two extremes mostly as if there were a dichotomy.   Alley dogs, whom I loathe, at one extreme, and those nice guys, who are suitable as a partner, at the other extreme, seemed to be the most recognizable.  

The following research confirms, that I was not completely wrong in my bias towards the dichotomy.   

Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women
Rafael Wlodarski , John Manning , R. I. M. Dunbar
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977
"In all comparative analyses, humans always fall on the borderline between obligate monogamy and polygamy. Here, we use behavioural indices (sociosexuality) and anatomical indices (prenatal testosterone exposure indexed by 2D : 4D digit ratio) from three human populations to show that this may be because there are two distinct phenotypes in both sexes. While males are more promiscuous and display higher prenatal testosterone exposure than females overall, our analyses also suggest that the within-sex variation of these variables is best described by two underlying mixture models, suggesting the presence of two phenotypes with a monogamous/promiscuous ratio that slightly favours monogamy in females and promiscuity in males."

"The extent to which any one individual pursues a short-term mating strategy (‘unrestricted’ strategy involving promiscuous mating with multiple partners) or a long-term mating strategy (‘restricted’ strategy favouring the formation of exclusive and extended pair-bonds) has been referred to as their ‘sociosexual orientation’"

"Although these two strategies could well just be opposite ends of the same continuum, it has sometimes been assumed (albeit without any real evidence) that these represent two distinct male phenotypes: those that pursue a more promiscuous, unrestricted mating strategy (‘stray’) and those that focus on investing more heavily in their offspring in long-term relationships (‘stay’) ......  Although individual differences in female mating strategies have sometimes been noted in the literature ....., the possibility that women might also exhibit contrasting mating strategies has received considerably less attention."

"The SOI-R indexes an individual's psychological degree of sexual promiscuity on a continuum running from restricted (monogamous) to unrestricted (promiscuous). The 2D : 4D ratio is an anatomical marker for fetal testosterone exposure and testosterone receptor-site density ....., and reflects the level of prenatal testosterone effects in the adult phenotype ..... Across primates, 2D : 4D ratio correlates with mating system ..... and provides a biological marker for mating strategy."

"Modelling confirmed the existence of two phenotypes within each sex, one of low (restricted) sociosexuality and the other of high (unrestricted) sociosexuality. High-sociosexuality males make up a slightly larger proportion of the male distribution in each case, and low-sociosexuality females make up a slightly larger proportion of the female distributions."



The 2D:4D ratio is calculated by dividing the length of the index finger of the right hand by the length of the ring finger of the right hand. A longer index finger will result in a ratio higher than 1, while a longer ring finger will result in a ratio of less than 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Friday, January 30, 2015

729. Research Concerning Women's Evolutionary Plight

729.  Research Concerning Women's Evolutionary Plight
"Imagine the following scenario: a woman and a man are having a conversation. She is interested in the conversation, and is friendly, smiling and warm. He interprets her behaviour as sexual interest.

Or maybe: a man is sexually attracted to a woman he has just met, and signals this in various ways. She thinks that he is just being friendly."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129094120.htm

When I was young, I again and again experienced a slightly different variety of the above scenario.  

I wanted conversation, either only or at least extensively for a long time before even considering anything more.   Being still naive I projected upon men the same needs, wishes and interests as are my own.  
But my mistake was limited to being theoretical.  Soon after the initiation of interaction, men's behavior became so clearly a nuisance, that it could not be mistaken for being merely friendly.

My own behavior showed very clearly, that I wanted to be taken for serious, to talk about cultural, intellectual topics the same way as men do between themselves.  I was not flirtatious, I was purposefully dressed in an anti-sexy way, which should have discouraged any misinterpretation.  
But I had no chance against the obnoxious male behavior. It did not appear like a misperception.  I experienced it more like behavior triggered automatically by nothing more than merely being in the presence of a woman.  This was enough to bring out the worst in men, to make them superficial, flirtatious, seductive and to deactivate any ability for serious conversation and communication.  

I suffered doubly.   I suffered from the degradation and objectification by being mistaken as prey, and I suffered from being deprived of fulfilling my own great need for intellectual exchange. 

The more women are superficial, uneducated and stupid, the more they feel flattered when being approached as prey.  Such women may not experience the nuisance the same way as I did.   But for educated and intelligent women, it is a serious plight. 

In those days, I had no clue, why I was treated as if I were nothing better than a brainless body.   Today, science and the availability of information on the web allow women and men to gain awareness of such misperceptions and misunderstandings.   
"In most areas of psychology, there is little to no difference between genders: mental capacity, intellectual achievements, food preferences -- men and women are all more or less the same. But when it comes to reproduction and challenges related to finding a sexual partner, there are suddenly differences to be found.

A man's ability to reproduce is all about seizing every opportunity. He has to spend both money and time on courtship, which still may not lead to sex. But it costs even more to not try, because then he won't be able to reproduce.

A woman can have sex with multiple men over a short period of time without producing any more children. So for men, it is a low-risk, potentially high-reward situation for men to have sex with women whenever the opportunity presents itself.

On the other hand, the cost is potentially great for a woman if she thinks that a man is more sexually interested than she is. A woman risks pregnancy, birth, nursing and raising the child, as well as lost oppotunities to reproduce with others. Across thousands of generations, women's psychology has evolved to set the bar higher, which means they need much clearer signals than men before they consider sex."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129094120.htm

Awareness for those differences is needed as a first step, but it does no suffice to change women's plight.   Needed is the recognition, that only a fair balance between giving and receiving can improve the situation of women.   
Men need to learn, that instead of demanding and pursuing sexual homeostasis as if it were an entitlement, they have to offer in return the full meeting of women's non-physical, cognitive and emotional needs.    
Women have no chance to get this without men's insight and cooperation.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

728. Disadvantaged Religious People

728.   Disadvantaged Religious People

Something is wrong with people, who believe in the existence of a deity, whose existence can neither be proven nor disproved and who nevertheless allow this belief govern their life.   Depending on the point of view, these believers are either extremely stupid or have a partially dysfunctional brain.

The following study indicates, that taking the bible literally is a hindrance to successful higher education:
Social Context and College Completion in the United States:
The Role of Congregational Biblical Literalism
http://spx.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/01/01/0731121414559522.full.pdf?ijkey=kziE9jf5LEBody7&keytype=finite
"The proportion college graduates for individual biblical literalists (0.24) is about half that of their non-literalist counterparts (0.48)"

This difference compares religious people, who only differ in how much the take the bible literally.  I wonder about the difference between religious and nonreligious people.  

