quest


I am a woman of 64 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, September 30, 2011

409. Poor Men's Mental Trap

Poor Men's Mental Trap

I have been declaring before, that I feel more comfortable to share a frugal life based upon a basis of equality than I would as a woman under the expectations of what a wealthy man may feel entitled to get in return for the money spent on me.   

According to my own observations from correspondence, reading forums and blogs, I have come to the conclusion, that having money or not is in men's own perception and self-assessment the most important factor, to which they subjectively ascribe their failure or success with women.   This is independent of the role and purpose they want the woman for.   
Even the most stupid but wealthy men feel as if they were god's gift to women, while even the most intelligent and educated men feel as losers and disheartened, when they are poor.    There may be exceptions, but I still have not found him yet.  


I am not bothered about the stupid rich, but the disheartened intelligent and educated men's belief to be automatically unattractive to all women while poor is a real problem.   I am aware that they often do get rejected by stupid women, who value a man's money more than his person.    Unfortunately, when this happens too often to a man, especially someone sensitive, this has detrimental effects:  

1.   Withdrawal

He withdraws and gives up looking for a partner.   He could be my perfect mindmate, but if he does not search, if he has not even any profiles on any dating sites, we cannot find each other.     That is tragic, as much for him as for me.

2.   Trust

I found this today:
"In three separate experiments, researchers found that high-status people tended to trust people more in initial encounters than did people with lower status. One experiment showed why: high-status people rated others as more benevolent, which led them to trust more."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110928110012.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fscience_society+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Science+%26+Society+News%29

While the research was based on the general subjective self-attribution of the own status, I see a strong implication of this on the problem of poor men searching for a partner.    A poor men attributing his failure to find a partner to his lack of material resources is someone perceiving himself as a person of low status.

Trust is the basis of a relationship, without trust, a relationship is not viable but doomed to fail.   The process of growing trust as a result of behaving trustworthy and of reacting to perceived trustworthiness is a part of creating commitment.   Lacking trust, commitment is not a safe haven but a danger.  The man, who is unable to trust is also unable to commit.

But when a man with a subjectively low status is unable to trust in oblivion of the trustworthiness of a woman, he risks rejection or the failure of the relationship.    The real reasons are his lack of trust and commitment, but the man is mistaken to attribute the rejection again to his being poor.   This reinforces his subjective low status and his inability to trust even more.   He is in a vicious circle.   

3.   Asymmetry

But there is not only the asymmetry of trust, but also a more general asymmetry of reciprocal evaluation according to a different value system.     Even though a woman like me judges and treats a man by his education, morals and personality as her equal, due to his being brainwashed and guided by his bad experiences, he continues to consider his own social status as not sufficient for her because of his poverty.  
As a consequence, he is prone to react with disruptive psychological dynamics to this asymmetry, which exists only in his perception, while she is not even aware of it.   He projects his own self-attributed low status as if she would attribute it to him.   He misunderstands and misinterprets her as if she treats and considers him as someone of low status, and he does not accept critical feedback as an indication of the necessity to improve his behavior but as a devaluation.    

In short, he is caught in the mental trap of a vicious circle.   He does not see, that he can be rejected for many reasons, including the lack of trust, but also incompatible habits, differences in basic values, not enough shared interests and tastes.   There are many possible reasons, which are not just stupid women's greed.    
It is in his power to change bad habits, learn better communication, find out who really is a match and be more selective to avoid being rejected by the truly greedy women.   But by attributing every failure and rejection to lacking money, he is deprived of the chance to improve the real obstacles to find the happiness with a woman, who is not interested at all in his money.    

Thursday, September 29, 2011

408. Embarrassment And Conformity

Embarrassment And Conformity

In entry 151 I narrated my experience, when someone was making a fool of himself without feeling embarrassed at all.   

Today I read about an interesting research about embarrassment:
"Subjects who were more easily embarrassed reported higher levels of monogamy, according to the study.

"Moderate levels of embarrassment are signs of virtue," said Matthew Feinberg"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110928180418.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fscience_society+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Science+%26+Society+News%29
   
But embarrassment is too vague a concept.   Its real complexity needs to be analyzed further, especially concerning the difference between conformists' and non-conformists' embarrassment.    Conformists are guided by the expectations of the surrounding social environment, while non-conformists are guided by their own values, attitudes and standards.    As they compare the actual behavior with different ideals, they logically also experience very different behaviors as either appropriate or a transgression.  
  1. Embarrassment can be triggered either explicitly by behavior like bad manners or implicitly by an attitude, value or trait, that is hidden but can be revealed by observable behavior.   Sometimes observed behavior leads to the wrong appearance of embarrassing attitudes or traits, that are not real.   
  2. Embarrassment can be a consequence of either not complying with the expectations of others or of acting in contradiction to the own standards and attitudes.    Both can be either congruent or mutually exclusive.    Conformists and non-conformists feel embarrassed for very different reasons.   
  3. Conformists feel embarrassed when they appear to fail conforming.   Non-conformists feel embarrassed, when they are not correctly represented and perceived according to their own standards, they feel more embarrassed when they wrongly appear to conform than when they are perceived as behaving according to their own true standards and personality.  
  4. Embarrassment can be either direct or indirect, it can be triggered either by the own behavior or by being in some personal connection with the misbehaving person.  
  5. Embarrassment depends on the importance of the person witnessing the behavior.

A few examples.  

For a minimally cultured and sane person in western societies, burping is considered bad manners and a person burping accidentally feels embarrassed.    Basic manners are not a question of conformity.   In this case the expectations of others and the own standard of behavior are congruent.    A person burping without feeling embarrassed is considered as at least weird if not deviant.   
In our western societies, it is normal to eat using both hands.
There are cultures, where burping is considered as neutral or even good manners expressing appreciation of a meal. 
There are cultures, where only the right hand is suitable for eating, touching food with the left hand is considered bad behavior.     
Most western people would still feel inhibitions to burp, even as guests in a burping society they would still perceive this as embarrassing behavior.   
Would they be informed guests in the country with the left hand eating taboo, and they would forget themselves and accidentally use their left hand eating, they would not feel embarrassed by the blunder of using the left hand.   But they would feel embarrassed for the implicit rudeness of being inconsiderate.    
But the embarrassment of accidentally eating with the left hand as rude is restricted to the situation of being a guest with estimated people.   If instead eating with the left hand on a bench in the park, the strangers passing by are not important enough to feel embarrassed.

With attitudes, that are incongruent with the expectations of the majority, the situation is different.   For a non-believer in a christian society, there are variations of what triggers embarrassment.  
- The non-conforming self-confident atheist considers religion as stupidity and mental illness and reading religious books like the bible as a foolish waste of time.    As far as he is concerned about another person's judgement, he would feel embarrassed if seen with the bible in his hand, because he does not like to appear so stupid according to his own judgement, no matter what the other thinks about reading the bible.  
- The non-believer, who wants to conform, who has been brainwashed enough by his christian upbringing to feel deficient and flawed for his inability to believe, feels embarrassed, if he gets caught reading atheistic books.

In the hypothetical situation, that an atheist walks into a library to look for some quote in the bible, obviously the opinion of complete strangers should be irrelevant, even if they would mistake him for a christian.   A well known acquaintance is also not such a problem, because it is easy to correct a wrong impression by declaring the own atheism and reason for consulting a book as weird as the bible.   
Most embarrassing is the situation with those people, on whom one wishes to make a good impression.    Wanting to be respected by the librarian, who may be a fellow atheist, but being probably despised as an alleged christian would cause a lot of embarrassment.  

In a relationship the partner's stupidity is an indirect reason to feel embarrassed, the stupidity of being religious is just an example.   Getting involved with a stupid person means not to have chosen a sufficiently suitable equal partner but having sunk beneath the own standards and that is an act of own stupidity and a reason for embarrassment.   
When an atheistic man gets involved with a woman in spite of her stupidity of believing in a deity, the man usually does this due to his using her body as his compensation.    But a woman has no reason to ever get involved with a man, whose stupidity would cause her embarrassment.       

