I am a woman born 1949 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:

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.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

35. One Month of This Blog

One Month of This Blog

As I can see in the stats part of the dashboard of this blog, it has been viewed several times each day so far.  

Only the feedback is nearly nil.   One guy, whom I had known in a chat, left two comments, nobody ever did.

One guy accused me in a private email of being a fundamentalist and doctrinaire.    But I am only telling my personal opinions, I have no mission to convince others of what I think.  

There is just one real objective of this blog:   To have my mindmate read it, and react with the enthusiastic exclamation:  "Wow!"  Because he could have written the same, only I happen to have put his thoughts into words first.    Or he has written similar things somewhere else, and I have not yet found it and exclaimed "Wow!"

He is out there somewhere.    Bad luck for both of us, that he is still missing to find this blog.  

Friday, July 30, 2010

34. Praying is Motivated by Intermittent Reinforcement

Praying is Motivated by Intermittent Reinforcement

Rationally seen, it is ridiculous and weird to ask an entity or being for help, advice and support, in the case that nobody has ever seen him, and that there is no proof of his existence.  
Why should an invisible pink elephant in the cupboard give food to someone hungry?    But if the being is called god instead of elephant, and is located somewhere else, people not only ask for help, they have no doubt that they will get it, they believe that asking god in prayer is a promising way to acquire resources and achieve goals.     

Something is happening in people's brains to give them the delusion that prayer works.   There seem to be three major errors, but maybe there are more that I have not thought of yet.

1.   Error in attributing a wrong cause to an experienced consequence.
1.1.   Someone in a needy situation makes some effort to solve the problem and he also prays.   He attributes his success to the prayer instead of to his effort.   
1.2.  Someone prays for something that can happen by chance, but only sometimes.    When it happens, he attributes it to the prayer, not to the probability of occurrence.
1.3.  If the prayer in 1.1. and 1.2  fails, he attributes this to lack of quantity or quality in his praying zeal.     

2.  Error due to biased information about the fulfilled prayers of others.   
Cases of subjective success of prayers might get much more publicly known than the cases of failure.      
2. 1. In the cases 1.1. or 1.2., a proud adherent to his faith is prone to talk about it and make it known to many people.   
2.2.  When prayer fails, it might not get noticed by others.  
When a person might feel ashamed for the lack of quality and quantity of his praying zeal, he might conceal it. 
When a person is in severe peril, he might not survive so the failure of his prayer gets never known. 

3.  Error attributing bad experiences of others to their not praying.
People are sometimes the victims of some disaster.  If the disaster happens to atheists and all, who do not pray, religious people consider that disaster as a consequence of not praying, therefore they conclude that by praying, they can prevent disaster for themselves.   

Mislead by these three errors, people believe that they will eventually get a positive result, if they keep on praying long enough.   While prayer fails, this is considered as either lack of praying zeal or as serving a purpose in the will of their deity, that is not to be understood.   

Thus, praying is a very persistent behaviour, because it gets intermittent reinforcement.   
If a rat gets food every time after pressing a lever, it will stop pressing it very soon, once there is no more food given.  Intermittent reinforcement means:  If a rat gets food only irregularly after pressing the lever, it will keep on pressing the lever for a long time, even if there is very rarely any food given, and it will stop its attempts only after a long time, if there is no more food at all.

Thus, praying people are just like the rats.   They pray for a wish, and once in a while, something happens that reinforces their delusion that the prayer were successful.   Therefore they keep on praying.    

Error 1 and 2 have been adapted from Chapter 4 of the book by Michael A. Persinger:  Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs.  (1987) 
Only he talks about the force of magic thinking and does not mention prayer.    This is a very fascinating book.  
This is also a text taken from 'The Nonconformists' and Freethinkers' haven.  

Thursday, July 29, 2010

33. Emancipation, Rationality and Instinctivity in Literature

Emancipation, Rationality and Instinctivity in Literature
In 1892 the novel 'Beyond The City' by Arthur Conan Doyle was published.   The text can be downloaded at

In this novel, Doyle clearly attempts mockery upon the emancipation of women.    As far as the topic of his irony is the adopting of bad habits, which are detrimental to men and women, but in those days were still only the habit of men, he made a point.   

But he also stated attitudes, opinions and values of his female protagonist, which are absolutely logical, rational and sound, and which are not in the least ironical to any person, who evaluates them on the basis of the axiom, that every individual is entitled to personal wellbeing and has no obligation to make sacrifices in favour of the survival of the species.  

On first sight, this is very puzzling.   The creator of a the prototypical logical thinker, Sherlock Holmes, makes the most logical statements in favour of the equality of women, and in spite of this, he does not mean it but ridicules it.
But there is an explanation:  While Doyle is capable of advanced logical reasoning, this is not a decisive part of his personality, but just a tool, while his instinctivity is stronger.    By instinct Doyle, as many other men, was a slave to the urge for procreation, his own 5 offspring are a strong indication for assuming this.   
As it is easy to see, the less a woman was emancipated in accordance with what he wrote in 'Beyond The City' as the basic concepts of emancipation, the more a woman had not alternative but bear and raise the children and serve the man's urge to procreate.    An emancipated woman has alternatives allowing her to refuse procreation.   A woman with an alternative serves less the purpose of giving progeny to a man.

Therefore, while Doyle is mentally capable for perfectly sound reasoning in favour of the equality and emancipation of women, his own mind is blocked against his own logical reasoning.  His instincts dominate his mind and we have the paradoxical mockery of his own logic.       

The novel 'Beyond The City' is just an extreme example.   I have read some more novels of Doyle and of other authors of the same epoque.    There is a general male hypocrisy prevailing.    Women were generally considered so extremely delicate, that the slightest business problems, family worries and other troubles outside their home sphere were always kept away from them.   They were treated as if women were not capable to bear and to cope with any problem, as if they would just faint and break down at the least unpleasantness.  
Yet the same men did not hesitate one moment to demand of women the most painful and dangerous experience, which men are spared by the clemency of nature, the horror of having a parasite growing inside their belly and finally getting rid of it in an most atrocious act, called birth.   
Were the consideration of men for the delicacy of women in the least sincere, they would never inflict this upon a woman.   They tried to spare women anything except this horror, as if sparing them any other troubles aimed at nothing else except to keep them fit and resilient for this one ultimate horror, which they considered women's justification of existence.   
It reminds me of how sometimes convicted prisoners are carefully cured medically with the only goal of keeping them alive for the scaffold.

After having written so far, I did some googling, hoping to find any review or comment about the topic of mocked emancipation in this book, but I have found nothing.    I am astonished that there seems nobody else ever having bothered to disagree with the attitude of Doyle towards emancipation.


I used to run a little msn-group, that was deleted, when Microsoft discontinued the groups.    It was called the Nonconformists' and Freethinkers' Haven.  
I will add some texts to this blog, that I had written for that group.   This is the first of them.  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

32. A Polyglot Mind

A Polyglot Mind

English is the lingua franca world wide, therefore many native speakers never had any reason to learn a second language.   Without this experience, it is sometimes difficult to be aware of the traps in communicating with a person, for whom English is only a second language.  

Therefore, I am going to share some of my experiences from becoming polyglot.   I spoke only German, until I started to learn languages at school, and I learned a lot later while travelling.  