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

727. How Instincts Reinforce Each Other Thus Aggravating Harm And Suffering

727.   How Instincts Reinforce Each Other Thus Aggravating Harm And Suffering
The biological spoils of war
Study finds those who take part in violent conflict have more wives, children
The study, ......  found that, among members of an East African herding tribe, those who engaged in conflict - in the form of violent raids carried out on neighboring groups - had more wives, and thus more opportunities to increase their reproductive success through having more children
In an analysis of 120 men, Glowacki said, the data was clear - those who participate in more raids had more wives and more children over the course of their lives.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-12/hu-tbs122914.php

In a scientific study, observed and observable data are presented.    From a very different point of view, I am looking at the suffering caused to individuals.   
  • Raids cause deprivation and often the subsequent risk of perishing
  • Raids often cause deaths, serious injuries and mutilations 
  • More children mean women suffering more often the agony of giving birth.   
  • There is often the additional suffering of those women, who are forced to share a husband in a polygamous situation in spite of wishing monogamy and/or to procreate more than they wish to. 

This is a clear example, how two instincts reinforce and enable each other leading to aggravated suffering.   
  • The raids are an expression of the ingroup-outgroup-instinct.    The more the distinction between the groups is accentuated by this instinct, the less inhibitions there are against the ruthlessness and cruelty, upon which depends the success of raids.   Thus the success of raids both depends upon and rewards the ingroup-outgroup-instinct.   
  • Procreation depends upon the combined strength of the procreation instincts and the means and occasion to act upon this instinct.   The more men are driven by the procreation instinct, the more they consider the acquisition of more wives and children as a desirable goal and a reward for embarking on a raid.  Thus a strong procreation instinct serves as a motivation for raids, such men's additional procreational behavior is enabled in the case of the raids being successful.
Would one instinct be absent, individuals would suffer less:
  • Without the procreation instinct, there were less or no reasons for raids, depending on the own resources.   
  • Without the ingroup-outgroup-instinct, raids were not possible, less procreation were possible due to less resources.

 
One should not shrug this off as if it were merely a remote problem in Africa.   The simple and therefore obvious mechanisms described in the study can be generalized and recognized in the sad every day occurrence, that people force disadvantages upon outgroup members in favor of advantages for their own progeny.    
  • The raid can be replaced by the wider concept of exploitation in situations of asymmetrical power.  The same mechanism, that has been shown in the study above, is also at the bottom of all the outrageous injustice and cruelty of the world wide globalized system of exploitation.  
  • Having more wives and more children can be replaced by the greedy accumulating of control over resources.    A person, who dies without offspring has no reason to amass more wealth than what he needs for the preferred standard of life during his own lifetime.    But someone leaving behind wealth as an inheritance bestows advantages to further generations of bearers of his own genes.   His offspring have a better chance of healthy survival, in turn they may have more offspring than without the inheritance.  

Whenever someone in the situation of direct or economic power exploits other humans, expecially slaves, illegal immigrant workers or inmates of labor camps, he has first defined them as an outgroup.   Only by this he is able to apply very different standards to them than to those people, whom he considers as his ingroup, while nevertheless not feeling cognitive dissonance with his idea of behaving morally.  

In the complex globalized system of exploitation, there are layers of ingroups and outgroups, as the example of this documentary shows.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gktid0YO9s
  • To the privileged social class of plantation owners, the slaves are the outgroup.   These landlords are the most directly and knowingly cruel persons.  
  • To those Ivorians, who abduct people from Mali, these are perceived as outgroup by being citizens of another country.   This is a form of raids, which are not a part of remote tribal life.  
  • To the companies importing the cocoa beans and to the consumers of chocolate, all Africans are outgroup.  The majority of the uninformed customer are in denial or even truly ignorant of the sufferings caused by chocolate as an apparently inland product.   But those managers, who dictate the prices, are aware of the unavoidably dire situation of workers not being paid sufficiently.  

The worst cause of human suffering are the instincts, which humans share with animals.  There cannot be a better world, until people recognize the damage done by instincts and until the control of the instincts is eliminated and replaced by the rational concept of global equality and global equal rights.         

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Friday, November 28, 2014

725. Objectification Of Women Gets Scientific Attention

725.   Objectification Of Women Gets Scientific Attention


I appreciate that the problem of the objectification of women gets into the focus of research.  There cannot be any improvement of this women's plight, unless men recognize objectification not only as a serious problem.  Any change also requires men to accept it as a task not possible without men's collaboration:

"According to the popular feminist Objectification Theory, women of most cultures are seen as sexual objects that are there for the pleasure of men's sexual desires. Examples of such conduct include men's visibly scrutinizing a woman's figure or making comments about her body parts, giving whistles or cat calls, sexual harassment, unwanted sexual advances or sexual assault. The media also play a role in these practices when they depict women as mere sexual objects. These experiences contribute to some women's developing mental health problems, such as eating disorders, depressive symptoms and substance abuse problems.

To study how women cope with such sexually oppressive experiences, Szymanski and Feltman studied the responses to an online questionnaire of 270 young adult heterosexual undergraduate women from a university in the Southeastern region of the US.
Their findings show that young women experience increased psychological distress when they are being sexually objectified. Women with low resilience are especially vulnerable, and tend to internalize such behavior. Some women feel confused and shameful, and reason that their own inferiority is the cause of such bad experiences. They therefore blame themselves, rather than the perpetrators, and this causes psychological distress.

Szymanski and Feltman surmise that resilient women are more successful at managing adverse experiences because they are able to cope and adapt. They can manage stress and rise above disadvantage. Resilience is both a style of personal functioning and a way in which people ably adapt to stressful situations. "Resilient women may see gender-related oppressive experiences as challenges -- rather than barriers -- that can be overcome," says Szymanski."


"To sexually objectify a woman is to focus on her body in terms of how it can provide sexual pleasure rather than viewing her as a complete human being with thoughts and feelings. While objectification has long been considered a problem in the media, how does it affect individual romantic relationships? New research finds that more objectification of a female partner's body is related to higher incidents of sexual pressure and coercion."