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

407. Promiscuity Is The Real Cause Of Romance Scams

Promiscuity Is The Real Cause Of Romance Scams
"New online research led by the University of Leicester reveals that over 200,000 people living in Britain may have fallen victim to online romance scams"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110927192347.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fscience_society+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Science+%26+Society+News%29

I claim, that the success of online romance scams is caused by the difference between what is available and what men are looking for driven by their instincts.    Male animal instincts and promiscuity are the cause of the scammers' success.    If the same portion of women as of men would want or accept flings instead of commitment, if there were an equilibrium of both genders looking for the same kind of relationships, there were no successful scammers.  

The basic of market economy is the simple fact, that the more something is scarce, the more people are willing to pay for it.  Nobody would pay for what is free and plentiful.  By their innate animal instincts, men have a much higher need for sexual homeostasis by using indiscriminately any haphazard female body than what is available for free.    
Therefore men can get sexual homeostation by force, manipulation or earn it, but it is not freely available.    They can 'buy' homeostation by giving a decent woman what she wants, monogamy, commitment, reliability.   They can otherwise buy homeostation by paying money.   Men with enough money and/or who are lacking the qualities to be accepted by a monogamous women prefer to just buy homoestation by money.   The flourishing markets of prostitution and pornography provide ample evidence of this.    If women were as promiscuous by instinct as are most men, there were no market.  

Unfortunately the tolerance and even positive general acceptance of promiscuity blurs the fact, that it is a man's problem, which is detrimental to women.     But the media responsible for the brainwashing of people are usually dominated by men.  Often they are influential enough to brainwash even women to lose all awarenes of what is beneficial and what is detrimental for themselves.  
Men's affliction to need sexual homeostasis is bad enough as it is by causing urges.   But the oversexation and growing tolerance and condoning of promiscuity in many modern societies has done a lot of damage even to men themselves, who deprive themselves of what would be most beneficial for them long-term.  I described this in entry 404 about men's marshmallow test.    
Many men, who are ignorant of evolutionary biology, have been brainwashed to believe the myth, that women are only repressed from being as promiscuous as men.    Instead of earning homeostation by self-control and monogamy, they annoy decent women with their attempts to use their bodies and then they are surprised to get rejected.    The tragedy of this myth is that the men, who project their own promiscuity upon women, are deprived of the awareness of the emotional damage of promiscuity upon monogamous women.    The women, who are brainwashed by this myth, are even more pathetic, because until they know better by experience, they reinforce men's belief in this myth.   


1.  Men as targets.

Scammers are taking advantage of this market situation.  Their male bait are bodies of women, that make the targets drool over their pictures.   The targets are made not only to believe to be able to buy the gratitude of the bait, but also to buy more control over her than they can expect to gain over women from their own country.   

2.  Women as targets.  

Being a woman, I myself have been either contacted by hundreds of scammers or have seen their profiles.   The scammers' baits are the fiction of monogamous, committing men, who have the morals and self-control not to be promiscuous.   Their targets are especially elderly lonely women, whom they expect to be most prone to have money and to be of a generation less tolerant to the uncommitted use of women's bodies.   
I know, how to recognize them, mainly because they are lacking the intellectual capacities of mature university educated men and because their fiction is created to attract their more typical targets, who are religious breeders.     
Those many men, who are brainwashed to believe in the myth of female promiscuity, express in their profiles not only, that they are looking for a long term relationship, but also their wish or willingness to have flings, non-strings-attached fun, friends with benefits and such.    They are ignorant, that this way they are repulsive to decent women and drive them to prefer the scammers.   The targets get attracted by the bait of the profiles of those fictitious monogamous men, who seem to be the rare pearls in the gutter of promiscuity.   Tragically they are scammers instead.   

In entry 101 I already declared promiscuity as a scourge of humanity.   Male promiscuity and the male delusion of female promiscuity are also enabling the romance scams.  That is one more reason to call it a scourge.            

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

406. A Funny Freudian Slip

A Funny Freudian Slip

A mare is a female horse.   And what is more logical, than that studs are looking for mares, if not consciously, then subconsciously? 
I recently discovered a very funny typo in a man's profile.   He declared, that he were looking for a soul MARE.   
 

Monday, September 26, 2011

405. A Historical Day In My Garden

A Historical Day In My Garden

Nearly 20 years ago I planted a fig tree in my garden.    It survived the coldest German winters, and for at least a decade, every year in december a dozen or so of never ripe figs fell to the ground.  

Today I harvested the first three ripe figs.     



  


404. Men's Marshmallow Test

Men's Marshmallow Test

The marshmallow test was developed for researching children's delayed gratification.   
There is one marshmallow on a plate available to be eaten at any time.  Children are sitting at a table looking at the marshmallow.   They are told that if they postpone eating the marshmallow for a certain predefined time, they will be rewarded by getting a second marshmallow.  

Due to their animal instincts, men's lives are a kind of a marshmallow test, in which homeostation is the marshmallow.  
The weak instinct driven fools indiscriminately use every female body, over which they gain temporary control.  They get superficial satisfaction from promiscuity in their never ending recurrent hunt for another prey.   
The wise, mature, and intelligent men know the value of monogamy.  By refraining from using bodies and instead carefully choosing a companion, they not only get a long-term subscription for sexual homeostasis, but addisionally they also earn the reward of the non-physical joy of emotional and intellectual intimacy.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

403. The Comfort Zone, Mutual Adapting And Compatibility

The Comfort Zone, Mutual Adapting And Compatibility

Someone commented on entry 350, where I described a man's beard as an expression of naturalness.    This instigates me to clarify the difference between compatible mutual adapting and incompatibility. 

There are two principles as the basis of a relationship:
  • The importance of accepting the other as is, without any attempts or demands to change him or her.
  • The importance to be reciprocally as attractive as possible, in all aspects, emotionally, intellectually and physically.   That means, attractive according to the perception and the taste of the other.     
Therefore adapting to the other is an active process based upon the motivation to be knowledgeably beneficial for and attractive to the other.   It is voluntarily, by free will and own decision.    Adapting to the other is an expression of appreciation, affection and caring.  
If one or both partners refuse to adapt and/or demand the other to change, the relationship is doomed to fail.   This happens often, when a couple's initial infatuation wears off and they discover to be mismatched. 

Compatibility of a couple means, that reciprocal adaptations are both, sufficiently beneficial or pleasing to satisfy the other's needs and still entirely inside the comfort zone.   
A couple is incompatible and should not get involved, whenever either the adaptations are painful sacrifices for one or the lacking adaptation is painful for the other.                 

A man's beard as an expression of naturalness is a good example to illustrate the difference, even though it seems a trifle.
  
Some men
  1. have beards because naturalness is a part of their personality.
  2. are temporarily shaving for whatever external reasons, but it is inside their comfort zone to allow their beards to grow.
  3. experience having a beard as unpleasant.   It is outside their comfort zone.   This strong wish for self-modification indicates, that they identify too much with their body.   There is more superficial vanity than naturalness, if there is any.       

A woman like me, who values naturalness very much, considers a bearded man as compatible.  She feels appreciated and valued, when a man adapts by growing a beard to please her, but only, if this is in his comfort zone and not a sacrifice of his own comfort.    Because physical intimacy requires, that both partners are in their comfort zone.  This goes both ways, by what each perceives as attraction and by meeting the partner's taste and expectations.  
But if a man feels an urge to shave and a beard is not in his comfort zone, then we are not compatible, because there is no shared comfort zone.    By his choice to be clean shaven he is making himself deliberately repulsive to me so that he can feel comfortable.   The fact, that it is his choice and decision, impedes the physical attraction, that would enable intimacy.     
A man, who wants sexual homeostasis from a woman is foolish, if he makes himself repulsive or if he chooses a woman, who perceives him as repulsive by what makes him feel comfortable.   And if he thinks to be entitled by considering himself as god's gift to all women, or if he thinks to be able to compensate by spending money on her, he is even more a fool.    But if he would grow a beard and feel uncomfortable, this would be equally disruptive.    A healthy relationship requires both partners sharing a common comfort zone of behavior.

