quest


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

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


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

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

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

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

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


Tuesday, January 31, 2012

488. Demisexuality - Evolution - Cognitive Humanity

488.   Demisexuality - Evolution - Cognitive Humanity

According to the definition (on the demisexuality page), I am demisexual and I have always been, long before the word 'demisexual' was created.  

But I do not even really like the word demisexuality, as it sounds like a kind of deficiency and deviance.   But by its definition, it describes not a defect, but some high quality humane cognitive achievement, that is much advanced compared with the promiscuous animal copulation, that has become the social norm.  

Demisexuality is a form of an especially dignified sexuality, it is personality oriented, humane, ethical, integrated sexuality.

It certainly has not much in common with the absence of sexuality.   Therefore I consider it as a very unfortunate situation, that demisexuality is considered a variety of asexuality.   According to what I have been reading on a discussion forum, most demisexuals just like asexuals are prone to come to adopt the label as the result of experiencing themselves as deviant in a society, where the social norm demands men to be sexual predators and women to comply in acquiescence.     

I personally consider demisexuals as the vanguard of evolution. 

Biologically, humans are animals.   But there is also the cognitive humanity, which distinguishes humans from all other animals.    Animals are driven by instincts like programmed robots, only human cognition allows individuals the rational choice to use self-control to defeat instinctive urges. 

The evolution of the human species was the evolution away from the determination by instinct and towards the cognitive control by rationality.   

Promiscuous sexuality is triggered by instinctive reactions between bodies, while demisexuality is caused by cognitive evaluation of another person as a worthy and suitable partner.   

Therefore I consider demisexual persons as those, who are the most evolutionarily advanced true humans, because they have reached the farthest distance from being instinct driven animals.   

Monday, January 30, 2012

487. Wide-Faced Or Narrow-Faced Men

487.   Wide-Faced Or Narrow-Faced Men

I am demisexual, I do not get physically attracted to looks.   I am consciously ready to create a bonded commitment with any man, whose personality and intellect attract me, while there are no dealbreakers.   But while I do neither perceive nor need physical attraction, physical repulsion is a deterrent. 

Consciously, I am attracted to men who are more nice guys than machos, who are more psychologically androgynous than virile.    Aggression, dominance, power, competition as the typical indications of virility are repulsive to me.   Consciously, I need to rely upon a lot of information to find out, if I can trust a man to appreciate and treat me as an equal partner.   I consider first and superficial impressions as misleading.   

But after reading about the study quoted below connecting facial proportions with personality, now I am wondering, if my subconscious reacts to visual stimuli, of which I am consciously ignorant.  

I prefer bearded men.   So far, I attributed my pognophily only to my preference for someone's personality trait of lacking vanity, of considering shaving as a ludicrous waste of time.    I considered the act of shaving in itself as a repulsive behavior.   But maybe there is more than that.   Maybe a beard covers stimuli, which my subconscious mind perceives as repulsive.    

One study is of course not enough to be conclusive.   But it allows me to scrutinize for what my subconscious mind is doing to me.    I have no answers, but at least some important new questions.  
  • Does my subconscious mind recognize indications, which I am consciously oblivious of?
  • Do I have a subconscious preference for narrow faces in men?   
  • Do wide faced men scare me?  
  • Do they scare me less, when a beard covers the indication of facial virility?   
  • Do I perceive clean shaven men as more repulsive, when they have wide rather than narrow faces?     
Sources:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120107_facialstructure

"You can to some ex­tent assess a per­son’s trust­wor­thi­ness from their looks, ac­cord­ing to new re­search that could up­set dec­ades of settled sci­en­tif­ic think­ing.
In a stu­dy, Mi­chael Hasel­huhn and Elaine Wong of the Uni­vers­ity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found that men whose faces are rel­a­tively wide for their height are sta­tis­tic­ally more likely to act un­eth­ic­ally.

“Our re­sults dem­on­strate that stat­ic [fixed] phys­i­cal at­tributes can in­deed serve as re­li­a­ble cues of im­mor­al ac­tion,” Hasel­huhn and Wong wrote, adding that their find­ings ap­pear to apply to males on­ly. “Per­haps some men truly are bad to the bone.”