Thursday, October 30, 2014

724. The Hierarchy Instinct: Research On Competitiveness

724.  The Hierarchy Instinct: Research On Competitiveness

I have been speculating before, that instinctivity is a significant trait distinguishing individuals.  By Instinctivity I am referring to animal instincts, which also influence human behavior.    The hierarchy instinct is one aspect thereof.   Competitiveness is a trait, competition an behavior, both are the noticeable expressions of the invisible hierarchy instinct.

There are some research results showing and explaining by evolutionary mechanisms the variability of the level of competitiveness:
"Virtually all organisms in the living world compete with members of their own species. However, individuals differ strongly in how much they invest into their competitive ability. Some individuals are highly competitive and eager to get access to high-quality resources, while others seem to avoid competition, instead making prudent use of the lower-quality resources that are left over for them. Moreover, the degree of competitiveness in animal and human societies seems to fluctuate considerably over time. A new study sheds some new light on these findings."

"If not too much is at stake, that is, if high-competitive individuals acquire only slightly better resources than low-competitive individuals, evolution leads to the stable coexistence of two types of individuals: one type does not invest into competition at all and is content with lower-quality resources, and a second type that invest an appreciable (but not maximal) part of their energy into being competitive. If much is at stake, such coexistence does not occur. Instead, the model predicts cyclical changes in competitive ability over time. "

"However, also in humans there is huge diversity in competitiveness, and individuals with highest competitive ability often seem least prudent in the exploitation of their resources. It is therefore tempting to speculate that the external stimulation of competitiveness by societal pressure, which is analogous to the stimulation of competitiveness by the female preferences in our model, can lead to such a wastage of resources that our future survival is threatened."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141029084021.htm

Friday, October 17, 2014

723. Political Preferences And Innate Tendencies

723.   Political Preferences And Innate Tendencies

In some earlier entry I speculated that the strength of the hierarchy instinct could determine, if people would lean towards politics in favor of either social differences and stratification or of equality.  

Lately I found two studies, which point towards the general assumption, that political preference are indeed connected with innate tendencies and not merely acquired.

"A growing body of evidence shows that physiological responses and deep-seated psychology are at the core of political differences, the researchers say in the latest issue of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"Politics might not be in our souls, but it probably is in our DNA," says the article written by political scientists John Hibbing and Kevin Smith of UNL and John Alford of Rice University."

"Using eye-tracking equipment and skin conductance detectors, the three researchers have observed that conservatives tend to have more intense reactions to negative stimuli, such as photos of people eating worms, burning houses or maggot-infested wounds."

"Combining their own results with similar findings from other researchers around the world, the team proposes that this so-called "negativity bias" may be a common factor that helps define the difference between conservatives, with their emphasis on stability and order, and liberals, with their emphasis on progress and innovation."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140731145935.htm


"A new study reveals that people find the smell of others with similar political opinions to be attractive, suggesting that one of the reasons why so many spouses share similar political views is because they were initially and subconsciously attracted to each other's body odor.

During the study, 146 participants rated the attractiveness of the body odor of unknown strong liberals and strong conservatives, without ever seeing the individuals whose smells they were evaluating."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140915120805.htm

Friday, September 19, 2014

722. Until Death Do Us Part

722.  Until Death Do Us Part


"Archaeologists have uncovered a trove of relics and remains at Chapel of St Morrell in Leicestershire. Some relationships last a lifetime -- and archaeologists have discovered that they can last even longer after unearthing two skeletons at a lost chapel in Leicestershire that have been holding hands for 700 years."

More info:
http://ulasnews.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/hallatons-lost-chapel/

Here is another picture of a couple buried together:
http://www.dograt.com/2007/02/09/eternal-embrace/

I found no information concerning the ages of the dead couples.  Without a need to be converted into trees like the mythological Baucis and Philemon, I want to find a mindmate to grow old together, and it were an ideal to also die at the same time.  

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

721. Research: The Personality Of Alley Dogs

721.   Research:  The Personality Of Alley Dogs

I have been speculating several times in previous entries that the general individual level and strength of instinctivity and the magnitude of the male urge to behave as copulating alley dogs objectifying and abusing women could be a personality trait distributed along a bell curve and also that the observable net power of the instinctive behavior were the absolute power of the instincts modified by the rationally derived amount of self-control.  


I just read about some research results which seem to point in this direction: 
"Can aspects of personality help explain a predilection towards risky sexual behaviors in developing adolescents? Researchers approached this question by surveying middle adolescents of various personality types. The three most common personality types found across cultures and age groups are undercontrollers (extroverted, disagreeable, unconscientiousness, open to new experiences), overcontrollers (agreeable, conscientious, introverted, emotionally unstable), and resilients (agreeable, conscientious, open to experiences, extraverted, emotionally stable)."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140905113909.htm

Sunday, August 31, 2014

720. The Evolutionary Purchasability Of Women By Alpha Males

720.  The Evolutionary Purchasability Of Women By Alpha Males

I have profiles on many matchmaking sites.    One such profile I made on a site apparently according to its name just another site for finding a serious relationship.   
When I found out, that this was just a secondary name for a site catering for extremely rich men, my first impulse was to delete the profile.  On second thought I decided that I do not want to exclude any chance to find an intelligent and educated man, only because of him having too much money.  
I am not a gold digger, I am the contrary.  My best match would be someone in modest circumstances.  I feel most comfortable and at ease with a frugal lifestyle.   I prefer hostels over luxury hotels, I prefer a picnic with purchases from a supermarket over a luxury restaurant.   
I am aware of the conflicts to expect with a rich man.   I would not want to feel a beggar when accommodating his needs by partaking in his luxury standard of living.    But I also would have no right to demand him to sacrifice the comforts of his accustomed luxury.   

So while I would not initiate contact with men, who present themselves as rich, I had the curiosity to have a look at the profiles.   I also have a profile on another site from the same company using the same software, but aiming at seniors of indifferent affluence.   When running a search I noticed a considerable difference between the men's accepted age for a match between the two sites.  On the general site, my age is often accepted, on the rich men's site, I am more often than not too old.

This vague observation made me curious to take a more exact look at this difference.  I made a search for men of 65 on both sites.   While I did not limit the search geographically, most of the profiles were from the USA.   

Then I entered the age requirements of the first 50 profiles from each of the two sites into a spreadsheet.   

The result:  
The rich men want on average a woman between 22.98 years and 5.14 years younger than themselves.   The men with any income want on average a woman between 15.3 years younger and 2.98 years older.  