The beard is of course just an example for a very important general problem.  It seems to be a tiny trifle by itself.  But as often, it has a huge significance as an indicator of a personality trait.   In the case of the beard, it is the fundamental difference between naturalness and physical vanity, and this is not a trifle.  

Before getting involved, every couple should carefully find out, what mutual adaptations they need and if all necessary adaptations are possible inside the comfort zone of both partners.  

Friday, September 23, 2011

402. Justice By Coincidence

Justice By Coincidence

Religious people believe in a higher power sometimes doing justice.   As a non-believer, I certainly disagree.   But sometimes justice happens by coincidence.     The following is an example.  

One of my neighbors had a job with a cleaning company.   In the year 2000, before the €uro, she got paid 10 DM per hour (1 €uro = 1.96 DM).   After the deduction of taxes, health and pension insurance, I estimate that what was paid to her was about 1200 DM per month, barely enough to survive.      

She worked hard for outrageously low wages and the owner of the company got rich from her and her colleagues' hard labor.   He was able to afford for himself and his wife a luxury vacation in the Caribbean, which according to a web page was available for a minimum price per person of 11.000 DM and upwards. 

They paid for the vacation, but they never got there.    They travelled in the Concorde, the air plane that crashed in Paris in the summer of 2000.    It was a tragic accident, and nobody deserves such a horrible death.  
But these people have brought it upon themselves with their cruel and ruthless greed of exploiting the hard working cleaners.   Had they paid decent wages and lived more modestly, they most probably would still be alive. 

Thursday, September 22, 2011

401. Monogamy And Intelligence - 2

Monogamy And Intelligence - 2

In entry 399, I have already quoted 
"Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, said the smarter a man is, the less likely he is to cheat on his partner."

Looking at it by considering the stimulation of the pleasure center in the brain (entries 388 and 389), this makes sense and can be easily explained.  

My age cohort here in Germany was about equally divided at the age of around 10 by their subsequent schooling in one of three groups.  
Group H:  About one third went to high education leading to university.
Group M:  About one third went to a middle level of education of ten years of schooling      
Group L:   About one third went to the lowest level of education of eight years of schooling

To show the contrast, I am comparing, what happens in the pleasure center of two prototypes, one is ManH from group H, and the other is ManL from group L.   

ManL leaves school at the age of 14.  He then either starts manual labor or learns a craft or trade.   In his short time of schooling, he learns basic skills, but it does not prepare him for the enjoyment of intellectual activities.   
He spends his leisure time with sports, drinking with his buddies, watching superficial stuff on TV.   He is inclined to compete with others to buy status symbols like a fancy car.   He may even work over time to be able to afford this, therefore he may also be too tired to ever be interested in anything intellectually challenging.    Lacking any intellectual accomplishments, for such a man his body and its instinctive use is his major source for self-esteem.   
In short, besides food, sexuality is the biggest stimulus for his pleasure center in his else rather dull life, because there is nothing else available.   Logically he easily gets infatuated with a woman and often he marries her, who is not any more educated than him.   She lives a different life interested in children, cooking, household and fashion.   
When the infatuation wears off, she turns to her offspring, the man starts to get less stimulation from being with her, and his instincts trigger his relapse into the promiscuous predator cheating whenever he has the occasion.     Alcohol may contribute to this.

ManH is very different, because he has some or many intellectual interests, that are at least as strong a stimulation for his pleasure center as are physical stimuli like food and sexual homeostation.   Therefore logically, any one of many possible stimuli is by far not as important, when there are many others to focus upon and compensate with.   When infatuation with his chosen companion wears off, ManH does not loose his most satisfying and major stimulation of his pleasure center, there is so much else to enjoy.    There are many shared cultural and intellectual activities, which are enough so that he can continue to be happily bonded in a monogamous relationship and not feel deprived of the thrill of the initial infatuation.   
I once heard a scientist talk about, how he could not even stop thinking about his research while being intimate with a woman.    Not knowing anything more about the circumstances, I cannot judge him, even though being the counterpart in this situation is certainly a reason for a woman to feel abused and humiliated.    But it is also a good sign, because it shows, that there are men, who can be more interested in intellectual joys than driven by instincts and they have no reason to cheat.   
Of course I prefer to find someone, whose preferred intellectual joys are those shared with a mindmate, and not his work excluding her.  
  
Therefore I am not only looking for an intelligent, educated and intellectual man to have enough shared interests to create intellectual intimacy, but also, because he can appreciate being with me for many reasons other than my body and he will be less prone to chase other women.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

400. Meta Thoughts And Considerations

Meta Thoughts And Considerations

This is entry 400.    This is the moment for a few general remarks concerning this blog.

1.  I had expected that the more I write about a variety of topics, the more this blog would be found in a wider variety of google searches.   I was hoping that this would lead to an increasing number of page views, until my mindmate to be found would stumble upon this blog.  
I always felt, that whatever I want, I have to make efforts to earh it.  There are moments, that I have the illusion, that by writing blog entries, I could earn a relationship as a reward.    I know that it is not true, but this illusion is a strong force motivating me to keep on writing.    I am writing against the nightmare of spending the rest of my life alone.   
 
Blogger allows to see the number of page views and the facts are disheartening: 
  • In August 2010, there were 418 page views. 
    By August 31 of 2010 I had written 62 entries.  
  • In August 2011, there were 594 page views. 
    By August 31 of 2011 I had 384 entries.  
  • Page views had increased to 142%, but the number of my entries to 619%.  

2.   I need support and help from anybody of those, who do stumble upon this blog.   If you like, what I have written, and if you have any webpage or blog of your own, please mention this blog and link to it.   My mindmate is out there somewhere.   I need some publicity to help him find me.  Thanks.      

3.  If someone would read this entire blog, this would probably take more than two days.   I am not the world's guru or teacher, and I do not think that anybody stumbling upon this blog has a reason to read a lot of it.  
But this blog is a form of a mindmate test.   As far as the sites allow it, I have added the link to this blog to my profiles on dating sites and whenever I get in contact with someone, I suggest reading it.    
If someone asks me to send pictures, but is not interested in reading my thoughts, this tells me, that he is just another instinct driven animal hunting for a female body.   But if this blog catches someone's interest, and he reads it as a way of getting to know the essence of my person, then this is a good indication, that he is really interested in a relationship based on intellectual intimacy as an important part.  

4.  This blog represents thoughts in progress.   There are redundancies, as I sometimes forget, what I have already been writing about before.    There are also sometimes inconsistencies, when further thinking about some topics has made me see or express things more clearly or in more details.    I wished I would get more feedback.   

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

399. Monogamy And Intelligence - 1

Monogamy And Intelligence - 1

In a previous entry I already mentioned the importance of finding a mindmate on the same level of intelligence as myself.   Because I do not want to dumb down, nor do I want someone to dumb down based upon the delusion, that he is superior, because he cannot understand me.   I am looking for a relationship of two intellectually equal partners.

But there is also another aspect.  I am looking for a man, whose intelligence is sufficient to enable him to be absolutely monogamous. 

I found an interesting article titled

"Why you'd be stupid to cheat on your wife: Unfaithful men have lower IQs, say scientists"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254420/Men-cheat-wives-intelligent-faithful-husbands.html

Some quotes:

"Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, said the smarter a man is, the less likely he is to cheat on his partner."

"Dr Kanazawa explained that entering a sexually exclusive relationship is an 'evolutionarily novel' development for them.

According to his theory, intelligent people are more likely to adopt what in evolutionary terms are new practices  -  to become 'more evolved'.

Therefore, in the case of fidelity, men who cannot adapt and end up succumbing to temptation and cheating are likely to be more stupid."