1.  My knowledge of the meaning of words is sometimes fuzzy, inexact, missing subtlety.  (What I say about words, mostly is also valid for expressions.) I have learned many words by guessing their meaning out of the context, which started with a rough idea and got better with every time seeing it in a different context.   But this is still not the exact meaning, that it has for a native speaker.   
Also, using a dictionary is misleading.   Looking up a word and finding a corresponding word in English misleads me think, that it would be an exact translation, while it really is not, but has different connotations in the two languages.
This leads to misunderstandings, when I use words, that do not exactly mean, what I think that they would mean.

2.  Words in the native language have a felt magnitudes and sometimes inhibitions as a result.    The corresponding word in English is just a chain of letters or sounds.   
I have grown into strong inhibitions to use vulgar language in German.   I would recoil from using the German word for a**hole, while not using the English word is a conscious decision by knowing it being inappropriate, but not by feeling inhibitions. 
Whenever I want to put emphasis on something in English, I am using the strongest word, that I can think of, because no word ever feels strong enough, therefore I am probably sometimes appearing to exaggerate without knowing it.  

3.  Each language is a separate, independent module in my brain.   Once the switch is set on one language, I start to think in that language, and I automatically speak it and react to it.   Speaking automatically comes easy, as long as there is the reciprocity of a dialogue in the same language. 
Translating is difficult, interpreting directly between two languages is even more difficult for me.  Switching between languages is easy, when I switch between talking with one person in one language and another person in another language.    But it is difficult to reply in a different language to the one in which I am spoken to.  When someone wants to learn German and expects me to talk German to him, while either not being able to reply or replying in some gibberish, is a very difficult task for me.   I react much more automatically to a native or very proficient speaker than to someone, who only speaks it in a broken way. 

4.  Every word that I know in any language has two forms.   The word as it sounds and is written in the particular language and a pre-verbal or non-verbal representation of its meaning, something like a thought-module.    The sounds and spelling are stored in the module of the specific language, but all the thought-modules of all the languages are stored in one big list.   When I say something, it is first assembled from that list, and then transferred into words in the language, that is switched on at that moment.    
Sometimes this is frustrating, as I want to convert a thought module, but the used language does not provide a word for it.  

5.  Here is a list of tips for anybody, who wants to learn a language.    As my own experience is limited to European languages, I cannot judge, how different it is to learn more exotic languages.

- Familiarise yourself first with the rules connecting written and spoken language, including learning the letters, if it is not Latin.    You need to be capable to pronounce a word from the dictionary well enough to be understood and to find words in the dictionary.  

- Focus on learning to understand first, before you attempt to express your own more complex thoughts.  

- If you are in the country, then start with learning the most basic vocabulary and polite phrases.   One introductionary course is also beneficial, but learning along your own interest helps more than doing dull exercises.   The methods of teaching languages at school are not always very motivating to kids.   

- Avoid to take English sentences and translate them word by word into the foreign language, this creates gibberish, that is unpleasant for the listeners.  If you create the gibberish often enough that it starts to sound correct to yourself, you will learn mistakes that you may be stuck with.    If you translate one word from English into the foreign language, then make a pause to think, before you utter the next word, you tire people.  
Wait, until you can say simple sentences without pauses, before you attempt to talk.   If what you utter is above a minimum level of sounding correct, then people are more motivated to help you improve.    

- Never ever use a translator program from English into the foreign language.   It is gibberish, that you better never even read once.    When you use a translator from the foreign language into English, you will see my point.

- A language does not sound right, when you only know the correct words and use the correct grammatical rules.    There are expressions to complete it.   You need to develop an intuitive feeling for what sounds right by sentences and expressions, not word by word.  

- Expose yourself to written and spoken language, even though you do not understand all of it.   Listen to songs and watch movies in the language with subtitles.   Repeat correct phrases, read out loud correct text, do everything to get a feeling for the language.  

Get bilingual books or books that were written in the foreign language and an English translation.   Read the book first in English, so you know the story, and then read the original.    Listen to human read ebooks instead or in addition to the printed book.

- Do not even try to learn lists of vocabulary by rote, if you do not have a kind of memory to do this easily.    Not remembering, what you wanted to remember, causes frustration.    When you see a word the first time and look it up, you might forget the meaning, but the next time, you recognize the word, and after looking it up a few more times, or guessing it from the context, at some point you will remember its meaning.    And when you have read and heard the word often enough, it will occur to you some day to use it yourself.   

Sunday, July 25, 2010

31. Soulmate or Mindmate

Soulmate or Mindmate

Someone made a remark about me using the word mindmate instead of soulmate.   

The mind in my understanding is the working brain with all chemical and electrical functions, as a part of my body, as the seat of my specific personality.   A mindmate is someone with a similar mind.  

A soul is an entity forming the part of the deity delusion, or its existence could be an independent delusion.    It is by definition something, that is trapped inside the body as in a container, and can leave the body and exist without it.  

So far, nobody has ever seen, heard, felt, smelt or in anyway perceived the existence of a soul without a body, neither directly or with any kind of technical appliance.    The independent, immortal soul is just like the deity, there is neither proof nor disproof.    James Randi would certainly give his 1 million $ prize, if anybody could give evidence of a soul outside a body. 

I live on the principle, that if there is a claim, and Randi offers his prize for the evidence, I am safe to live as if the claim were proven as false, as long as Randi has not given out the money.

Therefore, I have no soul residing in some cavity of my skull, and logically, a missing soul cannot search for a mate.  

But the soul sounds anyhow like a weird thing.    It cannot be perceived by any method available.  So what size or volume does it have?    If it has none, how could it store information, as is believed in some reincarnation theories like in Hinduism, where the next life's quality depends on the previous life's achievements?   If it has none, how could it have perception for the heat of hell? 
If souls are recycled by reincarnation, and there are currently more humans born then dying, is there somewhere a soul production machine?    Is that machine also inperceivable?  
If souls are unique, like in the Christian religion, where are all the souls stored of all those people, who have ever lived?   Are all those heavens, hells and paradises not getting overcrowded with time, when there will be coming more and more?
If the soul is new with every new person, then when is it made?  Does it just plop into existence or does it come from the soul production machine?  At birth or at conception?   If at conception, does then the in-vitro-fertilization create a soul?   When the fertilized egg instead of getting implanted in the womb, would be eaten by a mouse, when does the soul leave?    After it has been in the mouse's stomach?
Who had the first soul?    When was the missing link between apes and monkey fit to carry a soul?   Are there maybe first class souls for humans and second class souls for bonobos and pitecanthropos?   

These are quite absurd questions.    They are as absurd as the idea, that a soul can leave the body.    In spite of the obvious absurdity, I am convinced that there are believers of different religions, who would claim to have serious answers to some of those questions.