Of course there can be factors other than wealth contributing to the cause of this difference.    But as the differences appear nevertheless really drastic, this made me wonder about how to interpret it.  

Does this difference merely represent wishes and a subjectively felt entitlement of rich men considering themselves as alpha males?   Or are these men's aspirations and claims derived from previous experiences of success with very much younger women?  

I googled and found this:
"When analyzing first marriages, men on the Forbes list married women who were on average younger than the average difference for similar weddings across the US population (7.01 years younger versus 4.1 years younger"
"When analyzing remarriages of the very wealth men, they tied the knot with women who were on average an astonishing 22.32 years younger than them."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201306/very-wealthy-men-marry-much-younger-women
Of course I cannot know, how many of these men will find a woman as young as what they would prefer, but generally seen it is once more at least a sad indication, how much evolution has a grip upon people's subconscious choices.   

Instead of being rationally able to appreciate the value of an egalitarian companionship with a woman of a similar age, men strive to be or to appear as alpha males and foolish purchasable women choose them.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

719. Could Evolution Lead Towards Softening The Plight Of Women?

719.   Could Evolution Lead Towards Softening The Plight Of Women?

Seen from a woman's perspective, testosterone brings out the worst in men.    But there could be hope for a better world for women in the future, even though it may take a long time.     

According to this study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140801171114.htm
it seems that during more recent phases of evolution the male level of testosterone has been slightly dwindling.   

If this evolutionary trend continues, at some time in the distant future, the testosterone level may be so far reduced, that there no longer will be any of those horrible instinct driven, women abusing alley dogs.    When testosterone will have lost its destructive power, the kind of men, who presently are only a pleasant, nice and kind minority, will then be the majority.  

But with the speed suggested in the study, it will probably take many hundreds of thousands of years, until men will no longer abuse women.    .   
"Scientists have shown that human skulls changed in ways that indicate a lowering of testosterone levels at around the same time that culture was blossoming. Heavy brows were out, rounder heads were in. Technological innovation, making art and rapid cultural exchange probably came at the same time that we developed a more cooperative temperament by dialing back aggression with lower testosterone levels."
"Modern humans appear in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago, but it was only about 50,000 years ago that making art and advanced tools became widespread.
A new study appearing Aug. 1 in the journal Current Anthropology finds that human skulls changed in ways that indicate a lowering of testosterone levels at around the same time that culture was blossoming."
"The study, which is based on measurements of more than 1,400 ancient and modern skulls, makes the argument that human society advanced when people started being nicer to each other, which entails having a little less testosterone in action."
The Duke study argues that living together and cooperating put a premium on agreeableness and lowered aggression and that, in turn, led to changed faces and more cultural exchange.
"If prehistoric people began living closer together and passing down new technologies, they'd have to be tolerant of each other," Cieri said. "The key to our success is the ability to cooperate and get along and learn from one another."

Saturday, July 5, 2014

718. A Fascinating Novel - Jack London: Before Adam

718.   A Fascinating Novel -  Jack London:  Before Adam

I just finished listening to the audio version of this novel, available on Librivox.    And even though they may never know, a big thanks to all those volunteers, who give me the chance to listen to good books.   

In other entries, I have explained how the ability for emotional attachment is a part of the unique human evolution, which could only co-evolve along with the general cognitive and rational abilities.  My source of such ideas is reading a lot about recent evolutionary biology and psychology.  

Jack London wrote his novel in 1906/7, at times, when evolution was still a widely disputed concept.   While this novel contains certainly a lot of imagination based upon limited scientific reality, his achievement is nevertheless very remarkable.   He was able to brilliantly illustrate the evolutionary state of people, whose limited empathy and emotional attachment were in sync with their limited intelligence and their limited theory of mind.  

I doubt that anybody with current knowledge of evolutionary biology, anthropology and archaeology could write a much better novel.  

Monday, June 30, 2014

717. The Difference Between Animals And Humans

717.   The Difference Between Animals And Humans

Some people deny, that there is any decisive difference between animals and humans.   To me such a claim seems to be made by those in need of an excuse for allowing themselves the behavior of animals in disregard for the consequences. 

The most significant difference is the human ability of memorize sufficient knowledge and experience, which enables only humans for the long term anticipation of the consequences of their behavior.   Thus they are capable to recognize the harmful effects of instinctive behavior to an extent, which can lead to the conscious decision against such behavior.  

Under natural conditions, at some times animals find plenty of food, at others none.    Their instinct to eat as much as possible to store body fat is an evolutionary advantage for survival.   Until 10 000 years ago, and sometimes even much later, this was also the case for humans.
Today the reasoning ability enables humans to not always give in to the impulse to eat, because they want to avoid the anticipated consequence of obesity.    More precisely, the reasoning supplies the knowledge, but the balance between the power of instinctivity and the counter power of rationality and willpower determine the behavior.   Therefore some people are more than others able to keep their weight between healthy limits.  
Overfed pets just get fatter and fatter. 

It is the same concerning the survival of the species.    Animals do not hesitate to copulate, when they are driven by instincts, because they are unable to know, that at some time later, they will be severely punished with the atrocity of giving birth and the burden of raising the offspring.    
Only humans are capable to recognize early enough, that the survival of the species and procreation is a form of self-harming for the individual person.   The cognitive ability of a considerable number of humans to consciously reject procreation is a very unique trait of humans. 

The critical cognitive distance from instincts and the resulting freedom of decision is therefore what makes humans unique.   This ability to prevent self-harming comes along with the ability to also know, when the own behaviors cause harm and suffering to others.

 
When a cat catches a bird and drops it somewhere seriously wounded, the cat lacks any ability to recognize the suffering of the bird.  The same holds true too, when animals seriously hurt each other during struggles for the alpha position.   Animals cannot know, when the side effect of their instinctive behavior is strong suffering.
Humans can know this. Therefore it cannot be morally justified, that many humans use and consider their cognitive qualities only as a tool serving a more successful application of their instincts.   This aggravates the suffering of others instead of avoiding and preventing it.  People, who consciously follow their instinct, are knowingly cruel.  

This means that the cognitive ability to recognize the consequences of the own behavior brings along the moral obligation to avoid harm and suffering of others as much as of oneself.

 
Unfortunately, many people live by double standards.   When they benefit from using their rational brain, they do it.   But when others are concerned, they allow themselves willingly to be ruthlessly determined by instinctive drives. 