"Analysing the American National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, he found young adults who regarded themselves as 'very liberal' had an average IQ of 106, while those who saw themselves as 'very conservative' had an average IQ of 95."

"Similarly, those who identified themselves as 'not at all religious' had an average IQ of 103, while those who saw themselves as 'very religious' had an average IQ of 97"

Monday, September 19, 2011

398. Fidelity Assessment?

Fidelity Assessment?

I found several articles describing innate physiological differences between men more or less prone to cheat.  

One of the differences can be observed by brain scans:  
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/soapbox/article/-/7274760/what-are-the-signs-of-a-cheater/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-amen-md/why-men-cheat_b_872564.html

The second differences are attributed to a combination of the sexual excitation proneness and sexual inhibition proneness:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/sexual-infidelity-dependent-on-personality_n_913800.html

I am convinced that with some more research, methods can be developed for the purpose of measuring these differences.    As soon as these methods are reliable enough, they can then be used to predict the probability of a man's infidelity.  

Marriage is a risk.   To the pain of losing the trust and bond of a relationship due to cheating are added the high costs and delay of the court procedure in the case of a divorce.   This risk could be reduced by demanding men to undergo the fidelity assessment as a condition for marriage.  

397. Recognizing Or Condoning Reality

Recognizing Or Condoning Reality

Corresponding with someone I expressed my outrage and frustration about some instances of injustice and exploitation.    He replied with the suggestion, that I should be realistic and see things as they are.   

But I did disagree with his contrasting attitude and realism.   Perceiving clearly, what is reality, does not determine, how to evaluate reality in comparison with a personal value system.   Being in the situation of participating by receiving advantages without having a choice makes me neither responsible nor guilty.   It is reality, I am aware of, and there is nothing that I can do about it.   Denial does not change the reality, only the awareness thereof.    This includes also the denial of the consequences of reality on others.

I personally would consider it as a form of moral bankruptcy, if I would condone or consider as justifiable any fate of the victims, only because it cannot be changed or because I cannot change it.   Even when I am completely powerless to change things, at least I have to keep up my own standards of evaluating, what is right and what is wrong. 

The best example is consumption of food and other consumer goods in the time of globalization.   A lot of what is sold in supermarkets comes from poor countries, where the prices and wages for those doing the labor are so low, that their basic necessities of life like clean water, healthy food etc. are not met and they live in a misery, that is outrageous.   
Those persons with economical and political power, who decide this, are out of my reach or influence.   Donations are no solution, the outrage is that people are deprived of what they have rightfully earned, and alms instead are adding an insult to the injustice, if they even reach those, who are exploited.
  
There is nothing that I can do.   Boycotting most everything sold as food or consumer goods would get me into malnutrition and would not change the situation.   But the denial of the injustice would make me feel ashamed of myself, because then I would be in league with those, who are guilty of the exploitation.  

Friday, September 16, 2011

396. What If Romeo And Juliet Had Lived?

What If Romeo And Juliet Had Lived?
 
Scenario: A priest marries a girl of not yet 14 years of age with a boy only slightly older, without the knowledge of the parents.    Both have known each other for about a day.
Seen from today's perspective, it would be preposterous, except the consequences being too serious, so it is more an irresponsible madness. 
The priest should be adult and mature enough to know better than to marry two children, who are too immature to know the difference between loving a person and being infatuated by a body.    Probably the priest was stupid and immature himself.   Otherwise he would have chosen a more rational career than that of spreading a public delusion.

Yet this story is supposed to be the most romantic love story in literature, and countless people consider Romeo and Juliet as the prototype of a loving couple.   But it is only the tragic end, that did set their union and story apart as special.  

Had they survived, they would have ended like so many other couples with a similar social background of belonging to the nobility in the Italy of the 16th century.     There and also in the England of 1593 to 1596, when Skakespeare wrote the play, maturity seemed to be considered as the physical and educational fitness to fulfill very disparate gender roles.  

A boy's like Romeo's education focused primarily upon sportive fitness in every discipline serving his role as a fighting man, especially sword fencing, riding and being knowledgeable about horses, and secondary upon his role as a member of the ruling class.   
A girl's like Juliet's education focused upon preparing her for her role as an attractive possession of a man, a breeding womb and a refined organizer of a household.  
The only thing both genders of their class were taught was instruction to follow their religion, to dance, to sing, to play music and to write or recite poetry.   All of this was not enough to keep a couple interested in each other for a long time, if they were brought together merely by infatuation.  

Romeo was exiled to Mantova, where he could have received enough money from his parents to enable Juliet and himself the same luxury life as they had been used to in Verona.  But had Romeo taken Juliet to Mantova, the romance would not have lasted, their infatuation would have faded like it always does, if there is nothing deeper.   They would have drifted apart for having nothing to talk about, getting bored with each other's company.   When Julia got the first of a dozen children, she would have turned her affection and attention to the children, probably she would had grown obese too.  Romeo would have gone back to a world of leisure with his buddies and sooner or later would have cheated on Juliet with the servant girls.   

In entry 301, I commented on Shakespeare's other play: 'The Taming Of The Shrew'.    It is set in the same culture and time as Romeo and Juliet.   The jerk mistreating Kathrina had the typical attitude towards woman as had most men of his times, he was in addition also extremely cruel and inconsiderate.   But even a considerate and caring Romeo was certainly not able to consider Juliet as an equal partner.    On a more subtle level, Juliet and Romeo would have encountered similar conflicts as there were between Kathrina and Petruccio.  

Thursday, September 15, 2011

395. Is This As Weird As It Can Get?

Is This As Weird As It Can Get?

I am an atheist and I am already well aware, that once people are driven by a delusion like the one of the existence of a deity, there is nothing crazy, that is beyond their scope of possible behavior.  

But what I just stumbled upon is remarkable:
In 897, a trial was held over a pope's corpse exterred eight months after his death.

 
In 1868/9, Robert Browning wrote a long poem, "The Ring And The Book" , which includes a description of the event:
“And at the word, the great door of the church
“Flew wide, and in they brought Formosus’ self,
“The body of him, dead, even as embalmed
“And buried duly in the Vatican
“Eight months before, exhumed thus for the nonce.
“They set it, that dead body of a Pope,
“Clothed in pontific vesture now again,
“Upright on Peter’s chair as if alive.
“Then, swallowed up in rage, Stephen exclaimed
“‘So, guilty! So, remains I punish guilt!
“‘Strip me yon miscreant of those robes usurped,
“‘And clothe him with vile serge befitting such!
“‘Then hale the carrion to the market-place;
“‘Let the town-hangman chop from his right hand
“‘Those same three fingers which he blessed withal;
“‘Next cut the head off, once was crowned forsooth:
“‘And last go fling all, fingers, head and trunk,
“‘In Tiber that my Christian fish may sup!’

“So said, so done: himself, to see it done,
“Following the corpse, they trailed from street to street
“Till into Tiber wave they threw the thing.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/browning/robert/ring/book10.html

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

394. Geographical Distance Is Easier To Overcome Than Mental Distance

Geographical Distance Is Easier To Overcome Than Mental Distance
Persons of both genders with the qualities of what defines my mindmate are equally rare.    A man looking for someone like me has certainly the same difficulties as myself to find someone really compatible.   

In the times of air travel, emails, Skye and at the age of retirement, to me it is logical, that geographical distance is easier to overcome than mental distance.    A childfree atheist at the other side of the globe is more suitable than the religious breeder next door.  

Following this logic, men of my kind have the same reasons as myself to enlarge their search to the entire globe.   But whenever I discover someone's profile on a dating site, which fits my major search criteria, and who seems to look for someone like me, I do take the initiative of contacting him, but then I get rejected for being too far away.  

When two mature, monogamous, non-promiscuous persons crave only for bonded close commitment, their needs are symmetrical.   
But the stronger a man's additional physiological needs for maintaining sexual homeostasis, the more the situation is asymmetrical, when compromising and accepting not fully suitable partners.   
Even when a man's and a woman's behavior appear superficially to be the same, accepting someone only partially incompatible has very different emotional consequences.  