30. The Contrary of the ERCP is Becoming a Pet-With-Benefits

The Contrary of the ERCP is Becoming a Pet-With-Benefits

Imagine a man, who has a dog, and this describes some typical aspects of the relationship of a man and a dog:

- The man considers himself the master of the dog, who has to submit in obedience, he has power over the dog and might even have the dog mainly for the purpose to have power over someone.  
- Dogs are not born docile, they undergo some kind of dog training, until they accept their inferior role to their master.  Any resistance of the dog justifies in the master's mind any attempt to break his will, included hurting as punishment.
- Dogs are acquired once, brought under the control of their master and made docile by dog training.  From then on, dogs show unconditional and unlimited devotion to their masters, no matter how bad and cruelly they are treated.  The master sees no reason or motivation to earn or deserve the dog's love.   He feels entitled to the dog's eternal devotion.
- He decides, what is good for the dog, and expects the dog's affection in return.  He considers himself to be the one having the better brain.  He believes to know, what is good for the dog, and then he uses his power to force his decisions upon the dog.
- He feels responsible to keep the dog fed, sheltered and cared for by the vet, but nothing else, because a dog is nobody having emotional or intellectual needs.  The dog is a body without a mind. 
- He decides, by what name to call the dog, and then he as the master expects the dog to listen to that name. 
- The dog barks, and it is the master's task to observe the dog and interpret his behavior to find out, what he wants or needs.  
- He plays with the dog, only when he wants to.   He expects to get the dog's attention, whenever he wants it.   During the rest of the time, the dog is supposed to wait patiently and humbly in his kennel. 
- Some people allow their pets to sleep in their beds, he is one of them.

Now imagine, that this man replaces his dog with a woman.   No reason to pity the dog, who finds a good home with some family, where there are other dogs.  

But becoming a pet-with-benefits is a tale of woe for the pitiable woman.  

Saturday, July 24, 2010

29. Self-Arranged Relationships or Marriages

Self-Arranged Relationships or Marriages

About a decade ago, I first heard about the love project of Robert Epstein.   I was intrigued, because he made a project of what had been my inclination long before I heard of Epstein.  

I like the expression 'self-arranged', somehow it is a good extension to the ERCP.   But according to what I have read, Epstein has focused mainly upon how to make love grow after two persons have met.   I prefer to take it one step further.   I doubt, if it is a good start, if the two partners have met in any haphazard way.   

With the possibilities of communication via the web, with the modern easy means of transportation, geographical distances are easier to overcome than mental distances.   

The most important step towards a 'self-arranged' relationship is a very careful choice.   I have joined far beyond 100 dating sites in several languages.   Creating a profile is done in a short time, and with every additional site, the chances to find a match with mind-mate qualities is enhanced.    Doing some deep mind-searching to get full awareness of my own needs and of what is important, and who is compatible, was a part of this.  

The prize for a rash choice is most probable a lot of pain to follow later.  Tolerating in a partner, whom one wants to respect as equal, what one does not allow oneself or what one would despise in oneself is no basis, and the necessity of adapting too much to each other because of too much difference is also an additional obstacle.    My experience in my focus to find someone really compatible has made me aware, how unconcerned men usually are in their haphazard contacting strategies.   Out of every 100 men, who contact me on a dating-site, at least 95 are completely unsuitable, and they could know it, if they would even bother to carefully read my profile first.  

I am getting tired of all the stupid warnings on dating advice sites, which tell people all the things they should avoid doing or admitting.  If traits and interests and tendencies are distributed along a bell curve, then somewhere is the compatible person even for rare cases at both ends of the curve.  
If they would follow the advice and hide, who they really are, they would get in contact with the incompatible average person and not with a like minded person.  
There is nothing wrong with being clingy and wanting to be together 24 hours every day, and there is nothing wrong with being happily working 60 hours a week and only wanting to be together in the limited leisure time.   It is only vital to be aware, what place one wants to have and to give to a partner in the future and to make a choice of someone, who has the same concept and tendencies.
If the clingy person attempts to force himself to be or to pretend to be less clingy, and if the workaholic takes a resolution to work less, they will probably fall back into their own old ruts and the disaster cannot be avoided.  

So, I am looking for someone just like me, who does not hide his true self, nor will I hide myself as I am.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

28. How To Keep the Prisons Empty

How To Keep the Prisons Empty

Life starts, when it can exist independently outside the womb.   Until then, an embryo is just a bunch of biological matter, and if not wanted, there is no rational difference between an embryo and a tumor as something to be removed.   

Having something unwantedly growing in the womb is not a justification to require, demand or coerce a person to raise it.
Given the availability of contraception, the availability of unlimited abortion during the first three months and the availability of a legal way of depositing unwanted children anonymously for adoption, it is justified to protect children from the moment of their birth on.    But these are the rational requirements to allow a woman to prevent the situation to have the raising of an unwanted child forced upon her.  

The deity delusion includes the fatal claim, that every life is very precious, because it is a gift of the deity.   If the life is unhappy or if it becomes a hazard to others is of no importance to the deity.    Rationally seen, considering a newborn as having the same value as an adult is a depreciation of the sacrifices of the caregivers.   

Statistics have clearly shown, that unwanted children are a high risk to become criminals, the population of jails consists in a high proportion of unwanted children.    They are at risk, if they are raised by unwilling caregivers, but also when they grow up in orphanages.   

Therefore, there should not be unwanted children.   Every unwanted child is one too many. The decision for or against an abortion is unfortunately distorted many times by the delusion of depriving the deity of her gift.   But rationally seen, an abortion does not make a change, it merely reinstates the baseline, which is the empty womb, just as it was before the pregnancy.   To get pregnant again, if a child is wanted later, is usually easier than to even get an abortion.    Without the deity delusion, an abortion could therefore be the standard procedure, not only, when the pregnancy is not wanted, but even, when there is any doubt.   Dealing with an unwanted child is so much more problematic then getting pregnant again.

Since there is the abortion pill, it is a simple way to do it, if the pill would be sold freely.    It is scandalous, that this pill is controlled under the financial and political power of those, whose own judgment is disabled by the deity delusion.

Thus, abortion is the first step in the prevention of crime.   

A newborn baby is only a form of raw material.    What converts it into an healthy, independent, decent citizen is the investment of time and money by the caregivers.   

There is no way to prevent people from producing more raw material than is good.  
But the focus of society should be on the quality of the children and not on the quantity, and that is the second step of prevention.

It is obvious that good education from early on in kindergarten and school is important, but this is not sufficient.   The focus should be on the parents.    There is a training and a licence required for nearly everything, driving is an example.    Driving lessons are to protect others from being injured by an unable driver.  

People, who want to raise children, should get some training too, instead of being allowed to raise children to become a hazard to others. 
The first step could be obligatory courses at high school, not only in how to handle babies, but also in communication and other aspects of education.    During pregnancy, there could be a course offered, which ends with a licence of basic parental training, which could then be accompanied by regular additional courses in accordance with the age of the child.  

Since nobody can stop people from breeding like rabbits, the only way to make them undergo parenting training, are some substantial incentives.    The incentive could be a monthly payments from the government and a reward, when the child reaches a given age, maybe 21, and has not become a criminal and a burden to society.  
That reward could be a sum for the child towards further education, starting a business, buying a house, and an additional sum to the retirement pay of the parents.    
The money saved on institutions for unwanted children, juvenile delinquents, jails and the damage done by the criminals would be sufficient to pay the parental training and incentives.   