How­ev­er, they added, re­cent find­ings have linked more ag­gres­sive ten­den­cies in men to faces that are wide rel­a­tive to their height. Such men are sta­tis­tic­ally more likely “to re­tal­i­ate to per­ceived slights by oth­ers [and] to act in their own self-in­ter­est, even if it means vi­o­lat­ing an­oth­er’s trust,”
In their own stu­dy, Hasel­huhn and Wong con­clud­ed that the great­er propens­ity of men with these fa­cial types to act un­eth­ic­ally flows from a sense among these men that they have more pow­er than av­er­age. There­fore, they tend to feel they can get away with it.
A major objection to the idea that facial fea­tures could predict bad be­ha­vior, they said, has been that men with such fea­tures would swiftly drop out of the gene pool. Pre­sum­ably, no one would trust them so they would have trouble mat­ing. This ob­ject­ion loses force, Hasel­huhn and Wong ar­gued, if you suppose that the draw­backs of having such a face may be coun­ter­ba­lanced by an ad­vant­age, namely that those faces also signal ag­gres­sion and domi­nance-a trait that ap­peals to many women."

http://www.livescience.com/14909-wide-faces-predict-unethical-behavior.html
""We believe that men's facial structure should be used as one important cue in detecting liars and cheaters, but caution should be taken in automatically labeling relatively wide-faced men as bad seeds."

Future research can investigate whether men with broad faces "have truly evolved to be less ethical, or whether these men 'learn' to be less ethical over time," Haselhuhn noted. "For example, if people are naturally inclined to act deferentially to men with relatively broad faces, these men may feel more powerful over time, leading them to act less ethically.""

Sunday, January 29, 2012

486. Innate Or Skin Deep Attitudes And The Brain

Innate Or Skin Deep Attitudes And The Brain

I have been speculating about the difference between innate atitudes as the conscious representation of a person's needs, especially needs due to the subconscious effect of instincts and between the skin deep atitudes due to taking for granted, what has been implanted superficially into the mind by education, brainwashing, social norm.   As a few examples, I have distinguished between innate and skin-deep atheism, religiousness, monogamy, egalitarianism.


This study indicates, that this difference is indeed visible in the brain:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120122201240.htm

"A neuro-imaging study shows that personal values that people refuse to disavow, even when offered cash to do so, are processed differently in the brain than those values that are willingly sold.

"Our experiment found that the realm of the sacred -- whether it's a strong religious belief, a national identity or a code of ethics -- is a distinct cognitive process,"

"Sacred values prompt greater activation of an area of the brain associated with rules-based, right-or-wrong thought processes, the study showed, as opposed to the regions linked to processing of costs-versus-benefits.""

Saturday, January 28, 2012

485. Marriage Or Cohabitation

Marriage Or Cohabitation

I have mentioned before, that I see no benefits from getting legally married, unless marriage is needed to be allowed to live in the same country.    

I am looking for a mindmate, for whom getting physically involved has automatically the emotional consequence of creating the feeling of being bonded by monogamous commitment as a responsible partner with obligations.   With such a man, legal marriage adds no benefits to cohabitation.  
With a man, for whom physical intimacy does not create a monogamous bond, legal marriage does not provide any protection against being hurt.  But while in the case of cohabitation I can immediately get rid of a cheating partner, legal marriage would tie me to a jerk for a year of separation and divorce costs a lot of money.  

Now there is a study showing, that legal marriage is not a requirement for happiness.  
A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period.

""We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains -- likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans -- cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth" said Musick."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120118101335.htm

Friday, January 27, 2012

484. Instincts And Attitudes

Instincts And Attitudes

I have been speculating before, that different conscious attitudes are a representation of individual subconscious differences in the strength of instincts.    The difference between the cognitive affinity to either right wing and conservative or left wing and liberal politics could be connected with the hierarchy instinct and the ingroup-outgroup instinct.   

This is speculation but the following research is an interesting indication of some differences in the brain:
http://www.livescience.com/18056-conservatives-liberals-biology-threats.html

"But researchers at the University of Nebraska and elsewhere have been uncovering a series of clues suggesting that political preference is somewhat influenced by biology."

"These differences are at the level of reflexes and rely on extremely basic brain processes such as attention. Although the researchers can't prove that biology influences political beliefs and not the other way around, Dodd said there's good reason to believe that biology comes first and beliefs second."