For a man, the lack of quality of a women is compensated by the use of her body for his homeostasis, and he often is not really bothered about this.   An atheist man can consider a christian woman as an idiot, but this does not impede him to get homeostasis from her body.
This is different for a woman.   Allowing a man to use her body, even though he is not good enough for mutual respect and appreciation, has no benefits for her, but damages her dignity.   An atheist woman, who considers as christian man as an idiot, has disdain instead of respect for him.  Therefore being with him cannot fulfill her need of emotional and intellectual intimacy, which requires the equality of shared values.

Therefore unfortunately men are more prone to compromise with haphazard but easily available women, while a woman with self-respect is more motivated to search for someone suitable, not matter how far away.   

Saturday, September 10, 2011

393. Alexithymia

Alexithymia

In entry 390 I speculated, that a man, who does not feel any affection for his partner when passively in his presence, even though his pleasure center is responsive to direct stimulation by the infatuation with her body, could have some form of what I called 'emotional anhedonia'.   

In entry 391 I defined a jerk as someone, who perceives and treats a woman as a commodity, causing her a lot of suffering due to his not feeling affection for her, and who is also afflicted with the narcissistic entitlement and grandiosity delusion, which makes him unable to acknowledge his own attitude and treatment as inappropriate.

After some googling, I discovered the concept of alexithymia as a personality trait.   If someone with alexithymia would develop reactive narcissism as a form of comorbidity, his behavior could be experienced by his victim the same way as in my suggested 'emotional anhedonia', but for very different underlying reasons.

Simplified, alexithymia means limitations to the ability to understand, describe and interpret the own and other persons' emotions.   

A conscious psychopathic jerk, who decides to enter a friends with benefits relationship, which is based upon nothing more than infatuation with her body, lacks affection.  There is no bonded commitment with someone, who is considered as insignificant, who is not trusted, not respected, who is not expected to meet emotional or intellectual needs.    The conscious jerk knows, that he does not love but use the woman.
  
The alexithymic jerk is different.   He can be in a relationship, which is a mismatch, but he is oblivious of this.  He treats the woman as a commodity, but he confounds it with love.  He subjectively may even believe her to be the love of his life, because he is unable to distinguish between infatuation and caring love.  
He treats her in accordance to what he does not feel, as merely a friend with benefits.   His treatment represents his true attitude.     Were he to meet the woman, whom he would experience as someone worthy to respect, to trust, to share emotional and intellectual intimacy with, he would consciously experience the same kind of love, but he would treat her much better, his behavior determined by affection and care.    
As a result of the same confusion, he also cannot understand her expressions of affection any better than his own emotions, nor what she expects from him but misses.  

Therefore he is oblivious and unable to comprehend, why and how she experiences his treatment as a humiliation.   To her, he is a jerk, because he does not take responsibility for her pain.


It is a sad pattern, when a man has some kind of personal problem, no matter if it is by naming just a few examples, alexithymia, asperger's, ODD, ADD, NLD.   With the support of a caring partner, coping with the problem would be a shared task.   
Instead he reacts with narcissism and becomes a jerk, who considers himself as god's gift to every woman.   He hurts her, he dislikes her reaction to the pain, and he blames her to be the one with a personal problem.    It is a sad pattern, that someone in need of a partner's support is locked behind a wall of a delusion that deprives him of what he needs.


Alexithymia could also be a relapse to earlier stages of evolution, as I speculated about hedonists in entry 390.    In those past epochs, when higher emotions like affection and the attraction of bonded monogamy had not yet evolved, men procreated purely by physical infatuation with the body of a woman and they were very successful in multiplying the human species.   But the price for this was paid by the suffering of the women, who were used predominantly as breeding bodies.   
Many of today's jerks would have been successful cave men.   

392. Additional Thoughts About Defining Jerks

Additional Thoughts About Defining Jerks

Entry 391 may be a bit misleading in that what I meant as defining as a specific kind of a jerk could appear as if I consider this as the only kind of a jerk. 

So here is the more general definition:


A jerk is a man,
  • whose behavior or attitude causes a woman harm, pain, discomfort, annoyance
  • who does not improve his behavior in spite of getting feedback


Personally, I am not worried about those jerks, who are capable to understand, what an individual woman wants and who take it for serious in the choice of their victim.   They read my profile and/or this blog and they know that they better keep away from me, because I am clearly not the type of a woman to be easy prey.  

But I am worried about those jerks,
  • who do not take for serious, what a woman wants, no matter how explicitly she declares it, and who sometimes are not even bothered to read it
    or
  • who do not understand clear and unequivocal statements in my blog or profiles
and
  • who are sincerely convinced to offer me what I want and to be able to give me, what I need.
These jerks do have a serious problem, either of lacking intelligence or some serious personality problem.   
When they are unaware or in denial of their problem, and the problem is not immediately obvious, then they are a hazard to me.  

Thursday, September 8, 2011

391. The Definition Of A Jerk

391.  The Definition Of A Jerk

A jerk is a man,
  • whose behavior or attitude causes a woman harm, pain, discomfort, annoyance
  • who does this because he has some serious personality problem
  • who is in denial, that he has such a problem
  • who reacts with defiance to feedback about his behavior
  • who attributes the woman's disapproval of and reaction to his behavior as her problem

A man is not a jerk,
  • who takes responsibility for harm, pain, discomfort and annoyance caused by him
  • who is realistic about his own personality problems
  • who acknowledges to need the support of a partner
  • who is motivated to find out from her, how the woman needs to be treated
  • who follows her advice and guidance when needed  

If a man experiences failure due to his personal problems and reacts as compensation with the narcissistic entitlement and grandiosity delusion, then a woman experiences him as a jerk, no matter how miserable he feels himself.    A relationship with such a jerk is toxic for a woman, and there is nothing, that she can do to improve the situation.   His narcissistic strategy enables him to reduce his own sufferings by making the woman suffer instead.   As long as he can reduce his own pain by this method, he has no motivation to change himself.      His reactive narcissism is a logical relief for him, but a deterrent for a bonded relationship.    Having compassion for a jerk is not a reason to expose oneself to toxic behavior. 

Fixing someone is certainly not a role that would attract me to a relationship.    But being the victim of a jerk in a toxic relationship is even worse.   Therefore I am willing to support someone, who wants to fix himself as his contribution to prevent hurting me.    
But I think, that men in my age group should have learned their lesson and have grown mature.   Who at this age is still a jerk will most probably die as a jerk.    Unfortunately many of those jerks, who have not learned how to treat a woman, have learned during a lifetime to hide their troubles and their being jerks.    
The real issue is not so much to offer my support to who would want and need it, but to spot the red flags and avoid the hidden jerks in the disguise of a mindmate.   

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

390. The Emotional Anhedonia Of Jerks

The Emotional Anhedonia Of Jerks

This continues entry 389, where I defined hedonists as persons, whose pleasure center is more or less insensitive and imperceptive to emotional and non-physical stimulation.   
One of the emotions, that hedonists are deprived of, is feeling affection.  Affection is the stimulation of the pleasure center by the mere inactive presence of a significant and valued other person, even while this person does nothing beneficial and is at this moment not physically stimulating to the pleasure center.  
Affection between a couple logically leads to the wish to be together, because this causes good feelings.    Affection is an important part of caring love, affection causes a couple to feel bonded and to enhance this feeling reciprocally.   
Commitment means to be bound by certain obligations like sharing decisions and being reliably and predictable there for the other.   Affection causes a partner to be bound by intrinsic commitment.   When feeling intrinsic commitment like affection as a positive stimulation for the pleasure center, then what otherwise would be defined as even burdensome obligations, is instead experienced as a natural own wish to express love, care and affection.  