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

27. Criminals and Innocents

Criminals and Innocents

Religious brainwashing makes the religious majority believe, that for suffering on earth there will be compensation in the afterlife and that the full punishment for the evil also is postponed and left to the deity in afterlife.   Christians are supposed to forgive as their own requirement to reward.  
Therefore society fails to protect the innocent well enough.  There is too much leniency, once someone has given evidence, that he is dangerous.  It is absurd, that quite often, the brutal criminal gets a few years in prison, and gets out back into a content, normal life, and leaves his own deed emotionally behind him.   He has been punished by the law, so for him, it is over.  The victim suffers forever, and the next victim is prone to pass his path.   
It is not acceptable that becoming a victim is considered a risk of life.   Nobody should be allowed to run free and be a hazard, once he is known to be dangerous.   The innocent deserve safety and freedom of movement everywhere at any time of the day and night.   The country should be the innoncents' country. 

For centuries, there was massive injustice in some societies, when for example there were free people with privileges, that were denied to the slaves.   But to my knowledge, there was never a society, where important privileges were reserved to the innocent, while evildoers and criminals were forfeiting them.    As far as I know, even the criminals, who were transported to Australia were allowed back after completing their term.

There should be two levels of citizenship.   The full citizenship with all human rights and the attribution of human dignity should be the privilege of the innocent, of those, who have never done serious, especially physical harm to others.   They should have a status of being called truly human.   As soon as someone does any cruel act to someone else, he should loose once and for all that status and be reduced to a limited citizenship of status of a asocial and dangerous, who is deprived of some civilian rights. 
He should be controlled in his movements, his mail, telephone data etc should be monitored.    There should be a sign on his door warning people, maybe a RFID or some other chip planted into him, so that everybody near him can know that he is dangerous.   He should loose the right to vote.  Every restriction should be applied, that contributes to the prevention of his doing any more harm to others.    Since he has already inflicted harm and suffering upon another, he is the one to suffer from restrictions to prevent more pain to others. 

In short, the innocent should be protected from him, no matter, what disadvantages this brings to him.   He had known, what damage he has no right to inflict upon others, and he had done it knowingly.   He has to live with the consequences.    Leniency cannot be justified, when it brings danger to innocent persons.    What somebody has done once, is as a possibility in him, there is a probability, that he might do it again.   He is the danger, because he made himself a danger.
It is not a question of punishing for the sake of punishing.    Punishing does not undo the damage and suffering of the victims, prevention is much more important, so that nobody becomes another victim.   
If someone is dangerous enough, then he need to be locked away for ever.    Lions are locked in cages in the zoo, so that they cannot hurt anybody.   Dangerous people need to be locked away too, if nothing less severe is not enough to protect others.   

Taxpayers' money is wasted on rehabilitation for the purpose of releasing those dangerous persons.   The money would be much better spent on all methods of prevention, but that will be another posting about how to keep the prisons empty.     

Monday, July 19, 2010

26. Deity Delusion and Natural Selection

Deity Delusion and Natural Selection

When rationality is nearly as strong as instinctivity, when rationality contributes a lot to the fitness to survive of the individual, but there is still a reluctant willingness to breed, then the deity delusion can have a big influence upon natural selection.   

During all those times in prehistory and early history, when means and knowledge about contraception were lacking and attempts of abortion were often fatal, abandoning or killing newborns was a widespread practice.  

A rational woman, couple, group might decide that the number of living offspring at a given moment is enough, and they would want to get rid of the next unwanted progeny.   But if they have the delusion of a deity, who appears to give life as a gift, to punish for abandoning the gift, to reward for the sacrifice in the afterlife, then they fear the deity too much and keep the child instead. 

The men's fear of the deity's command to procreate may have several consequences upon the fate of women.    A positive effect may be, that it coerces men to provide women with the necessities of survival.   But the most dire effect is probably, that it justifies men to manipulate and coerce women to have offspring.   The men fear the deity's wrath, so they reduce their own fear by making the women their victims.  

The force of a strong procreation instinct with little rationality without a deity delusion and the force of a procreation instinct controlled by rationality combined with the deity delusion might thus lead to an equal number of offspring.     Thus at that level, they deity delusion helps to spread the genes of the more rational members of the society and thus also of those with the deity delusion.    

It seems as if the entire deity delusion was a byproduct of evolution to coerce unwilling people to raise more offspring than they would want. 

Only when rationality gets so strong, that it outweighs both, the procreation instinct and the deity delusion, natural selection reaches its end in producing wise rational atheistic non breeders, leading to the extinction of their highest developed rationality.  

Sunday, July 18, 2010

25. Thoughts on Myer-Briggs

Thoughts on Myer-Briggs
Many people, who are rationally refuting religion, still seem to fall too easily for other claims, that are also doubtable.   

The Myer-Briggs is a good example.    It claims that people can be classified along four dichotomies:
Extraversion <> Introversion
Sensing <> Intuition
Thinking <> Feeling
Judgment <> Perception

Excluding the obvious fact, that extraversion and introversion are dichotomies, I consider it as more than doubtable that the rest are dichotomies at all.   

Reasoning is a process, that consists of two steps:   Supplying the mind with information and then drawing conclusions upon this.  
The information needed consists of external information, that is sensed, and of internal information about the own feelings and needs, which are felt, and the values and attitudes of the person.   Thinking is logically processing all this information.   The result is a judgement.  

Therefore the capacity to sense all needed external information, the awareness of all own emotions and needs, and the ability of logical thinking are independent.  If measured as traits, they should be measured as three independent scales.    Judgement is also an independent scale, it should be a measurement, how strong someone is guided by values and ethics.

Intuition can be considered as reasoning going on in the subconscious.    If perception is understood as conscious awareness of all ingredients of the process of arriving at a judgement, then perception could be seen as the other part of a dichotomy of intuition vs. perception.


Update 15. 9. 10

I have been criticizing the general concept of the MBTI.   After writing it,Ifound this much more detailed and thorough skeptical evaluation:

Thursday, July 15, 2010

24. Immature Concept of Love

Immature Concept of Love

I suggest to first read: The Myth of Unconditional Love.

Men, who have never grown more mature than puberty sometimes behave, as if the loving relationship with a wife or partner would be the same as with their mother, with physical intimacy added.  

When parents are by instinct attached to their offspring, they usually have accepted the fact, that for a long time the development of children requires one-sided, unconditional love.    Children are completely selfish, narcissistic and unable to take care for any of their needs.    Children make mistakes as a part of growing, and as long as they are not capable to be responsible, they need to be forgiven.   
When they are in puberty, they expect the mother at home to serve food, wash their clothes, to be always present at home, whenever the child wants her to be supported and helped.    When the child leaves the house in the pursuit of his own hobbies and interests, he considers it none of the mothers business, when and where he goes and what he decides for his own life.    This is very unbalanced, the child expects the mother to be always available, while the child does as he pleases.   It is a phase of life, if mature adulthood follows.

When a man grows into maturity, he learns, that with an equal partner, a relationship needs to be based upon the reciprocity of sharing decision, sharing chores, agreement on how to spend time together or alone, consent and consultation how to organize life.
Unfortunately, some men never reach that stage of development, instead they leave behind a mother, who has done enough, to exchange her for a mother with benefits.   

But beware, if a woman like me searches for a partner capable and willing to be part of an ERCP relationship, then she is not the motherly kind, who willingly would take over the role of a mother with benefits.   

