376. Rationality, Inquisitiveness, Introspection

Rationality, Inquisitiveness, Introspection

I mentioned before, that people, whose behavior is determined by their beliefs, scare me, because by getting close to them, I expose myself to the impact of their irrational behavior.
 

A different level of rationality as expressed by inquisitiveness has also consequences on how comfortable people can feel with each other when communicating and interacting.   

Many people feel discomfort, uneasiness and restless, when they are puzzled by a question, for which they cannot find or get an answer.   When the question concerns the reason for another person's behavior, this can cause serious disruptions, when the possible answers imply favorable and unfavorable hypotheses and the decision how to react.   

Many people feel discomfort, cornered, under pressure, when they are asked a question, to which they do not know the answer, because they had either been acting spontaneously by intuition, or it had never occurred to ask themselves this question.    (I am omitting the case, when someone lacks the trust to answer.)

Therefore the same kind of rationality, abstract and complex thinking adds to the compatibility of a couple and facilitates communication, in which both can feel comfortable.    The questions asked by one are questions, that have already occurred to the other as a part of self-monitoring and introspection,   The questions are experienced as logical and comprehensible, because both would ask the same questions under the same circumstances.

But when there are marked differences in rationality and abstract thinking, then new situations lead very often to one of them being doomed to feel uncomfortable.  
The more rational one has the choice between either making the other uncomfortable by asking questions and insisting to get answers, or refraining from asking questions and feeling uncomfortable himself due to the uncertainty of the situation.    

 

A simple example:

Choosing each other as mindmates is a reciprocal procedure.    I prefer to be chosen for who I am and not just tolerated as a substitute for what I am not.   
When a man contacts me, declaring himself in private correspondence as antagonistic to religion and to breeding, while in his profile he has indicated 'other religion' and 'undecided' about wanting children, then I automatically start to wonder, how to interpret this inconsistency.    

By one possible interpretation, the man is looking for and wanting to be accepted by a haphazard woman, who is attractive to him according to what is important only for him.    To keep all options open for himself, he avoids indicating non-religious and not wanting children.   Such clear statements may be perceived as red flags by religious breeding women, who would at least be willing to find out more, when the expressions are vague.    

Then in an even more unfavorable interpretation, the man has the option to pretend, whatever he considers to be most successful with any specific woman.    (Pretending to be, what the woman wants, is one of the tricks, which the PUAs, the pick-up-animals, are teaching each other.)

The suspicion to be contacted as a hazhazard woman and not because I am a childfree atheist causes me to feel uncomfortable.   I do not want to do the unjustice to suspect a decent man to be a PUAs, so I feel strongly inclined to become inquisitive.   

But when I ask questions, I risk to make the man uncomfortable, especially if he has never even thought about such interpretations, being just careless and unconcerned when filling out the profile.   Then he cannot understand, why the reply is important for me.    Whenever my questions make someone uncomfortable, this trggers him to recoil instead of exploring, how much common ground there is.  

 
While sharing rationality is a very valuable foundation for intellectual intimacy, onesided rationality with someone, who is not prepared for my inquisitiveness can create stumbling blocks instead.