As long as I made the mistake of projecting on men my own innate reaction, that getting physically involved automatically creates affection, bonding and commitment, I have been puzzled, why and how it is possible, that so many men are jerks, who ruthlessly use a woman as a commodity without feeling guilty.   

By now I have come to the conclusion, that the core problem is their inability to feel affection for a partner.   What I called bonding disability before, it is the lack of feeling connected by affection, in spite of getting sporadic or recurrent benefits in the form of physical pleasure from her.    While affection motivates a couple to care reciprocally for their emotional and physical wellbeing, without affection there is onesided exploitation and abuse.    
Unfortunately for the woman, in the beginning of a relationship, before both partners know each other well enough, the behavior of a man driven by strong sexual dishomeostasis to gain access to the woman's body shows behaviors, that are easily confounded with affection.     Once he has succeeded and is in a state of temporary homeostasis, the truth becomes obvious.    The bonded man continues to express affection, the man in control over a source of benefits seizes the behaviors, that had appeared as affection, because he has reached his goal.  


Anhedonia is described as a symptom of several clinical disorders, when there is a general insensitivity to feeling pleasure in spite of the presence of stimuli.   But I did not find any information about any form of innate anhedonia as a personality trait, which is only partial and limited to non-physical stimulation.    So this is my speculation:  There exists an innate emotional anhedonia, which includes an inability to feed affection, and which as a consequence makes instinct driven men use women's bodies without commitment.   

Emotional anhedonia deprives hedonists of the ability to experience affection both as a motivation for the own behavior and also when expressed by the partner.    This does not only cause the hedonist to perceive a woman as a commodity, it also deprives the hedonist from the major information input about what to expect concerning the partner's motivation to remain with him.   The hedonist cannot calculate the probability of her staying with him by the information from her expression of love and affection, because he is mindblind to perceive them as such.    
Therefore unfortunately for the woman, the hedonist, who gets benefits from her as from a commodity, knows only one method to ascertain her future availability.   This method is  domination by power and control over her. 


Hedonists are not automatically jerks.   As long as hedonists are aware of their limitations, they can choose fellow hedonists as partners.    Hedonists can be realistic and rational and accept the principle of earning and of a fair balance of giving and receiving.    A hedonist can agree upon extrinsic commitment.   He can get from a woman all the physical pleasure that his infatuation enables him to perceive, and he can decide to give her in return, whatever she asks as a fair deal.  

But when a hedonist gains domination and control over an epicurean victim, who does not get, what she needs and wants, then he becomes a jerk and a hazard for her.   Therefore jerks are hedonists with a victim.   

There are variations of the dynamics, why a woman perceives a hedonist as a jerk due to his treatment of her. 
  1. The emotional moron is simply oblivious that she suffers from the restricted and humiliating role in his life, because he projects and believes to give her the same as he wants and gets.    In the latency times between the homeostations of his needs, the woman is of no interest to him.   He calls it his personal space and is willing to allow her the same.    He is not aware that her affection for him causes her the wish to share more than he wants.
  2. The psychopath knows, that she suffers from the restricted and humiliating role in his life, but he has not conscience and is as unable to feel guilty as he is to feel affection.
  3. The narcissist also feels no affection for her and considers her as a commodity for his physical needs.    But he also feels a primitive non-physical dishomeostasis in his need of narcissistic supply.   When he does notice her behaviors meant to express love, care and affection, he misinterprets it as her agreement with his entitlement and grandiosity delusion.   But when her expressions of appreciation and her caring acts for his wellbeing are not received with responsiveness and reciprocity, but mistaken as fulfilling her purpose, duty and due to him, this causes her also to be a suffering victim.    When this destroys her affection and her motivation to express it, he considers her as flawed.     The narcissist wants more benefits from the woman than the psychopath and emotional moron, but it is also humiliating her by only using her as a commodity.        

In previous entries I had already speculated, that maybe those men, who in our times appear immature, selfish, cruel and irresponsible are just genetic relapses to earlier stages of evolution.   This can also include the relapse back to when affection and monogamy had not yet evolved, when men procreated purely by physical infatuation with the body of a woman.    Epicureans have a brain evolved for abstract cognitions, abstract emotions, non-physical pleasures and the joy of being bonded by affection and are therefore the farthest advanced in the evolution towards the ability to strive for individual subjective wellbeing.    Hedonists were and are still so much driven by instincts and dishomeostasis, that while they were very successful in multiplying the human species, the price for this was paid by the suffering of the women, who were used predominantly as breeding bodies.     

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

389. The Pleasure Center In The Brain - 2

The Pleasure Center In The Brain - 2

This continues entry 388.  

In previous entries, I have already been describing the difference between the instinctive and the intellectual relationship paradigm, between infatuation and caring love, between the bonding disability of emotional morons and the bonded commitment of mature men.   
I described the behavior, the impact upon the partner, the viability of such a relationship but without explaining its causes beyond the vague attribution to a difference in the wiring of the brain.

Looking now more closely at individual differences between the sensitivity, perceptivity and responsiveness of the pleasure center to different kinds of stimuli enables me to speculate more plausibly about the dynamics between the partners of compatible and of mismatched couples.   When comparing the pleasure centers of two different brains, one wired to be hedonistic, the other wired to be Epicurean, the different treatment of, the attitude towards and the kind of a relationship with a partner can be logically explained. 

The following does not include survival homeostation by very basic needs of air, water, food under starvation, it is restricted to analysing the dishomeostasis and pleasure center stimulation under the circumstances of every day life.

Based upon the differences between which stimuli are perceived with predominant sensitivity by their pleasure centers, hedonists and Epicureans experience their social and material environment, including a partner in a relationship, very differently.

1.  Hedonists
  • The hedonistic pleasure center is very perceptive, sensitive and responsive to any physical stimulation, while non-physical stimulation is either not perceived at all or if, then only by rough and primitive emotions like the pleasure of having power and be able to dominate.   
  • Auditory, olfactory and visual stimuli only serve as the information of the presence of agents, which can be used for physical stimulation of the pleasure center.
  • Dishomeostasis is a strong force and it is nearly always physical.   Any emotional dishomeostasis like frustration or anger are a reaction to not being able to restore physical homeostasis. 
  • Physical dishomeostasis is usually a recurrent cycle.   The perception of the dishomeostasis triggers behavior of homeostation, followed by a latency period of saturation until the next perception of dishomeostasis restart the cycle.   
  • Physical dishomeostasis is usually endogenous, its cause is independent of the social and material environment, while homeostation depends on the availability of resources in the environment.

The hedonistic brain experiences both the social and material components of the environment as sources, tools, utilities or commodities existing for the hedonist's convenience to fulfill physical needs, when he perceives dishomeostasis and or discovers something, of which he expects stimulation of the pleasure center.    Whatever causes high pleasure stimulation is experienced as something, that the hedonist loves.    There is no reciprocity between a hedonist and his commodity.    It is the control of the user over the availability of the commodity.
  • Due to the cyclic dishomeostasis, in the moment of perceiving the dishomeostasis of being hungry, the hedonist loves cheese.   In the moment of feeling pleasure by riding a bicycle, the hedonist loves his bicycle.    In the moment of sexual dishomeostasis, the hedonist loves the woman's body, with whom he is infatuated.   
  • In the moment of saturation, all the commodities, the cheese, the bicycle and the woman become temporarily insignificant and he has no reason to focus his attention upon them.    He wants to have them available in storage for the next use.    When in the state of saturation, any focus of attention on the commodities causes no pleasure or only the pleasure of being in control and of having the power to repeat the use in the future.
  • Sometimes the hedonist values the pleasure of using those commodities enough to pay high prices for cheese and for a bicycle and he pampers the woman with expensive gifts to ascertain her availability.   
  • The hedonist is aware, that taking care of good maintenance prolongs the usability of his commodities.   The cheese needs to be stored in the fridge, the bicycle needs greasing, and the woman needs food, shelter and health care.    The hedonist considers it as his option, how much maintenance he invests in expectation of how long he wants to keep the utility ready to serve him.  
  • Neither a bicycle nor cheese have any feelings and own needs, and the hedonist assumes the same also to be the case with a woman as a commodity.   
  • A dysfunctional commodity can make the hedonist angry, but a commodity does not hurt the feelings of a human.   The hedonist feels no personal or emotional connection with the commodities as entities.   His love for the commodities is the love for the benefits.    He feels no affection for a commodity.
  • The magnitude of the stimulation of the pleasure center of a hedonist depends only on his needs and his perceptivity and the quality of the stimulus, but not on other commodities.   The piece of cheese does not taste any better, when eaten on the bicycle or in presence of the woman.  
  • When a hedonist feels the dishomeostasis of being hungry, then a woman is experienced as either functional, when she contributes to his getting food, or dysfunctional, when she impedes him from getting food. 