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

23. Interdependence of Instincts

Interdependence of Instincts

The following thoughts are limited to mammals:

In the first posting, I listed three main instincts, that make a man a hazard to me, if any one of these instincts is stronger than rationality.   But those instincts are not independent.  
Both, the saksual (misspelling for the purpose to avoid to be found in filthy men's searches) instinct and the dominance instinct are a consequence of the procreation instinct, enabling success. 
I use the expression dominance instinct for the instinctive drive to fight for a high position in a hierarchy of power, because the power gives advantage in the competition for scarce resources.  

The urge to procreate is not limited to the mere survival of a species, but to produce a surplus of members as a part of the carnivorous food chain.   Mice breed, and a part of the population is eaten by foxes, foxes breed and a part is eaten by wolves.    Even humans in prehistoric times had reasons to breed surplus, because they were part of the diet of bears, lions and tigers. 
The result of progress in technology has led to the overpopulation of the earth.   Not only because of ecological reasons, but also, because some areas are not suitable for human settlement.   People are forced or compelled to live, where earthquakes, floods and tornadoes, extreme heat make live a hazard, so that the area is not really suitable for living in safety.    People slave away years of their live to build houses and then in a short moment all is destructed.   In California, an earthquake of a catastrophic magnitude is expected in the near future.   Wise people would move to safe places.   But considering the general overpopulation, there are not enough safe areas on this globe for all people.

Usually there are roughly as many males as females in any species.   But there is a discrepancy between the reproduction time of males, that is much shorter than that of females due to the duration of pregnancy.  
As a consequence, many animals like lions form groups, in which one male controls a harem of several females.  
But this is also practiced in some human societies.    I once read a book about traditional African villages and family life.   A compound starts with a hut for the man, and a hut for wife number one.   As soon as she has the first child, she is put on hold, the man marries a second wife, who gets her own hut, and she has his attentions, until she also has a child.   Depending on the man's financial power, he might get more wives.    When the child of a wife is old enough to be weened, she then again gets the macho's attentions, until she has another child.
The rule, that a man may have four wives, is even written into the coran.

Logically, when some males take control over the fertility of several females each, others are left without a mate.    While there can be environments, where there is sufficient food for every body without fighting for it, there are never as many fertile females as males want to have by the instinct for procreation. 
Thus a high instinct for procreation in a male leads only to breeding success, if there is also enough of a dominance instinct to acquire the fertile females.   

But then there is the another question.   When the procreation instinct is lower than rationality, can there still be a high dominance and saksual instinct, either both or one?   I think this is possible, when there is no attitude of a balance of giving and receiving, but the selfish strive for advantages.    Narcissists driven by the entitlement and grandiosity delusion could be examples.    This is another example, where delusions could be connected to instincts.  

Education, especially during the early years of course has some influence.    Religions in some form promise reward for breeding and punishment for not breeding especially by active prevention.    Lucky those, for whom education and the instinctive inclination were congruent, where those with a high procreation instinct were encouraged by their religion, and where those with a low procreation instinct were raised in a secular environment. 
But unlucky those, who have a low procreation instinct but are brainwashed into having offspring that they do not really want, especially women, who are tied down by an unwanted burden for many years.

In modern western societies, when contraception and abortion are available, many women have only one or maybe two children, some stay childfree, and some regret to have as many children as they have.     Before medicine had progressed so far, until a few hundred years ago, having children was all married women's fate, and while it was common to have more than a dozen children, it is very questionable, if the women wanted so many.  
The only way to avoid pregnancy was to fend their husbands off as much as possible. 

But if the man had to fight for gaining control over the woman and felt an urge to do so, then this means, that he was driven by a high procreation and high dominance instinct.    Logically, that if he has successfully gained dominance over other men, that he generalises his instinctive tendency and dominates also the females.   The male, who is driven by all three instincts and his target are females, could be called a macho by instinct.   
The macho, who had to fight hard to gain a position of power first by competing with other men to acquire a woman and then with her to gain control over her fertility wants his reward by getting as many offspring as bearers of his genes, else he would not have struggled.
But if the woman wants to have as few children as possible, it makes me wonder, why men by evolution have become stronger than women.   Maybe to be able to force dominance and procreation upon unwilling women?   I wonder, if there were smaller populations, if men were not stronger than women, if men could not force procreation upon women.

Maybe as a reaction to how machos use power over women, some women compensate their helpless feelings by the power over the children, maybe some even have children to have someone to have power over.  

Being a woman dominated by a man, who is stronger and driven by instincts has been a dire fate all through prehistory and history.
Being a woman with high rationality in a world, where most men are driven by macho instincts, she has a difficult situation to protect herself.

Monday, July 12, 2010

22. The Real Difference Between Animals and Humans

The Real Difference Between Animals and Humans

As long as there has been philosophers, they were debating, what distinguishes humans from animals.   Probably because without an answer, how could they decide, whom to ascribe an immortal soul.  
They considered tools, language, money and trading, adherence to rules, consciousness of themselves.   And for most of it, science found rudimentary traced in monkeys and apes after some training.

But there is one fundamental distinction:   Animals are always driven by instinct to behave in favor of the survival of their genes.   Even when they do not procreate themselves, then at least they help raise the offspring of their siblings, with whom they share half of their genes.  

Only humans are capable to consciously know, that it is not beneficial to procreate, only they can decide as individuals to stay childfree.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

21. Absurd Attitudes

Absurd Attitudes

When a lion rips a gazelle apart to feed upon it, that animal dies certainly a very painful death.     Would the lion starve to death, that would be painful for him too.   

Evolution has favored the survival of the fittest, avoiding suffering was not a part of it.  

With the cat in the garden and the birds killed by the cat, it is the same.   Nobody is responsible for the lion's killing instinct, but the whoever lets a cat run free is responsible for the suffering of the birds.   

In Germany it is against the law to kill a healthy cat or other pet animal in any way, even a veterinarian is not allowed to put him to sleep.    But nobody cares about the sufferings of the half dead birds, whom the cat brings into people's houses.   

Is there a fundamental difference between a rabbit, a cat and a rat?   They are all mammals and not too big.   They all suffer pain, when treated cruelly, they all do not know, what is happening to them, when they are painlessly and fast killed.   Rats are poisoned and trapped as vermin, rabbits are killed and eaten.   But if someone has the bad luck to have a cat deliver a litter of half a dozen on their premises, they have a lot of trouble.    If they kill the kittens themselves, they break the law, abandoning them is cruel and against the law, therefore the animal asylums are full with pets, that people cannot keep, or who have been found and abandoned.  It costs a lot of money.  Principally, there is nothing wrong with this, if there were no humans living in misery anywhere on the globe.

But today I read in the newspaper, that a German supermarket chain pays 11 (Euro)Cent per hour to the workers in sweatshops in Bangladesh sewing trousers to be sold for cheap.    With such an income, they can only dream of the luxury life of a dog or cat in a German animal asylum, provided with healthy food and medical care.   

Animals should not have suffering afflicted on them, but what about the poor people in Bangladesh?    If all stray and unwanted animals would be painlessly put to sleep, and animal asylums be closed, there would a lot of money be available for much more humane purposes, either for supplying some basic needs for the people in Bangladesh and other poor countries or paying them fair wages for their labor.   

People buy the cheap clothes from the sweatshops and contribute to the death by starvation of many people in Bangladesh, but cry in outrage about people killing pets.

It is absurd and it is an indirect form of racism, when German dogs are considered to deserve better care than the people from third world countries.

