Chemistry and Subconscious Instinctive Communication - 3
This continues entry 236. By the way, my limiting the considerations of instincts to the effects on heterosexual interactions does not imply the non-existence of the effects of the interactions between males. As a woman, this is outside my scope of interest.
The instincts are the same in modern times as described for our prehistoric ancestors. Men feeling strong urges for sexual homeostasis approach women, people develop chemistry as a consequence of reducing the distance between them, and the result is copulation for the restoring of the sexual homeostasis of both.
In my prehistoric scenario, the male initiated the process by entering the female's social space. In modern times, circumstances bring people into each other's social and personal space all the time without them having any intention of mating. In both situations, the instincts are triggered automatically by the approaching of two bodies, but only modern people can know by cognition, if the approaching was by choice for the purpose of mating, or an unavoidable consequence of our crowded modern life.
People in the crowded modern life situation therefore need mechanisms, how to cope with the unwanted sharing of their social and personal space. Desensitization and denial are these mechanisms, and they make a huge difference between our ancestors and modern societies. Due to these mechanisms, there is no conscious perception for the working of chemistry between two individuals, until the strength of the chemistry reaches a threshold.
But things are more complex.
1. Checking without restoring distance can lead to attraction or aversion.
In our ancestors' times, the automatic process of instinctive mating had two options after approaching, either reciprocal checking and mating or distancing to avoid mating. When the requirement of modern life impedes restoring enough distance in spite of an inclination to do so, a woman feels molested by men's onesided checking.
Therefore, desensitization and denial serve two purposes. They avoid low level attraction by chemistry to be kept out of consciousness, but also low level aversion to male chemistry checking out of a woman's consciousness. Low level welcome chemistry is often mistaken for platonic sympathy, low level feeling molested is often mistaken for platonic antipathy.
2. There are individual differences of the magnitude of this threshold.
For the most desensitized, the threshold is so high, that once chemistry is strong enough to rise over the threshold, this immediately triggers behavioral drives towards copulation.
For more sensitive people, especially women, the threshold is low enough to perceive danger or aversion much earlier, either when feeling molested or when being fully aware of very good reasons of not succumbing to chemistry. This lower threshold gives more sensitive people more options for appropriate actions.
3. The checking instinct triggered by proximity consists of an active and a passive component. The passive component is the ability to perceive, consciously or subconsciously, when being checked. The active component is the own checking, when driven by a need either to procreate or to gain sexual homeostasis or both.
There are considerable intra-individual and inter-individual differences in the innate strength of both components. I already described the differences between breeders and hypoanimalistic people in previous entries.
4. Desensitization and denial of the instinctive forces have the consequence, that our modern western societies are afflicted with several dangerous collective delusions, which have led to social norms, that are detrimental for the more sensitive and less instinctive persons.
Collective Delusion 1. When the true force of instincts is not consciously perceived, they are underestimated as either not existent, very weak and/or no causing harm.
Collective Delusion 2. The ability to rule over instincts successfully by self-control and willpower is overestimated.
Because of these delusions, the powerful, the most instinct driven, the most desensitized are forcing suffering and harm upon the sensitive, the hypoanimalistic, the non-breeders, the egalitarians, the epicureans.
More in another entry.
This continues entry 236. By the way, my limiting the considerations of instincts to the effects on heterosexual interactions does not imply the non-existence of the effects of the interactions between males. As a woman, this is outside my scope of interest.
The instincts are the same in modern times as described for our prehistoric ancestors. Men feeling strong urges for sexual homeostasis approach women, people develop chemistry as a consequence of reducing the distance between them, and the result is copulation for the restoring of the sexual homeostasis of both.
In my prehistoric scenario, the male initiated the process by entering the female's social space. In modern times, circumstances bring people into each other's social and personal space all the time without them having any intention of mating. In both situations, the instincts are triggered automatically by the approaching of two bodies, but only modern people can know by cognition, if the approaching was by choice for the purpose of mating, or an unavoidable consequence of our crowded modern life.
People in the crowded modern life situation therefore need mechanisms, how to cope with the unwanted sharing of their social and personal space. Desensitization and denial are these mechanisms, and they make a huge difference between our ancestors and modern societies. Due to these mechanisms, there is no conscious perception for the working of chemistry between two individuals, until the strength of the chemistry reaches a threshold.
But things are more complex.
1. Checking without restoring distance can lead to attraction or aversion.
In our ancestors' times, the automatic process of instinctive mating had two options after approaching, either reciprocal checking and mating or distancing to avoid mating. When the requirement of modern life impedes restoring enough distance in spite of an inclination to do so, a woman feels molested by men's onesided checking.
Therefore, desensitization and denial serve two purposes. They avoid low level attraction by chemistry to be kept out of consciousness, but also low level aversion to male chemistry checking out of a woman's consciousness. Low level welcome chemistry is often mistaken for platonic sympathy, low level feeling molested is often mistaken for platonic antipathy.
2. There are individual differences of the magnitude of this threshold.
For the most desensitized, the threshold is so high, that once chemistry is strong enough to rise over the threshold, this immediately triggers behavioral drives towards copulation.
For more sensitive people, especially women, the threshold is low enough to perceive danger or aversion much earlier, either when feeling molested or when being fully aware of very good reasons of not succumbing to chemistry. This lower threshold gives more sensitive people more options for appropriate actions.
3. The checking instinct triggered by proximity consists of an active and a passive component. The passive component is the ability to perceive, consciously or subconsciously, when being checked. The active component is the own checking, when driven by a need either to procreate or to gain sexual homeostasis or both.
There are considerable intra-individual and inter-individual differences in the innate strength of both components. I already described the differences between breeders and hypoanimalistic people in previous entries.
4. Desensitization and denial of the instinctive forces have the consequence, that our modern western societies are afflicted with several dangerous collective delusions, which have led to social norms, that are detrimental for the more sensitive and less instinctive persons.
Collective Delusion 1. When the true force of instincts is not consciously perceived, they are underestimated as either not existent, very weak and/or no causing harm.
Collective Delusion 2. The ability to rule over instincts successfully by self-control and willpower is overestimated.
Because of these delusions, the powerful, the most instinct driven, the most desensitized are forcing suffering and harm upon the sensitive, the hypoanimalistic, the non-breeders, the egalitarians, the epicureans.
More in another entry.