2. Epicureans

  • The Epicurean pleasure center is very perceptive, sensitive and responsive to any intellectual, emotional, auditory, olfactory and visual stimulation, which overrides physical stimulation in its impact.   
  • Emotional dishomeostasis is a stronger force than physical dishomeostasis.  
  • Emotional dishomeostasis is usually a persistent state of unpleasant feelings, that lasts, until the reason has been removed.   
  • Emotional dishomeostasis is often exogenous, it is triggered, caused or modified by the interaction with the social and material environment.   

For an Epicurean in a bonded commitment, reciprocal caring love and affection has very strong effects upon the pleasure center.   The Epicurean feels bliss, joy and happiness by nothing more than being together with or near the beloved person, while there is no emotional dishomeostasis.     The perception and knowledge of being loved, respected, appreciated, cherished, significant, cared for stimulates the pleasure center.   Reciprocal proactive expressions of caring and loving behavior as described in entry 385 enhances this perception.    Being together is experienced as triggering affection and is a permanent stimulation of the epicurean pleasure center.    
  • If there is emotional dishomeostasis, it is very disruptive and a very serious problem.   
  • The Epicurean joy and happiness depends on reciprocity, it depends on triggering the same emotions and attitudes from the other as one feels oneself.    Getting the contrary of what one gives and expects causes pain and feeling hurt and this leads to a state of dishomeostasis.    The more one partner has and expresses respect, appreciation and significance for the other, the more s/he feels hurt, when experiencing disrespect, depreciation and insignificance in return
  • Emotional dishomeostasis is a serious problem needing to be dealt with, no matter if the trigger of it is real or only perceived as the result of a misunderstanding and misinterpretation.   
  • As soon as one partner feels emotional dishomeostasis, this impedes feeling affection, joy and happiness in the presence of the other and as a consequence it also impedes further expressions of love.   
  • Emotional dishomeostasis of one Epicurean partner leads to emotional dishomeostasis of both.   Communicating about all conflicts, until mutual respect, appreciation and significance are restored, is a task of paramount importance for an Epicurean couple's bonding and closeness.  
  • The Epicurean pleasure center gets stimulated by the intellectual joy of visiting an interesting museum or watching a fascinating theater play and by being together with a beloved partner.   The pleasure stimulation by both sources not only adds its magnitudes, but multiplies it.   
  • The Epicurean joy of being together often compensates for discomfort of any kind.    Bonded committed Epicureans are sometimes oblivious of physical discomfort when they are absorbed in the joy of being together.    


3.  Epicureans and hedonists are mismatches.

Both relationship principles are as incompatible as the differences in the responsiveness of the pleasure centers.   

A hedonistic man and an Epicurean woman are a tragic mismatch.   

Being Epicurean does not preclude the occasional indulgence in physical pleasures like delicious food, it is a known experience of little importance.    But the hedonist is ignorant and oblivious of the intellectual and emotional stimulation of the Epicurean's pleasure center, which he has never experienced due to his lacking the perceptivity and sensitivity.    When the hedonist keeps a woman in good maintenance, allowing her the same amount of physical stimulation of the pleasure center as he wants for himself, he firmly believes to be doing the right thing for having her as a long term commodity.    He is void of feeling affection.

Hedonists cannot be blamed for lacking affection due to lacking the perception of emotional and intellectual joy in their pleasure center, just as deaf persons cannot be blamed for not hearing music.    A deaf and a hearing person cannot share the joy of listening to music and the deaf person cannot be motivated to go to a concert, that he cannot hear.  
The hedonist cannot imagine the joy of bonded togetherness just as a stone age man could not imagine to hear the high quality sound of an entire orchestra played from a tiny box into his ears.  
A hedonist and an Epicurean cannot share the joy of being together and of sharing intellectual and emotional stimuli, because this does not stimulate the hedonist's pleasure center.  There is nothing to motivate him to participate in behaviors that contribute to kindling love (entry 385).   He does not feel affection and he does not recognize affection for him.  The hedonist has no reason to be together with the Epicurean woman, except when he needs her for his homeostation or any other purpose.  
Therefore the hedonist is clueless, that she perceives her restricted role as a commodity for his physical stimulation as humiliation, indignation and devaluation.   He is often completely oblivious, that he is causing her emotional dishomeostasis in growing magnitude, until the relationship has become toxic.   If he notices at all, that she has reached the limit of her endurance, he cannot comprehend, why and interprets this as her defect and flaw.

Monday, September 5, 2011

388. The Pleasure Center In The Brain - 1

The Pleasure Center In The Brain - 1

After writing 387 blog entries, I just got aware, that I have omitted to ever consider the function of the pleasure center in the brain.    I mentioned the importance of subjective and emotional wellbeing, looking at this from the perspective of an Epicurean focusing on the avoidance of harm and unpleasant experiences.   
But in my previous explanations of the behavior of others and especially of all those predators and jerks, who make life miserable for their victims, I did omit the urge to stimulate the pleasure center as an important factor.      

The following are mainly speculations, because I did not find enough information on the web.  


Behavior motivated to have an impact upon the subjective wellbeing is determined by several forces and factors:
  1. Dishomeostasis causes behavior to reduce any kind of unpleasant, painful, discomfortable sensation and feeling.
    1.1.  Dishomeostasis of survival needs.
    1.2.  Dishomeostasis of non-vital instincts.
    1.3.  Dishomeostasis due to an addiction.
    1.4.  Emotional dishomeostasis due to inappropriate and inadequate treatment.
  2. Behavior stimulating the pleasure center, which it is sensitive and perceptive to this specific stimulation. 
    2,1.  Physical stimulation of the pleasure center learned by reward and reinforcement.
    2.2.  Physical stimulation of the pleasure center as a side effect or consequence of restoring homeostasis.
    2.3. Emotional and intellectual, but non-material and non-physical stimulation of the pleasure center learned by reward and reinforcement.
The basic survival needs of air, water, food when really needed, have probably the same impact upon everybody's behavior.  

But the other forces are either directly innate or acquired as a result of the innate specific responsiveness of the pleasure center.   They vary widely in their strength between individuals.  Some of these forces can be very strong in one individual and absent or very weak in another.   

Depending on the dominant urge and innate determination, there are three main groups:
  1. Hedonists
    Hedonists' pleasure center is highly and intensely responsive to all physical stimulation.   Eating, sexuality, alcohol and drugs are a few examples of what is stimulation for them.   They are strongly effected by physical dishomeostasis of any kind.
  2. Epicureans
    Their responsiveness to physical stimulation is low, but they are very responsive to non-physical, but emotional and intellectual stimulation of the pleasure center.   They experience bliss, elation, joy, delight from good books, museums, theater plays, music, and happiness from the profound communication with their bonded beloved partner.    They experience emotional dishomeostasis by depreciation, disrespect, humiliation.
  3. Breeders
    Breeders are mainly driven by dishomeostasis of the procreation instincts and of the subsequent secondary hierarchy instinct.   They are very busy raising their offspring, fighting for power and a high position on a hierarchy, where they greedily compete to amass resources for all future bearer of their genes.  
    Breeders are motivated to make sacrifices to improve life of their ingroup or society.  They superficially appear to be altruistic, but in reality they are driven only by improving the environment for the benefit of the future bearer of their genes.    