Humans need more protection than animals, because they suffer much more, they consciously experience their suffering.    Animals suffer hunger and sickness only in the moment of occurrence, humans additionally suffer the emotional pain of knowing, what comes, of fear in advance, of hopelessness, of emotional pain.   As long as the resources are scarce, humans should be cared for first, in priority over animals.    

20. Constructive Communication

Constructive Communication

Constructive communication is a core part of the ERCP.    To feel emotionally save and bonded in harmony requires the absence of distortions by unresolved conflicts.    The motivation to resolve conflicts by communicating is an expression of the appreciation of the partner as important and equal.   

1.  Harmony is so important, that communicating about all conflicts needs to be continued, until it is resolved, no matter, how long it takes, hours, even days, when the problem is complicated.  Both partners need to talk about everything, that has an impact upon each other, and the best procedure is to do this also as a prevention of conflicts.    Solving a conflict also requires to generalize the solution to a kind of policy guiding both to prevent similar conflicts.   I feel very uncomfortable with pending conflicts.

2.  Both partners need to make sure, that both mutually know exactly all, what the other knows and thinks, in as much as it has anything to do with the topic of the conflict.    This is the most important part of the process.    All attempts to suggest a solution are futile, until there is a shared basis of information.    Using logic together upon the same premises can lead to a satisfying shared conclusion.   Using logic upon distinct premises causes many conflicts.   

3.  This means to ask questions, to listen and to proffer all information, that has not been asked for.   
Jumping to conclusions must be avoided.   Assumptions are suggestions, that need to be verified or discarded.   Statements need to be blunt, direct, explicit to avoid misunderstandings by subtleties and hints.   Verbal communication is fair, while provoking and probing the reactions of the other as a lab rat is not acceptable.  

4.  Honesty without hiding anything is essential, to always say, what one means, and to mean, what one says, and to trust the same from the other.  
External facts should be offered with evidence, but all statements about personal introspection, emotions, perceptions, experiences, needs should be taken for serious and as subjective reality without doubting.   

5.  To be right or wrong is of no importance.   A conflict needs a solution, which convinces both as being the best.    Communicating serves not the purpose of contradicting the other but to understand, what the other can contribute to a convincing progress. 

6.  It is important to be aware of the modules of the communication.   If one person needs ten sentences to explain a thought, then it is destructive, if the other discards or tries to prove wrong single sentences instead of attempting to comprehend the entire thought before reacting.

7.  Conflicts need to be analysed on two levels, the direct practical level and the abstract meta level of how the values and attitudes causing the conflicting behavior have an impact upon the bond and viability of the relationship.    Many apparently trivial incidents can have a very significant meaning of ethical disappointment as breaking trust or indicating depreciation.    Profound harmony requires to solve the meta level of conflicts sometimes more then the superficial issue.   

I am looking for a partner, who agrees to strife for harmony based on such a concept of communication.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

19. Myth of Unconditional Love

The Myth of Unconditional Love

A relationship based upon the ERCP is based upon the principle, that the relationship should be made as beneficial as possible for both partners, and that any imbalance, where one suffers because of the other, should be avoided.

This is not unconditional love.   It is love on the one fundamental condition of being treated with decency, consideration, care.  
Love cannot be bought or earned by money and services, it has to grow out of the combination of intellectual, emotional and physical intimacy.   It grows the best, when it is kindled.

But love can be forfeited and destroyed by hurtful treatment.   Then it either dies or it converts into an addiction.    If a woman falls or grows into loving someone, who first appears to be a nice man, but later on reveals himself as a sadistic jerk, then her continued attachment is an addiction to a toxic relationship, and should not be called love anymore.  

In the case of one doing wrong to the other, any forgiveness of suffering without consequences upsets the balance.   Instead, there needs to be a restitution of the emotional state before the wrong has happened, by the combination of amends of the damage to the partner and the connected damage to the relationship.    The later requires a full insight of the transgressor, what he had done, that he should not have done, and why it had been detrimental.    That insight in cooperation of both partners can then be used to agree, how to avoid the recurrence of the same incident.    After that process, it can be forgiven and forgotten.   

The two partners in a relationship based upon the ERCP are a dyad, that has the task to kindle the love by keeping a balance of making the relationship beneficial for both.  

For people with the deity delusion, there is no dyad, but there is always a triad, the two partners and their deity.   Both believe, that if they personally suffer on this earth, they will be rewarded in the afterlife.  Both also believe, that whatever pain they cause the other, will be compensated for the other in the afterlife and is therefore somehow excusable.    Both believe that they are accountable for their behavior to the deity more than to the partner.   
When the guidebook of their specific religion commands men to dominate, then men feel justified to dominate, even if the woman suffers.    If the man does wrong to the woman, he feels compelled to gain the forgiveness of the deity, not of the woman, and when he has done all the rituals and maybe made some financial sacrifices, he feels to have earned the deity's forgiveness.   But thus, he has not made amends to the woman as the target of his wrongs, and in the case of financial sacrifices, he even deprives her of spending the money with her.
The woman believes, that it is the deity to decide to forgive or not and on what condition, while she as the victim is obliged to forgive without expecting any amends, else she risks the loss of rewards in the afterlife.    Therefore the transgressor reliefs himself of any guilt, while the victim suffers powerlessly.  

With a deity as a third party, there is no balance, there is no kindling of love, there are no amends or avoiding future transgressions.   Would decent treatment be the condition for love and for staying together, women would recoil from entering triads with a deity.   The myth of unconditional love is the manipulation of the deity to lure people to accept such a triad.      


Someone has posted a comment, that is completely enigmatic and has nothing to do with the topic of this entry.
A little reminder to the author of the comment and to everybody else:   
This is the blog of an atheistic and skeptical woman in search of a mindmate, who is also a skeptical atheist.    
If you are not an atheist and a skeptic, you are welcome to read as much as you want.  But I am not wasting my time with any person, who believes in anything irrational.   Anybody, who wants to discuss magic or any doubts in the validity of science can do this elsewhere.

18. Choice and Availibility

Choice and Availability

I suggest to read the chapters on Tolerance and on Rationality, Evolution, Neanderthals, Asperger's Affinity first.

I deserve to be chosen, appreciated and accepted, because I am the deep thinking person, who writes this blog.
I refuse to be tolerated as an available substitute by incompatible men in spite of who I am.

The majority of men are driven by high instinctivity, and there is no age limit for men to sire progeny. So by instinct, even seniors (men of my age group around 60 and older) still want a young, healthy, beautiful recipient for their genes. Only this is not reciprocal. As much as high instinctivity women are attracted to men, who are strong, tall, rich and have a high status, they only accept them 15 or 20 years older, if they are extremely rich, powerful or famous, else they prefer someone closer to their age.

But even when they do not wish to have more offspring, high instinctivity seniors are still driven by physical needs to women. There are many high instinctivity women seniors, who had a hard life raising children, some staying with a man, who mistreated them, as a sacrifice for procreation. Their experience in a union of two incompatibles for the purpose of procreation was bad enough to go through once in a lifetime. When they get widowed or divorced, it means relief and they are less inclined to go from the frying pan into the fire.
Therefore, even though in the age group of seniors, women outnumber men, there seem not enough women available for men driven by physical needs.