The same hunter, who during the day shoots animals feeling entitled to do so due to being a human, nevertheless claims in the evening his right to follow his animal nature by copulating like an alley dog with a prostitute, not perceiving the woman as an abused and degraded human being but only as an object.   Shooting at humans of another country or ethnic group driven by the ingroup-outgroup instinct, he also has allowed himself to be controlled by an animal instinct, even though his reason could recognize this as absurd, as animal but as certainly not human.

Who feels superior to animals due to being human should also be congruent in not giving in to his own animal urges.    Excusing and condoning animal behavior by misrepresenting it as the human nature is not only absurd, but also the consequences are fatal, usually for all parties involved.

Friday, June 20, 2014

716: Alley Dogs: The Regression To An Earlier Period Of Evolution

716:  Alley Dogs: The Regression To An Earlier Period Of Evolution


Definition: 
I call persons, who copulate without neither getting emotionally attached nor wishing this to happen, as alley dogs.
Copulation like alley dogs is a regression to behaviors prevalent before the specific cognitive qualities of the human brain had evolved.
  

Evolution is not a master plan. As long as a species survives, this only indicates, that in the past the evolutionary net sum of instinctive and in the case of humans also innate cognitive tendencies has resulted in a sufficient amount of procreation.  

Some millions of years ago, when the ancestors of present day humans were still only animals, they copulated by instinct as all animals do.  Some months later it was followed by the birth of the youngster(s).   
At that moment, they had no conscious memory of the copulation and they were not aware, that the agony of birth was caused by the copulation.   
When they copulated, they were also unable to anticipate, that giving birth was the punishment for the female.   
Lacking the comprehension of this causality, they also had no way to avoid the agony of further procreation.

Then the unique evolution of the human cognition began.   One of the aspects thereof is the longterm memory and the ability to anticipate the future consequences of the own and of others' behavior.  This enabled the co-evolution of purely cognitive emotions, which derive from reasoning and not from bodily sensations.   Cognitive emotions are very distinct from sensations like fear in the situation of a real danger or pain after being physically wounded.  

Some of these cognitive emotions are: 
  1. Emotional attachment based upon invisible cognitive traits.  
    It is difficult to define love or to put such feeling into words.  But with certainty, whatever there is, it cannot be called love without cognition derived emotional attachment. Traits leading to emotional attachment can be honesty, reliability, empathy, but also intelligence and education, which make it rewarding to be together.

  2. Rational empathy and a theory of mind.  
    By this someone has knowledge about how another person is going to react,  This is more than the anticipation of visible behavior, but also the anticipation of the invisible cognitive emotions.  This includes also those situations, when the reaction of the other will be very distinct from the own reaction under identical circumstances. 

  3. Responsibility and consideration.   When being in advance aware of the consequences and impact of the own behavior upon others, responsibility is the cognitive ability to prevent hurting others by the avoidance of anticipated own cognitive emotions like guilt, shame, remorse.
     
  4. Awareness for invisible emotional reactions caused by invisible experiences.   
    This includes taking full account of feelings of selfworth and identity of the self and in others and how these are elicited and effected by interactions.   Examples are appreciation, depreciation, adulation, disdain, honor, equality, indignation, injustice, pride, entitlement and much more.
Sometimes such qualities are called emotional intelligence.  

By instinct only, alley dogs are male, while females attempt to exploit a man as a provider for the children, who get her full attachment, while he gets a subscription to the repeated use of her body.

When cognition modifies the raw instincts, emotional attachment to an intimate partner happens usually fast or immediately in women.  For men usually more repetitions are needed, before the subjective experience of the alley dog copulation is converted into the emotional attachment of making love.
 
Had there been a continued linear evolution of only a growing strength of rationality and cognitive emotions like the one in the list above over instincts, this would have enabled and motivated more and more people to avoid harming others.    As a logical side effect, this would have drastically reduced procreation and maybe the human species would already have been extinct.
Until safe family planning was available, a truly considerate and responsible man would have rather refrained from physical intimacy than ever risking to cause suffering for a woman, who was not fully wishing to have children.   

But the human species did not get extinct.  Some alley dogs continue to sire alley dogs and prevail in the gene pool.  I can see several reasons. 
  1. Some people, mostly men are just like animals, because they lack the human emotional restrictions which would prevent them from copulating like alley dogs.  Their behavior is not guided or determined by cognitive emotions.    They contribute more to the gene pool by having more offspring than the considerate men.  Genghis Khan is a good example.  He is reported to have raped thousands of women and his genes are supposed be present in millions of Asians.
    1.1.  They can be generally limited in their ability to feel cognitive emotions, as in the case of Alexithymia.   They are not aware, what pain they cause to people, who want to be loved, because they themselves do not know love and are unable to experience emotional attachment.

    1.2.  They know, what they do, but do not care, because they are not able to feel guilt, shame or remorse.   They are sociopaths.  
  2. The availability of safe birth control has made the consideration for preventing the threat of pregnancy as the most drastic consequence of alley dog copulation obsolete.  
    It needs less cognitive quality to be able to refrain from doing something as drastic as making a woman pregnant. 
    To refrain from abusing a woman as a toilet for body waste because of respect for her brain, to spare the woman the invisible suffering of indignation, devaluation, objectification and humiliation requires a much higher level of cognitive quality in a man.  Less men have it.
    Being free of the fear of pregnancy is great.   But unfortunately it came with the price of the disgust of being (or at my age having been) too frequently approached by alley dogs.
     
  3. The human brain including the ability for empathy has evolved for coping with the life in small groups or communities.   Now people are suddenly (seen in the evolutionary timeline) flooded by the media with very realistic representations of extreme atrocities.  This representations are so realistic, that the subconscious brain cannot distinguish between such pictures or movies and real life. 
    Nobody can react permanently with full empathy to this extreme amount of exposure. 
    Desensitization is an unavoidable consequence.  

    When a man grows up munching chips while indifferently watching a movie, in which a woman is raped, it is not really astonishing that he will consider hurting 'only' a woman's feeling as a trifle in comparison.    