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

483. Morals And Self-Control In The Absence Of Religion

483.   Morals And Self-Control In The Absence Of Religion

Religions supply a predefined set of morals.   The higher power, deity or deities is or are believed to reward moral behavior and to punish transgressions.   People are motivated, instigated, coerced or manipulated to follow rules restraining their behavior, either with or without any insight in the benefits and necessity of the rules.    

When people discard religion, they often discard the morals of this religion too, because they misunderstand the morals as an arbitrary restraint without any benefit.   Experiencing moral rules only as religious ballast restricting behavior without understanding their protective benefits is a sign of ignorance, immaturity, selfishness or superficiality.  
 
Becoming an atheist is not a valid excuse for the backlash and regression to behave as ruthless, inconsiderate and cruel animals driven by instinct.     When someone leaves behind a religion and feels free to automatically leave behind all moral rules of this religion too, he becomes a psychopath.  

Leaving a religion and remaining a moral persons requires to replace the morals of this religion by a new set of morals based upon responsibility and consideration.   This means a conscious evaluation of every moral rule of this religion by asking the simple questions:  Who suffers without this rule?  If the rule does protect someone from being hurt or harmed, then this rule needs to be maintained and not discarded.  

Without a religion, to be guided by morals of any kind requires
  • the conscious insight and acceptance of the need of morals and of rules for behavior
  • the awareness of and interest for the consequences of the own behavior upon others
  • self-control to act in accordance with the accepted rules 

A study connects self-control to religion, and this has important implication for people striving to behave morally without being religious.  Since self-control appears to be eased by religious indoctrination, for any non-religious person it is very important to consciously focus on learning self-control.  
"Study participants were given a sentence containing five words to unscramble. Some contained religious themes and others did not. After unscrambling the sentences, participants were asked to complete a number of tasks that required self-control -- enduring discomfort, delaying gratification, exerting patience, and refraining from impulsive responses.
Participants who had unscrambled the sentences containing religious themes had more self-control in completing their tasks.
"Our most interesting finding was that religious concepts were able to refuel self-control after it had been depleted by another unrelated task," "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120124113045.htm
 

Saturday, January 21, 2012

482. The Dynamics Of Reciprocally Earning Happiness

The Dynamics Of Reciprocally Earning Happiness

This continues entry 477, where I explained happiness as a unique human experience enabled by cognition.  Happiness requires much more than physical homeostasis and physical stimulation of the pleasure center.    

A bonded committed couple interacts in the dynamic process of attempting to earn own happiness by making the other happy at the same time.    But the wish to make the partner happy does not imply, that this is an active person's onesided activity upon a passive target.   By itself, the mere wish to make the other happy is very important, but not sufficient to succeed.  

Nobody can make another person happy by considering this person as a kind of prototype to be treated by a script.   If for example a man thinks that spending money on a woman makes her automatically happy, this is not more than an urban legend.   The best intention and the strongest wish are lost and wasted, when the partner's true needs are ignored. 

Successful contribution to the partner's happiness is based upon knowledge and awareness.   Happiness is an emotion, and contributing to a partners happiness means to be concerned and informed about how the partner feels.    
 
If someone wishes to make a partner happy, this requires
  • to be aware of and informed about how the partner really feels, without being mislead by false beliefs how he should feel due to uninformed assumptions and projection.    Being informed is the result of communication, of asking and listening.
  • not only proactive behavior to make the partner feel good, but equally important is also the avoidance of all behavior, that makes the partner feel bad. 
  • full knowledge about the partner's emotional reactions to the own behavior.   It is a learning process to find out, what enhances the other's emotional wellbeing and what hurts the other.
  • verification concerning the effects of past behavior.   Attempting to please the partner is not enough, it is important to verify, if the partner really is pleased.   Verification enables improvement.
  • prevention of unwanted or futile intention and plans by consulting with the other before acting. 
  • absolute sincerity and honesty.   White lies, hiding true feelings and pretending can only temporarily avoid disruption, but the consequences impede growing happiness on a long term basis.     
Shared happiness is the result of cooperation and consulting. 

Friday, January 20, 2012

481. A Test Question For Morons And Jerks

A Test Question For Morons And Jerks

On a dating site people are asked matching questions, including the following: 

"Would you need to sleep with someone before you considered marrying them?"

As far as I remember, I have not yet found even one man's profile, who has replied with NO.  