So here I am, neither ugly nor beautiful, deliberately natural and anti-seductive, never publishing a picture, non-flirtatious, declared emancipated and anti traditional gender roles, but admitting to be lonely, and attracting the contacts of incompatible men like honey attracts flies, no matter what I do to discourage them.

My profiles on the dating-sites are explicit enough, what I want and what I do not want. At my age, there is not so much risk of superficial attraction leading to infatuation strong enough to impede both from directing their focus on the emotional and intellectual intimacy. So being a senior is rather an advantage facilitating a relationship based upon the ERCP.

But those high-instinctivity men only see, that I am available, and since they mainly want a body and consider tolerance as a method to deal with all differences, about which they probably are not bothered at all. From their point of view, I am an old hag, and by my way of thinking and behaving differently, because I am not driven by instincts, I am also weird. They contact me with the condescending tolerance, that a weird old hag should be grateful for being accepted even as a substitute for what they really want.
They are so much driven by their instinctivity and their attitude of tolerating incompatibilities, that they lack any respect to take anything in my own search for serious. They do not consider me as having a brain, who is capable to decide myself, what is good for me. In their weird mind, if a woman is anyhow only a substitute, then it makes no real difference, who she is. If a man of 50 wishes a 30 year old beauty, but cannot have her, then to him it makes not much difference to contact a woman of 50 or of 60 as an available substitute. They expect me to feel pleased to be considered a suitable substitute.
But the most pathetic are the youngsters from the Islamic world, who contact me on french sites, even when they are less than half my age. They obviously have the delusion, that just because they have a young male body, any old woman would be grateful to pay her alleged wealth to have them with her in Europe.

I am sick and tired of being contacted with the condescension of the tolerance of mercy, because I am a senior and different from the majority in my own evaluation, and an old weird hag in their opinion.
If the incompatibility is obvious, they are just a nuisance stealing my time.
But if someone seems acceptable to me, for example by being childless by circumstances instead of child free by choice, and he considers me a substitute to tolerate, then this hurts my pride and my dignity.
The worst nuisance are the dishonest ones with some kind of grandiosity delusion, who believe that if they can lure me by lies and omitting facts into extensive contact, I would sooner or later fall for their irresistible charm and accept the mutual tolerance in favor of their instinctivity.

I want and I deserve to be chosen for who I am and not tolerated as a substitute for what a man really wants but does not see in me.

The kind of man, whom I am looking for, have most probably made the complimentary experiences. High instinctivity women have rejected them as weirdos, nerds or whatever, and they have in vain been looking for a woman like me. Women like me are scarce and hard to find for those, who are compatible. At least some of them might dream of a woman like me, but after searching in vain, they might have given up the active search and are hidden somewhere as reticent and shy mavericks behind a pile of books.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

17. Rationality, Evolution, Neanderthals, Asperger's Affinity

Rationality, Evolution, Neanderthals, Asperger's Affinity

To many disorders, that are disabling enough to be included in the DSM, there is a corresponding personality, that is not outside the scope of mental health.
I am convinced, that my mind mate would be someone somewhere in the middle between being NT (neurotypical) and being diagnosed as having Asperger's syndrome or HFA (high functioning autism). I call this kind of personality Asperger's-Affinity.

Evolution as the spreading of the genes of the fittest has obviously caused the development of growing rational capacities. As the species homo, this lead to the development of more and more progress in the adaptation to and overcoming of the hazard of the environment. Strong instinctivity as the drive to procreate has been more or less optimized by evolution in all living being long before any species started to evolve any amount of rationality. Thus, the evolution of rationality was slowly reducing the gap between the strength of instinctive urges and the capacity to rationally control, modify and cope with such urges.

This development was successful to increase the fitness of the species, as long as the rationality developed as a tool serving the procreation instinct, that was considerably stronger. But when the strength of rationality reaches a level, that is only slightly weaker than instinctivity, then the balance can easily get reversed by spontaneous mutations.

By such mutations, people are born as rational individuals, who do not breed, when they clearly see no advantage of having offspring. In large, affluent societies with a division of labor, for people, who are not driven into breeding by instinct, breeding is irrational and contradictory to the individual well being. As long, as they are not forced or manipulated into breeding against their will, their genes lacking an urge to breed are not spread. The breeders continue to predominate the gene pool.

But when people in prehistoric times lived in small groups of 20 or 50 individuals, in hostile environments, things were sometimes very different. The survival of such groups depended on the presence of healthy strong individuals, who were capable to hunt big animals for food and to defend the group against dangers like bears or other groups fighting for resources.
An individual with the same rational predominance in the brain, who would today consider it irrational to breed, would in such a group decide, that having a few strong sons and nursing daughters is an unavoidable investment in the own survival. They would not like to breed, but do it as a rational adaptation to circumstances. But they would limit breeding to the minimum, that they consider necessary for survival, therefore such groups would not grow and spread. That of course makes them vulnerable to get extinct, if any disaster diminishes the group beyond recovery, while breeders create abundance.

Now there could be two groups of prehistoric people, one group is called N, the other is called C, and everything is the same, the size of the group, the environment, the level of technology in making tools, and also the absolute strength of instnctivity including the procreation instinct.
Only there is one difference: The level of rationality in the gene pool of the N group is higher than in the C group.

Logically C groups in the survival competition are fitter than N groups, and if both groups compete for resources, then it can be expected, that the C groups win and spread and the N groups get extinct over time.
It can also be expected, that when a N group has become so small, that the members are deprived of resources to survive, then sometimes they might get incorporated into the C group. If they are forced or manipulated by members of the C group to breed, some of their N genes might enter the gene pool of the C group.

Now if N would mean Neanderthals and C would mean Cro-Magnons, then my speculation is a personal speculation to explain, why the Neanderthals have disappeared.

I have read some very interesting articles connecting Asperger's, other forms or autism and ADD with some people having Neanderthal genes. Such people including those with Asperger's Affinity are usually known as having above average rationality and an above average occurrence of childfree atheists. Maybe people with Neanderthal genes have the most advanced evolution of rationality.

Maybe I am someone with Neanderthal genes in search of a partner with the same.
Maybe Neanderthal genes are a predisposition to wanting a relationship based upon the ERCP.

16. Competition or Cooperation

Competition or Cooperation

I assume a village, that is isolated enough to be self-sufficient in based products. I assume also, that there is one potter or one baker or one blacksmith, who can have a decent life without extravagances by working 30 hours a week. When there is demand for the production of 60 hours a week, there are different scenarios, as soon as a second person with equal skills and some money appears.

In a cooperative village of egalitarians, the second person becomes a partner, buys his share of the business, and from then on they both work 30 hours each, do not change the price of the product, and earn equal money.
Of course, the cooperation of egalitarians also implies, that the potter, baker, blacksmith calculates his prices to the costumer on a fair basis of an income per hour, that corresponds with the average income of all the people in the village, that he does not use his monopoly to demand unfair prices.

In a village of competing, instinct and delusion driven people, the second person starts another business and competes for costumers. They have the expenses of twice the workshop and tools, that in the case of cooperation they only need once.
For the purpose to get costumers, the second business has to sell his products cheaper than the first business. Then he gets all the costumers, so the first is forced to also lower his prices. It will not take long, until both work 60 hours per week to earn the same money, that the only supplier had earned in 30 hours. Depending how much they are driven by instinct, they might not even stop at this point but sell the products at the end so cheap, that one has to give up. Then the other has the monopoly to raise the prices to any exorbitant level. If he was ruthless enough to ruin the competitor, he is also ruthless enough to exploit the costumers.