    When a woman grows up sitting in the safety of her home in front of a TV, she also gets a very biased picture.  On TV women are presented as willingly and happily doing and wanting themselves, what really only benefits selfish men.  On TV, these women get rewarded, but never emotionally harmed.  The watching real woman is thus misguided to underestimate, what she gets herself into by making the mistake of complying or imitating behavior, which really is an expression of male instinctivity and male wishes.  When this woman unexpectedly gets very hurt, she learns to understand reality too late and the hard way.
  4. When one person hurts another, no matter if it is the alley dog the loving woman or any other situation, there are two different perspectives.  
    4.1.  The difference between hurting and not hurting behavior is a choice, and therefore people with cognitive emotional quality take themselves the responsibility for what they do to others.
    They never use the behavior of the victim as an excuse, even if the victim could have avoided exposing himself to be vulnerable.

    4.2.  Under the impact of desensitization, people have a more selfish perspective based upon the entitlement to do, what they want.   Whoever gets hurt or harmed is attributed as either defective or too stupid to protect himself.  Therefore they feel justified to take no responsibility.   The victim of an alley dog is blamed for not being also an alley dog.  In the case that the suffering reactions of the victim annoy the alley dog, the victim is even blamed for diminishing the alley dog's benefits.

    This desensitization has contributed to a present social norm in many western societies, which defines alley dog copulation as allegedly healthy behavior.   Those, who get hurt, are supposed to use those remedies, which contribute to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
It is sad.  All the amazing progress only leads to the material standard of life getting more and more comfortable.  But when it comes to the avoidance of non-physical suffering, there is no progress, but a regress to times before the evolution of the cognition.   

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

715. Love Cannot Be Defined, But A Loving Relationship Can

715.  Love Cannot Be Defined, But A Loving Relationship Can

Love is an emotion, which is felt and cannot be clearly defined.   It is easier to define, what is not love, than what is.  
The mere urge to copulate with a body is certainly not love but only a virulent expression of the procreation instinct.    Whatever form of attraction there may be, nothing can be called love with justification, unless there is the recognition and appreciation of the cognitive qualities and personality of the partner. 

The relationship of a couple can be defined as loving by behaviors, by which the quality of the bond between the partners is directly or indirectly expressed.
  
The criteria of a loving relationship:
  1. Emotional attachment and emotional intimacy
  2. Physical intimacy
  3. Some amount of intellectual intimacy, depending upon the amount of intelligence and education
  4. Exclusivity, each being special to the other in a way, which nobody else is
  5. No need or inclination to wish or to search for someone else
When all the above criteria for a loving relationship are present, and when the couple has also explicitly agreed to stay together indefinitely, then they have accepted to be a loving couple.  Obviously both experience sufficiently, whatever love means for them personally.

But when two persons share physical intimacy repeatedly with each other during a considerable time, even for years, and they do not consider themselves as a couple in a loving relationship, there can be very different arrangements.  

In the case, that it is really only physical intimacy and nothing else, then this is just a variety of reciprocal abuse and taking advantage of each other, while they prefer the practical advantage of avoiding the recurrent hunt and search for someone different.

But there is also the concept of friends with benefits (FWB), where the word friend really means true friendship, and is not just confounded as synonymous with mere acquaintance.   

A true friend is someone, with whom there are ties of emotional and intellectual intimacy in some form.    This is the essence of friendship.  When physical intimacy is added to the true friendship, then this combination contains all esential ingredients for a loving relationship.   

When the couple nevertheless explicitly puts emphasis upon the distinction of being FWB, but not being a loving couple, this means more often than not, that their are some serious personal problems.
  1. It can be a sign of selfishness and greed, when someone wants all the benefits of being in a loving relationship while also wanting all the advantages of being single.   It is an attempt to get all needs met while not having any obligations to also meet the other's needs.  
  2. There can be fear and apprehension.  
    Someone may fear commitment and obligations.  
    Someone may fear failure and getting the more hurt, the more he allows involvement.   
    Someone may be torn apart between the fear of a repetition of a very hurtful past experience and the wish to have a better relationship. Someone may fear to fail, would accepting love lead to the next step of further closeness by living together. 
    Someone may succeed to maintain the denial of such fears by insisting on the denial of any emotional involvement.  
  3. There can be unrealistic hopes and expectations.   The real quality of the present relationship is not appreciated as sufficient in comparison with imaginary ideals.  The relationship is considered as a temporary arrangement until either the ideal and perfect partner is found or until someone experiences that overwhelming sudden sensation, as which love is presented in fictional novels or movies. 


This FWB concept seems weird.

It cannot be explained by evolutionary biology.    By instinct, men want to sire as many offspring as possible with as many different sets of genes.   By instinct, women want commitment and attachment as the best way of provision for their offspring.   

While FWB does not cater for the needs of the instinct driven, it nevertheless also does not serve the specific needs of those with a very low instinctivity, the brainiacs, eggheads and intellectuals. Their needs for intellectual and emotional intimacy, for the companionship of shared extensive cultural and cognitive activities are best fulfilled in a close loving relationship.
 
Maybe FWB suits predominantly the needs of the people in the middle of the instinctivity bell curve, who are the most disturbed by their internal struggle between the contradictory forces of instincts versus rationality and self-control.  

As long as both persons implied want either love or FWB, they can get, what they want.   But sadly enough, often there is a disparity, probably when people differ very much in their level of instinctivity.  While one partner experiences all the criteria as given and thus himself as being in a loving relationship, the other is afflicted with some of the problems listed above and keeps on enforcing a distance by insisting to be only FWB.    

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

714. The Big Difference Between Childfree Women And Childfree Men

714.   The Big Difference Between Intrinsically Childfree Women And Childfree Men

A frequent topic discussed in groups or forums of childfree people is the difficulty to find a childfree partner.  

While all childfree people are different from more average people, unfortunately the biological differences between the genders seem to be more pronounced in the childfree than in instotypicals.   (I call those people, whose instinctivity suffices to facilitate the survival of the species, instotypicals.   Thus, all instotypicals are breeders, but being a breeder does not make someone automatically an instotypical)

The following is about intrinsically childfree people by inclination, not about breeders manqué including those by political considerations.

1.  Instotypical women (IW) are driven by an instinctive urge to breed.   Breeding is a function of their body, it requires no use of the brain.  Animals are breeding successfully, unless they have become extinct.
Therefore IWs identify with their body, their focus of self-improvement is upon the body, their self-worth depends upon their looks.   They consider their body as an asset, the improvement of their looks as an investment to find the man with good genes to sire healthy offspring and the man, who can provide for them.   For IW, they are often not the same.
 