When a man answers YES, he is either a psychopath and a jerk or immature and a moron, who does not understand the real meaning of this question.   
But I estimate, that about 5% to 10% of men are innately monogamous and able to respect and appreciate women as persons and equals.   If one of them indicates YES, he is probably unaware of the implications.     

Here is the translation of the YES:

A man's YES means:
Physical intimacy is not the begin of commitment for this man.   Entering physical intimacy is not sufficient for such a man to create a bond that equals marriage.   He does not feel bound and bonded unless there is a third party and an external ritual called legal marriage installing obligations and responsibility.  He may even be unable to ever accept obligations and responsibility towards a woman.  He cannot be trusted, because he does not commit at the same moment, when entering physical intimacy creates a deep bond for a woman.   
It is not possible for a woman to earn the security of commitment with such a man in a reliable way by her own correct, decent and caring behavior.   Such a man's commitment is only available by the lottery of risking to be hurt and discarded instead.   The price for the lottery ticket is the asymmetry of getting emotionally bonded by the agreement to physical intimacy, even though this is not reciprocal.  

A man's YES means:
The man perceives and considers a woman as an object and a commodity, whose purpose is to serve his instinctive urges to his full satisfaction.   If she does not serve this purpose, she is not suitable.    He feels entitled to test her usability and to lure her into bed for the purpose of testing her.   If he is not satisfied by the service, he justifies dumping her as her own flaw and deficiency.   A woman is to him like a merchandise, that he returns to the shop.

A man's YES means:
The man is driven so much by his animal instincts, that his perception of her as a mere body makes him oblivious of the woman's other qualities as a person with a brain.   He is unable to perceive her as significant and as predominantly a companion.   He is unable to evaluate sexual homeostasis as only a secondary additional benefit of the companionship.   
Any reasonable woman knows, that providing sexual homeostasis is one of her contributions to the maintenance of the relationship.  Considering the biology of men, testing any specific woman is obsolete, because men can get homeostasis with any woman.   
When a man considers needing to test a specific woman for obtainable satisfaction, this clearly indicates, that he wants much more than mere homeostasis.   He is unable to know the more truly human joys in life, he is too much driven by the pursuit of strong sexual stimulation of the pleasure center of his brain.    
This onesided emphasis on the service of the body limits also the duration of the relationship.   Infatuation with a body fades after a while.   A man, who has not inhibition or conscience to discard a woman after testing, also does not hesitate to discard her, when his infatuation has ended.   

Thursday, January 19, 2012

480. The Skeptically Prone Personality

480.   The Skeptically Prone Personality

Once more I finally found other people's concept expressing something, which I have been pondering over myself since a long time.  

In entries 17 and 372 I already mentioned my speculation of a special personality type, which I got aware of by reading information about autism and Asperger's syndrome, both being a clinical diagnosis.    But I had come to the conclusion, that both diagnoses have two components, a non-clinical personality type, and additional symptoms, which are severe enough to be a disability or an impairment.   
I also got aware of the existence of people with this personality type while free of any detrimental symptoms causing any impairment.  This kind of a personality distinguishes a minority of people from the majority, without making them in any way dysfunctional.    I see this personality in myself.   
 
One core trait is rationality and being guided by logic and the absence of the gullibility preventing beliefs in anything without being convinced by evidence and reasoning.    This kind of innate rationality allows people to gain the insight, that believing in a god or any irrational claim is preposterous.  While such beliefs are a step in the development of the immature brain of children, people with this personality outgrow irrational beliefs when becoming adults.   People with such a personality are determined by their brains to become atheists and skeptics like caterpillars are determined to become butterflies.   So far my own thinking concerning this personality. 

Today I discovered this personality described under the name of The Skeptically Prone Personality. 
 