Sometimes different urges felt simultaneously would require contradictory behavior.    If both urges are equally strong, people experience inner conflicts.  If there is a major urge, it sometimes compensates at least temporarily for the denial of the lesser urges, which would lead to very different behavior.   
  1. Hedonists soothe emotional discomfort by eating or getting drunk.
  2. Epicureans can forget and be oblivious of physical discomfort, when they are absorbed by some intellectually fascinating activity.
  3. Breeders have neither time nor energy to stimulate their pleasure center, so instead they get emotionally addicted to the exhausting repetition of their recurrent need of homeostasis, which is only temporarily restored by doing everything that they consider as their duty to their offspring. 

While the predominance of each force is hard wired in the subconscious brain, the conscious representation leads to different attitudes or life philosophies.   
  1. Hedonists are at risk of being reproached for being primitive animals.   As a group, they can reinforce each other in accepting their pleasure seeking as a legitimate way of life and identify with the philosophy of hedonism.
  2. People do not decide to change their way of life and source of wellbeing as a result of reading Epicure's philosophy.   People, who are innate Epicureans read about Epicure and recognize themselves.
  3. Breeders are often gullible to religious delusions, that their earthly sacrifices will be compensated in the afterlife.    Religion gives them a justification for their irrational urge to make sacrifices for their genes.    The emphasis of their religion on the importance of procreation attracts them to this religion.  

Sunday, September 4, 2011

387. A Scientist's Dating Advice

A Scientist's Dating Advice

I am an independent thinker, but being too original enhances intellectual loneliness.   Therefore I appreciate sometimes to find reinforcement for some of my ideas and I just did.

Source:
http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/1735-dating-with-your-brain-5-tips-from-a-neurophysiologist

The following are quotes from Dr. Jason Shepherd, Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at M.I.T., which are backing up some of my basic ideas in this blog.  


1. Know that you don't know what you're doing
"Many of our most important decisions are made in our brains unconsciously. We are constantly bombarded with sensory input from the world and our conscious experience only captures a small percentage of this information,"
"So much of our 'chemistry' and attraction to others occurs without us really knowing. We often can't tell why we are drawn to certain people and sometime that's just because our brain has worked out something we are not directly aware of."
Not knowing this is a hazard.   I consider it as of paramount important to be aware of how subconscious instincts determining behavior and choices are very detrimental to long term happiness.   Self-monitoring based upon the knowledge, which impulses, urges and inclinations can be explained by animal instincts is very important as a method of prevention, which is a part of the strategy to reduce this hazard.    This strategy includes also the conscious decision, what traits in a partner are essential for a long-term bonded commitment. 


2. For the guys: Appeal to a woman's brain
"There are key differences in the way sexes choose partners, obviously, and this is because the female and male brains are just wired differently...although this isn't always black and white but rather a continuum. In general men are mostly visual, whereas women are 'cerebral' for a better way of putting it. They require more than just visual stimulation to be attracted to someone."
I am looking for a mindmate.  Who disregards my brain, is not suitable.

3. Love is the result of "feedback loops"
"Everything in the brain has feedback loops, so if you do something that activates the reward system (i.e you went on a good date) that is noted by the brain and cellular/molecular changes occur in the reward system that reinforces that good experience. These feedback loops usually work well and 'love' is the end result of positive reinforcement of these reward circuits.

As an aside, I'm personally a romantic, and even though I'm fascinated by the biological basis of human behavior, I don't think trying to understand love at a molecular/cellular level takes ANYTHING away from the emotion or the way I view love."
This is behind what I described in entry 385 as the reciprocal reinforcement of expressing caring love by proactive behavior enhancing the other's subjective wellbeing.


4. Know what your dealbreakers are
"I don't think it's a requirement for me to date another scientist, but what is key is someone who curious about the world. And someone who thinks evolution is real. I once went on a date where I was lampooned for believing in evolution, even though I had clearly stated on my profile that I was a biologist."
I have stated my dealbreakers clearly in this blog.   


5.  You've got to respect them
"I'm no expert on relationships but respect is key. The chemistry needs to be there of course but if you don't respect your partner for their intellect, drive, etc. then it's not going to work. I think this is really important for people who are ambitious and set high goals for themselves."
I have put emphasis in several entries, that a bonded and committed relationship is only possible with mutual respect.  

Saturday, September 3, 2011

386. Criticizing - Love - Respect

Criticizing - Love - Respect
This continues entries 385 and 382.  

Beneficial criticizing by giving and accepting feedback concerning specific behaviors and habits is an important part of the process of a couple's adaption to each other.   
As long as a couple's mutual respect is due to shared basic values and attitudes, they have no reason to criticize anything, that is part of the core personality of the other.   All criticizing is supportive concerning habits.    Beneficial criticizing implies the respect, that the other is able and motivated to improve some peripheral imperfections.  

When infatuation is experienced as the selfish love for the benefits of using another person's body for instinctive homeostasis, this does not require respect.   Bonded, committed and caring love between adult and mature partners is not possible without mutual respect.  

Bonded love is expressed by behavior aiming to enhance the subjective wellbeing of the partner.    The beloved partner perceives proactive acts of caring as deliberate and voluntary favors, not as duties, dues or something to be taken for granted.   

This has a strong impact upon the perception of being criticized.  The difference between experiencing the other's beneficial behavior as either an expression of caring love or of fulfilling a duty and serving a purpose is also the difference between perceiving criticizing as supportive and beneficial or disrespecting, devaluing and rejecting.   

When someone feels securely loved and respected by consciously perceiving the other's behavior as expressing care and affection, this enables him to interpret being criticized as supportive.    The expression of caring love is an expression of respect and nevertheless interpreting criticizing as disrespect would be a contradiction.   
Caring includes also the Epicurean imperative of not doing harm.    A person, who cares enough to have the wish to protect the partner from harm needs to be receptive to feedback.   To avoid harm to the other requires to know, what the other experiences as harm, and this is not always noticeable.   Sometimes only feedback can convey this information.  


But when a man considers and perceives a woman as a commodity and utility, whose purpose is to serve his needs, then he is unable to ever perceive anything of what she does for him as an expression of love.    He is deprived of the experience of being loved by his own entitlement delusion.   This makes him perceive criticizing as expressing disrespect and this makes him feel even less loved.    As a consequence, he is inclined to use control and coercion to get his needs met, because he projects and believes, that otherwise she would also use him selfishly for her needs.    As long as he feels entitled to the priority of his needs, wishes and whims over hers, he is realistic in his evaluation, that he cannot get this by any other means except control and coercion.    
If her baseline is getting as much as giving, then giving more than she receives is from her point of view an expression of love.    
If his baseline is getting all his needs met before bothering about hers, then he experiences even all her expressions of love only as deficient compared with his baseline, and he feels justified to use pressure and coercion to get, what he cannot get otherwise.  

The result is a very unfortunate vicious circle of deterioration.    A woman, who feels loved, cared for, cherished and appreciated has few reasons for peripheral beneficial and supportive criticizing, and he can appreciate it and do his share in improving the relationship.   
But the man, who uses her as commodity, dominates and coerces her to ascertain his selfish benefits gives the woman real and serious reasons to criticize him and even to lose respect.    He needs much more improvement and he needs much more feedback.  But instead of accepting her support, he blames her for daring to criticize him at all.    His denial and defiance to accept feedback and learn how to treat her destroys the relationship.  

Feeling loved, respected and supported by criticizing is a congruent experience in a bonded couple.   

Without the reciprocal perception of expressions of caring love by the other, there is no respect and no trust, that criticizing is benevolent and beneficial.   This effect is independent of the reason of not feeling loved, either by not being loved by a man confounding infatuation with love and domination or by being oblivious of being loved due to confounding expressions of love with fulfilling a purpose and a duty.