Once IW have children, they become not only emotionally attached to them but even addicted to care for them. 
One consequence is their willingness to accept self-sacrifice, which could even be called self-abuse.  They choose the agony of giving birth, health risks, plus dull, unpleasant, abhorrent and annoying activities for years.   By accepting the chores of not only regular cleaning but even the changing of stinking diapers, they make themselves the slaves of selfish, very incompetent and irrational beings, who for many years remain unfit for any intellectually rewarding interaction.   IW accept to be the slaves of pre-human beings, which are more like animals.  
Once they have made these pre-human beings the significant center of their life, once the father is legally bound to pay, the IW often looses interest in the person of the man.  For her, he has become a purse, a bank account, a handyman, a taxi driver.  

2.  Instotypical men (IM) are driven by an instinctive urge to sire.   As the breeding outcome thereof cannot be predicted, the recurrent dishomeostasis does not depend on the breeding success.   The instinctive urge to sire is an urge to have as many offspring with as many healthy women as are available, it does not imply any attachment to the women nor any inclination to take part in raising the brood.   If an IM does, it is the price he is willing to pay to be subscribed to the recurrent access to the same woman's body.   Some men prefer this over the repeated hunting for new victims for siring attempts.    

3.  A childfree woman (CFW), who is not a breeder manqué, is this by lacking the breeding instinct.   This makes a lot of the body focused behavior of the IW obsolete or at least unimportant.  To find a companion to share cultural and intellectual activities, a woman needs other traits and qualities than good looks.  
It is the absence of the dominant instinctivity, which allows childfree women to recognize breeding as an unnecessary burden to refuse it.

4. In contrast to the CFW, childfree men (CFM) cannot be explained or defined by the absence of a breeding instinct, which even male breeders do not have.   For any man, being the provider of children adds a heavy burden upon his life, especially if the number of the children restricts the mother to be only a housewife.    Wishing to avoid as much as possible of the stress of the professional rat race, and additionally disliking the deficit of benefits from being with a woman, who is an overburdened mother, is independent of the magnitude of a man's instinctivity.  
Therefore remaining childfree and finding a CFW is an expression of a general male wish to avoid for himself the disadvantages of raising children. 


This leads to a sad discrepancy: 

The CFW want men, who appreciate their non-physical, cognitive qualities.   But many CFM are attracted by the same siring instinct to the same female breeders as had been those, who have succumbed to breeding.    While they remain CFM, they feel an urge to sire, yet they want the guaranty of no success.   They just do not want to be themselves involved in breeding. 
CFM feel inclined to strive for the same stupid attributes of masculinity, like fitness, muscles, strength, ambition, success, assets, competition.  Thus they appear attractive to the provider seeking breeders, whom they do not want.   They are ignorant, that what attracts breeders often does not interest or even repulse the CFW.   They know nothing except their own struggle with their own siring instinct.   They are not aware, that only the absence of the breeding instinct makes women really CFW.

CFW have a problem finding a suitable match.   CFM are oblivious of what distinguishes CFW from wanna-be breeders, what CFW need and want and how to recognize those truly not afflicted by the breeding instinct.    CFM often get involved with breeders temporarily in the skin of a CFW. 

Sunday, May 18, 2014

713. When One Irrationality Serves To Reinforce Another

713.  When One Irrationality Serves To Reinforce Another

Wars are a manifestation of the ingroup-outgroup instinct.  

The more someone perceives, defines and identifies himself as a bearer of genes and his purpose of existence as to enable his genes to survive and to spread, the more any behavior favoring his own progeny is subjectively logical to him.  Even exploiting and killing outgroup members thus appears permissible and even mandatory to him.   
Rationality ascribing equal rights to any person on this globe makes the ingroup-outgroup obsolete.  But while this instinct it is often consciously, publicly and legally discarded and rejected, it prevails subconsciously.  

When people are torn in cognitive dissonance, when they are oscillating between rational behavior and irrational instinctive urges and tendencies, a variety of irrational beliefs are invented to ease the inner conflict.  
These beliefs allow people to succumb to and to follow their instincts without feeling bad.   For many people, this comes easier than to rationally conquer instincts.  
While denial prevents to recognize and acknowledge the irrationality of the belief itself, being guided by this belief makes the instinctive behavior subjectively appear rational.    Thus the pseudo-rationality of the belief enhances instinctive behavior, even though it is obsolete and harmful.

The following article is an interesting indication of how war is reinforced by religious beliefs. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515153811.htm
"World War I -- the “war to end all wars” -- in fact sowed seeds for future international conflicts in a way that has been largely overlooked: through religion, says a historian and author. Widespread belief in the supernatural was a driving force during the war and helped mold all three of the major religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- paving the way for modern views of religion and violence, he said."

Monday, May 12, 2014

712. Online Discussion Forums: Observing The Peculiarities Of Behavior And The Group Dynamics

712.  Online Discussion Forums: Observing The Peculiarities Of Behavior And The Group Dynamics

The following is a fictive scenario as an illustration.

Imagine someone vacationing on a hot tropical island.   While traveling his shoe lace breaks and he needs to replace it as he needs his shoes when going back to his cold home.   Or maybe shoe laces are especially suitable to fix some item of his luggage.  In short, he has good reasons, why he wants to buy shoe laces.   But this does not imply, that he needs to discuss these reasons with any stranger.

So he asks people, where he can buy the shoe laces.   It is a simple question, and most probably people on the street, at the hotel reception or in the tourist office would give him an equally simple answer.  Either they are sorry not to know.  Or those who do know, give simply the directions how to find the shop.   Nobody in direct contact would start a discussion about his reasons to need shoe laces. 

But in the case of his asking the question on a local web forum concerning the life on this island, people probably would react very differently.   Rational behavior would be the same as that of the people when personally asked.   It would be either a suggestion about where shoe laces are sold or else no reply at all.   Instead he is prone to receive reactions like the following.
  • He may get more or less serious suggestions like those to wear sandals or to walk barefoot.  
  • He may get advice based upon some hearsay or subjective experience, like the one to better wear boots, because of someone having been bitten by a snake.
  • He may be asked to publish a picture of the shoes and the broken shoe laces.  
  • He may be criticized for being too stupid to carry spare shoe laces when traveling.
  • He may be attacked by some locals as being one of those stinking rich foreign tourists, because some other tourists have done mischief. 
  • Some people may divert to discuss their preferred color of shoe laces or the high prices on this island.  
  • Some people may start a game about the most creative ideas of what to use instead of shoe laces.


Reading forum discussions and also being the recipient of reactions to having myself asked questions, the following are my generalized observations.  