Cooperation with cooperative people is much more beneficial for the individual than competition. I recoil from any competition.

15. Politics


I suggest to read 'The Balance of Giving and Taking' first.

When I was younger, I defined my political sympathies as socialist or anywhere on the left, and later on I added sympathies for the green movements. This was mainly based on the fact, that the leftist and green basic concepts were the nearest to my value of equality, especially the equality of women with men.
Rather they were the least in favor of inequality. I just loathe the conservatives, the right wing politicians, who are in league with those, who feel no shame or guilt or hesitation to usurp privileges and who enable the managers to earn 20 times as much as those, who really do the hard work in the factories.
Then I started to learn more about psycho biology, evolution and the importance of tendencies hard-wired into the brain. I got aware of the principal logical contradiction between the ideal of equality and the hierarchical structures of all political organizations and parties. To gain political influence in any party, it always needs a power struggle and strong competition. Only people, who are driven by an instinct to gain a higher position in a hierarchy, will ever reach a position of influence. Egalitarian people, who do not feel inclined to fight, but want to cooperate, do not gain any influence, because of the absence of the competition instinct.
Thus, unfortunately, egalitarian people never get any influence to bring more equality into the politics. As an egalitarian person, I would not want to vote for persons, who then use my vote to gain power and use it for their interests more than for mine. People should have a chance to vote on issues instead, like the referendums in Switzerland. Then every egalitarian person has a fair chance to vote for a more egalitarian way of administration and government. All political decisions should be voted for by the population and not only in the Parliament. The politicians should suggest and inform.
But the hierarchy driven politicians continue to use their power to maintain a hierarchical society.

The egalitarian principle of balancing giving and taking, of a tit-for-tat strategy can as a result enable people to rely on getting a fair deal in life, when everybody is egalitarian. Logically, this can work in small groups, where everybody knows and trusts everybody, where there is the forming and entering of the group by choice. Kibbutzim in Israel are an example.
In political systems, where under the label of socialism or communism equality was verbally proclaimed, but where the power was hierarchical, egalitarian people were just as much the victims of those driven to selfishness by instincts and collective delusions as in systems, that did not even pretend to favor equality.

As a consequence, my interest has shifted from general political issues to the questions of the value of equality and egalitarianism in the framework of politics.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

14. Threat and Fear

Threat and Fear

In some dating-site questionnaire, I was asked, what I was afraid of. My reply was along these lines:
I am afraid of wild animals like bears, and of men, who are animals, because their instincts are stronger then their rational self-control. With both, I have no chance to defend myself in a rational communication, and that makes me helpless and leaves me unprotected.

The average man is physically stronger than the average woman. That means, the average man is stronger than the majority of women, and the average woman is weaker than the majority of men. This has dire consequences for women. Average men are born with the means to physically force their will upon average women, who are unable to defend themselves as long as they do not use weapons.

When a man abstains from actually using his physical advantage, it is his deliberate choice. Even when laws are there to protect women, it is still his choice to risk punishment or behave according to the law. He really has a choice to use his advantage or to accept equality and behave accordingly. A woman does not have any choice to ever stop an individual man from using physical force on her. The only choice, that she has under favorable circumstances, is the attempt to get away from him or to avoid ever getting near him.

Physically, I am not very strong, I would not have much chance to defend myself against being beaten up. I know this, and a man would know it immediately. Any man, who feels entitled to dominate, makes me cringe, when he gets angry and into rages, when I resist his dominance. Even when he never gets physically violent, the sheer knowledge of the combination of his entitlement delusion and his physical strength makes me perceive anger as a threat of violence. Whatever reasons make him control himself and not beat me, it is not the value of respecting me, but the fear of consequences. That is not enough to feel safe.

Even if I would accept a relationship to be a power struggle, where I might in many ways have equal means and weapons to fight, a man would always have that one ultimate weapon, that only he has: Physical violence. I would have lost a power struggle before even starting it.

Only someone, who is in his own value system aspiring for the ERCP would not even want to dominate, and he would not be a subtle threat. Only with a man, who has nothing of value for him to gain by power, could I feel save and in an emotional home.

13. Delusions


Gullibility and delusions are both based upon the belief in a claim, that is not based upon evidence or is in contradiction to evidence, and both are immune to rational communication including all attempts to point out evidence. Both seem to be a crutch to cope with needs.

But gullibility is a general tendency. Who buys homeopathic water, may also read horoscopes and use dowsing to find water.

Delusions are limited to a specific topic, while many other topics are dealt with rationally. Delusions are also limited to premises and assumptions, while the logical execution of acting upon it is not disturbed. People with delusions often appear contradictory to rational people. A palaeontologist, who also believes in creation as written in the bible, has two areas of his brain in contradiction.

In real life, independent of the same degree of absurdity, it makes a big difference, if someone has an individual delusions or if the majority of a society shares it. When people reinforce each other in a delusion, then this makes delusions more detrimental to those, who do not share them.

If someone would claim to have an invisible pink dragon in his garage, whom he has to feed every day, else the dragon would burn down his house, this would be called a delusion and he would be considered a nut case.
But if someone claims, that there is an invisible god, who needs to be served, pacified, obeyed, who punishes and who fulfills wishes expressed by prayers, this is not considered a delusion, because so many people share the belief. It is part of culture and is often even protected by the law. This is the deity delusion.

I used the expression 'deity delusion' as far back as March 2000, I have not stolen it from Dawkins.   By googling 'deity delusion', I found that it is used also with a very different meaning.   I am using this expression for the delusion to believe in the existence of a deity.  
Some people use it for the delusion to be a deity.   I call this the entitlement and grandiosity delusion.  

Between men, the entitlement and grandiosity delusions are often considered as pathological. But when men limit that delusion to women, when they agree with each other to consider it acceptable to dominate women, to treat them as inferior, then it again is a shared delusion, that in some parts of the world is even not only culture but law.

Somehow it seems that such delusions are similar to instincts, that are stronger than rationality as urges compelling to act in a specific way, when rationality serves as a tool in the execution of the instinctive behavior but is not strong enough to impede the urge.
I even wonder, if all collectively shared delusions are not somehow related to some instincts. Maybe collective delusions are the conscious representations of instincts.

The deity delusion could be somehow related to the procreation instinct. All the religions have their origin long before anybody had the slightest clue about the existence of genes. That weird impulse to submit to something above and beyond the individual, the compulsion to procreate, the provision of resources for the progeny beyond the individual death, it needed an explanation to the self.
The deity is eternal, as is the chain of genes, the continuation of the genes is seen as reincarnations, the individual is nothing compared with the survival of the genes, and all religions demand procreation.

The entitlement delusion and grandiosity delusion could be connected with the instinct for competition and fighting for a place on a hierarchy. It could even be also connected again to the procreation instinct. Control of women is a method of attempting to sire offspring and to assure to only provide for the own genes.

The racism as a delusion could be related to the ingroup-outgroup instinct.

Considered from the point of rationality, all delusions are the same absurd and a hazard for a partner, who is effected by them.
My quest is for a partner, who has no delusions, neither individual nor shared with others.