While I usually do not copy large quotes, this warrants to make an exception.   According to the author, Robert T. Carroll,
"A skeptically-prone personality (SPP) has at least 17 of the [following] characteristics.
  1. They are nearly impossible to hypnotize;
  2. As children they questioned the existence of Santa Claus and God;
  3. As adults they continued to doubt the existence of Santa Claus and all forms of supernatural creatures;
  4. As children they played make-believe games, but they recognized the difference between make-believe and reality;
  5. As adults they do not spend more than 50% of their time fantasizing;
  6. They rarely experience hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations (waking dreams), including those involving monsters from outer space or figures from religious traditions);
  7. They rarely pretend to be somebody they're not;
  8. They are mistrustful of memory and consider vividness to be irrelevant to the accuracy of a memory
  9. They are mistrustful of interpretations of sense experiences;
  10. They have little faith in eyewitness testimony;
  11. They can rarely have an orgasm just by using their imagination;
  12. They are mistrustful of tradition and tend to think that the older some idea or practice is the less likely it is to be true or worth engaging in;
  13. They think there is a naturalistic explanation for everything, even if we don't know what it is;
  14. They think people who think they've had a paranormal experience are deluding themselves;
  15. They rarely have out-of-body experiences;
  16. They believe that once you're dead you're dead and can't talk anymore;
  17. They don't engage in automatic writing, Ouija board games, or séances;
  18. They don't believe in magical healing powers, but follow the advice of those promoting science-based medicine;
  19. They trust the results of well-designed controlled studies over beliefs based solely on personal experience;
  20. They haven't experienced spirits or ghosts (see 13);
  21. They tend to dislike intensely those who lie, defraud others, or promote self-serving nonsense as if it were infallible truth;
  22. They don't feel handicapped by their skepticism; on the contrary, they feel empowered by their devotion to reason, logic, critical thinking, empirical evidence, and science;
  23. They don't like lists, unless backed by scientific studies and footnotes, and they're fond of concepts like the fantasy-prone personality and cognitive dissonance."
This is a very good description of myself.   My mindmate to be found shares this personality with me.  

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

479. Why The Word Atheism Should Not Be Taken Too Literally

Why The Word Atheism Should Not Be Taken Too Literally

Atheism literally means without a god.    Superficially it serves well as a label for the easy distinction from people with any religious belief.   Apistia as the absence of all irrational beliefs would be more precise and more exact, but many people have never heard this word, while most people have at least a fuzzy understanding of the word atheism.

Some people take the definition of being without a god too literally.    They distinguish between two categories of weird irrational beliefs:   Beliefs in a deity and beliefs without a deity.   Someone believing in the existence of the christian god is considered as not an atheist, but the buddhist believing in nirvana is considered an atheist.  

This distinction is completely arbitrary and fuzzy.  It is not possible to clearly define something like a deity, which does not exist in reality, but only in the delusion, imagination and fantasy of insane people.   

People can agree to define a table or a tree, because the definition can be gained and verified by examining real tables and trees.    But there is no general agreement, who can be called a deity and who is none.    Only people sharing the same belief can agree on the definition or their specific deity.  A generalized concept of a deity would require real specimen for standardization.  
  

The literal definition of atheism as the absence of the belief in a deity can logically not be more precise than the elusive definition of the rejected deity.    Atheism as the absence of the belief in deities is as fuzzy as are the deities.   
As an example, the believer in a deity called 'mother nature' would not be an atheist, while the person considering 'mother nature' as a new age concept would consider himself as an atheist.
While there cannot be a generally defined atheism, there can be as many different atheisms as there are claims or suggestions of clearly defined deities.   The absence of the belief in the christian god would be a-christian-god-ism, along with a-allahism, a-jahwe-ism, a-hinduism and so on.  For every deity, there can be defined the corresponding absence of the belief.


There is also another aspect to this.   Even those religions, which are centered around the belief in an unambiguously accepted deity, are not restricted to this one belief.   Christianity for example is not limited to the one delusion of the existence of a god, it is a syndrome of several weird beliefs.   There are also the holy ghost, heaven and hell, the eternal soul, praying as a method to reach goals.   An ex-christian can discard the belief in the deity, without automatically also getting rid of all the connected beliefs.   Someone maintaining secondary christian beliefs like the one in the eternal soul, but rejecting the belief in the existence of the god, would then literally be considered an atheist.    

I consider the distinction between deity containing and other irrational beliefs as arbitrary and irrelevant.   The detrimental consequences are the same, when a sick and gullible person buys and lights a candle in the church or buys water under the label of homeopathy.    


A metaphor:  There are as many different descriptions of monsters in Loch Ness as there are people, who believe to have seen one.   But nobody can define the monster by traits, as there are no real specimen.   Rejecting the claim of a monster in Loch Ness is meaningless, when nobody can define the monster.   Amonsterism by rejecting the belief in the monster, but believing in sauriers instead, makes no sense.       
Rationally, all claims of the existence of any entity in Loch Ness need to be rejected, unless at least one specimen has been found.  