The online behavior on forums is determined by the combined effect of the specifics of written and at least impersonal, if not also anonymous communication, and of some behavioral tendencies, which can be partly explained by evolutionary psychology.   
There is also a discrepancy when important but different uses of the web are confounded:  In my example, this is finding information and needing publicity for pursuing a goal vs. social dynamics.   
My example above illustrates this discrepancy, when someone joins any forum for no other reason except getting answers to one or more specific questions, but he is involuntarily exposed to weird and unwarranted reactions of many kinds.

1.  Specifics of written communication

Suitable written postings in any forum are not too long, so they are read, but they nevertheless contain sufficient information for the intended purpose.  Therefore when someone asks any simple question like in my example concerning the purchase of shoe laces, then it suffices to express the question in an unequivocal and precise way.   He could specify, where on the island he stays to be directed to the nearest shop.   But his reason to buy shoe laces are irrelevant.   

Indirect communication without being exposed to the other's direct reaction, and the anonymity of never going to meet in person disinhibits people from being rational, civilized, polite and considerate. 

2.  Distorted reactions for ego benefits

Being able to help and to give advice makes some people feel good about themselves.   Not knowing something, even if this just means a shop selling shoe laces does not trigger this reaction.  Some people even feel bad, when they have to admit to not know something, even a trifle.  

Some people do not listen long and carefully enough to what others are really telling them, before they blur out what they belief to know.  Pouring out their alleged superior knowledge over others makes them more to feel good than just listening. 
Giving advice without being asked for in written communication is a similar behavior.   It is a form of disregard for the abilities of the other and the unknown preceding efforts.   Giving unwanted advice insinuates, that the person is unable to have himself thought of and considered these options already.    

In a posting asking a simple question it suffices, when the question itself is well expressed.   Information inviting and enabling qualified but unwanted advice is not and needs not to be provided.  Any advice, asked for or unwanted, can never be any better than the information, upon which it is based. 

Some people do not so much feel good about the absolute amount of their own knowledge and skills, instead they get the most personal benefit when they subjectively experience an apparent superiority.  They need not so much to know, but to know better and to be right compared with another person.   In the case of any lack of real superiority, they derive this benefit by instead putting others down towards an apparent inferiority.

3.  Dealing with lacking information

Lacking information and being aware thereof makes wise and rational people cautious.   If possible, they acquire more information.   Else they are aware of not being able to know, which of several possible interpretations should be chosen.   They allow themselves and give to others the benefit of the doubt. 

But there are others.   They misunderstand things, they overlook important information, they jump to conclusions, they interpret statements based upon subjective experience.  They do not doubt their own interpretation of what they hear or read.   They project their own needs, attitudes and behavioral tendencies upon others.   They have no clue, that their projections are as incorrect as the others differ from them.

They are usually biased towards an unfavorable devaluation of and an underestimation of the poster of the question.    

This can mainly be explained by:

3.1.  The Dunning-Kruger effect

When people perceive and believe their own knowledge as the general baseline, they often are unable to comprehend, what others write, say or think.   Instead of doubting themselves, and of acknowledging a lack of information, they consider anything incomprehensible automatically as the others' flaws, ignorance and deficiencies. 

They feel entitled to patronize those asking the question.  They often believe to do a favor to those, to whom they proffer unwanted and uninvited advice.  
Without explanations and background information, uninvited advice is often ridiculous and completely irrelevant.   Such advice usually includes options or apparent options, which had already been considered and discarded.   The Dunning-Kruger effect impedes the comprehension, why advice is not needed, unless it is asked for.

3.2.  Attribution of a place and role

For some people, the web is a source for information.   For some questions, the best place to ask a question is a forum, which also has become a social structure formed by the most active members of the forum group.   The person simply asking a question does not automatically intend or wish to be given a place therein.   But the wish to simply get an answer is often not accepted.   Instead any posting on a forum triggers behavior towards attributing a place to the person, who is perceived as a prospective new member to be dealt with. 

Depending on the circumstances, this attribution process can either elicit competition based upon the hierarchy instinct.  In this case, the person gets forced into status struggles, even when the person does not fight, but is passively beaten towards the role of the underdog without any attempt of self-defence.   Luckily enough, those doing this beating can attribute a low place on the hierarchy, but they cannot know, if the target really feels the beating or is protected by a shell of indifference to competition.  

Else people are so different, that the question asked suffices to perceive and to drive away the person as being outgroup, who is not considered as suitable to be allowed into the ingroup. 

The methods for driving someone towards the role of the underdog or towards exclusion are the same.   Anything real or apparent, that can be interpreted as unfavorable is used as a tool for criticism and bashing.  
Alternatively, neither the question nor further clarifications are taken for serious, instead the poster of the question is the target of jokes.  

4.  Herd behavior

The general reactions to a question depend to a certain extent upon the hazard of who reacts first and how.  When the first reply happens to be useful, then all is well.   But if the first reply starts as one of the distorted reactions mentioned above, the herd often follows this tendency.

5.  How to react

When there is no answer to the question, but instead false interpretations are believed, the question is criticized, unwanted and absurd advice is proffered, then further participation in this forum is unwise and futile.  

When people are attempting to push a person into the role of the fool, the incompetent or the underdog, when misunderstandings and omissions are purposefully used to put someone down and to make him appear stupid or wrong, then all elaborate explanations are a waste of time. 
Writing explanatory postings would be like cutting off any of Hydra's heads.   It only instigates nine more heads to grow.  Any careful attempt to explain something only leads to more willful search for using new misunderstandings and more biased misinterpretations for more attacks. 

Sometimes group members like humble newcomers.   When somebody puts himself down and asks for help, calling himself a loser, then he is usually well received.   Somebody admitting weaknesses and placing himself at the bottom does not elicit any attempts to push him there.   As long as he stays at the bottom of the hierarchy, he is treated with pity and kindness.    

Asking rational questions is not an expression of being humble.  Self confidence is perceived as a provocation.    Merely asking questions after already having figured out what to do shows self confidence.   No wish to fight a way up in the hierarchy is also perceived as a provocation.  
Provoking people can be an unavoidable side effect of the pursuit of an important goal.   But when provocation only means reacting to a power struggle, this brings no benefits.

As soon as the search for information is turned into some other people's struggle to gain secondary benefits, the wisest reaction is to withdraw.   There will be no answer and it is better to move on.