Skepticism is a method of evaluating claims by using evidence.    When skepticism is applied to the suggestion or claim of any irrational belief,  the result of the rejection is the absence of this specific belief.   This is not only the case for the rejection of specific religious deities.   Someone rejecting the belief in homeopathy can be called an a-homeopath, rejecting the belief in reincarnation makes him an a-reincarnationist.   But it is difficult to know, what the atheist has rejected, because of the lack of a clear definition of a deity.

When someone has consciously rejected an irrational belief, then this is an indication of the ability for skeptical and rational thinking.   This allows the conclusion, that when someone rejects the belief in a christian god, he most probably also rejects other weird beliefs.  This qualifies him to be called apistic. 

Anybody, who does not belief in a deity, but has other irrational beliefs, is not skeptical and rational, but just gullible.   When there is no belief in a deity, but this belief has been not consciously rejected, the belief in the deity just happens not to fulfill the needs as much as do other beliefs.    When someone believes in homeopathy or reiki instead of prayers and candles, this is just the haphazard consequence of who and what happened to have the most influence.   This is literally atheism, but it is not apistia.       

Monday, January 16, 2012

478. The Absurdity Of Spending Tax Payers' Money On Inappropriate Role Models

478.   The Absurdity Of Spending Tax Payers' Money On Inappropriate Role Models

I have been writing about how attitudes are taken for granted, which are an expression of subconscious instincts and are used to justify directly harming others.   But there are also some such attitudes, which are indirectly harmful.  

Several European countries are monarchies.  In these countries, the tax payers' money is used to finance the luxury life of a bunch of persons, but there is no rational justification to do so.   These persons are not required to work for a living, they life in castles and have servants.   
They are publicly financed parasites not based upon any individual merits.  They are already privileged before they can earn the privileges and before they can be chosen by any individual quality.   They are privileged for nothing more than having a close genetic link with persons, who already have been privileged for equally irrational reasons.  

As can be easily noticed by the publicity of the life style of these royals, they do not justify their privileges as positive role models for morally unfailing behavior.    Many of them are not only no role models for decency.  They are the very contrary, they are role models of selfishness, cruelty and harming others and for getting away with it.    They have the tax payers' money to pay for damages without taking personal responsibility.   
 
The harm done by an average promiscuous man, who cheats and uses women for affairs, is at least limited to his direct victims.   But someone royal, whose promiscuity is made public by the media, serves as a role model for other men.   One royal jerk can indirectly encourage many men to allow themselves to behave also as jerks.   

These royals cannot really be blamed themselves for accepting privileges, which are legally bestowed upon them.    But what puzzles me is the widespread acceptance of unwarranted and unearned hereditary privileges by the citizens of countries, which call themselves democratic in spite of being monarchies.   
As absurd as it is, the kings and princes as role models encouraging men to be jerks are financed by the taxes of the women, who are the victims of the jerks.     
There is only one explanation:  The public maintenance of monarchy is an expression of a misguided hierarchy instinct.   Animals accept their rank below the alpha animals, humans accept their rank below the royals who are mistaken as qualified to be alpha humans.    

Friday, January 13, 2012

477. Non-Religious False Beliefs Concerning Happiness

Non-Religious False Beliefs Concerning Happiness

Gullibility causes people to restrict their own lives by false beliefs.   But those false beliefs are not only religious, there are also false beliefs about happiness.  

For both animals and humans, avoiding dishomeostasis and stimulation of the pleasure center are motivated by urges to enhance the subjective wellbeing.    Sexual homeostasis and material provision of food, shelter and health are causes of contentment and satisfaction for both humans and animals.    But this is not happiness.

Only for humans, happiness is the extreme of what is experienced as wellbeing.   Happiness as an abstract emotion is much more than the sensation and perception of being contented and satisfied.    Happiness is a consequence of the specific and unique human cognition for non-physical homeostasis and pleasures.  

There are two major false beliefs, which gullible people are misguided by:
  • A materially luxury life is believed to be the best life possible.
  • Sexual homeostasis, either with one person in a relationship or by promiscuity is the only purpose of and the best to be derived from the interaction with the opposite gender.  
Both false beliefs are caused by predominant animal instincts in the absence or repression of the full emotional and intellectual cognitive capacities.    Strong dishomeostasis of animal instincts enhances these false beliefs, the further the unique human cognition is evolved in an individual, the less the individual is prone to be mislead by these beliefs. Unfortunately those false beliefs impede people from achieving the happiness and fulfillment in accordance with their cognition. 
  • Luxury is not sufficient to cause happiness.    In the case of material survival, happiness is a bit too strong a word, so I will use joy and fulfillment instead.   
  • With personal relationship, the situation is similar.   Sexual homeostation is not sufficient to cause happiness.  

People often claim, that a relationship is not a job, and expectations should be different.    But both can be compared in many ways.   A job is a method to earn physical wellbeing, a committed relationship is a method to earn emotional wellbeing.  

The following analogy has limitations.   
Happiness requires a symmetrical relationship, that only works, when the happiness is reciprocally available, while the impact of material circumstances is asymmetrical.  
My analogy concerning material wellbeing is even valid for selfish and self-centered persons, while the relationship derived emotional wellbeing depends additionally upon egalitarian and responsible maturity. 
But if someone with both false beliefs is oblivious of the difference between satisfaction due to the homeostasis of instinctive urges and the human ability to experience fulfillment, joy and happiness, then he is deprived of true human quality of life.   
  1. Being deprived of basic material necessities causes suffering.
    Being lonely causes suffering.
  2. Earning good money but disliking the job causes dishomeostasis and dissatisfaction, even though it allows a high standard of living.
    Having a relationship with a person based upon initial physical infatuation causes emotional dishomeostasis and dissatisfaction, when the partner is not respected and appreciated as a person, but only perceived as a source of advantages.
  3. Professional fulfillment means both in combination:  Enjoyment with what one does for a living and to get appropriate payment.   The activity would be enjoyed by itself even without being paid.  
    Happiness means to enjoy to be with a person and to get sexual homeostasis.   Intellectual intimacy with and attachment to this person would be rewarding by itself even if there were no sexual homeostasis.  
  4. Being paid is not the motivation to prefer a specific activity, it is important only to avoid suffering from deprivation.
    Sexuality is not the reason to be committed to a chosen mate, it serves only to avoid dishomeostasis.   
  5. People with advanced human cognition are motivated to the self-realization of intellectual and creative activities even when they are from a rich family and have no necessity to earn money.
    People with advanced human cognition are motivated to the self-realization of intellectual intimacy with a bonded close partner, even when they are in the situation, that sexual homeostasis with haphazard bodies is also available.
  6. People, who do not need to work but are not able to occupy themselves intellectually, get bored and dissatisfied, no matter if they are poor or rich.   
    People, who only get sexual homeostation and nothing else from the other gender, get bored and dissatisfied, no matter if they experience this as promiscuous predators or as cheaters on mismatched partners.
  7. Self-realization is a process of earning self-improvement by effort.   The more one invests in learning, the better it gets.   It is an enjoyable process, not a static final state.     
    Bonded commitment is a process of making efforts to earn attachment by improved emotional, intellectual and physical intimacy.    Happiness is the process of growing closer, it is not a final state. 
  8. Finding an opportunity to earn money depends on circumstances beyond individual control. Making oneself qualified to be suitable for the opportunity is the choice to make the effort.  
    Finding a compatible partner depends upon circumstances beyond individual control.   Learning to communicate and to be suitable as a considerate and responsible partner is the conscious choice to make the effort to learn. 
  9. If someone takes the money and does not earn it, he will not be allowed to stay in the job for long.
    If someone enters a relationship and only takes the advantages without caring equally for the other's needs, then the relationship cannot last.
  10. Fulfillment in a job means to know the requirements, to be qualified and to be motivated.
    Reciprocal happiness means to know the other's needs, to be able and motivated to fulfill them.  



Sunday, January 8, 2012

476. Irrational Beliefs As A Symptom Of A Brain Dysfunction

476.   Irrational Beliefs As A Symptom Of A Brain Dysfunction

I claim:    A person with a brain developed to the full adult evolutionary potential of human cognition is able to be apistic and free from irrational beliefs. 

Gullibility to irrational beliefs is an unavoidable temporary state during childhood, as long as the brain has not yet fully developed.   Without any further detrimental influences or factors, people grow out of such beliefs as a consequence of the maturation of the brain.   When irrational beliefs cannot be influenced by rational reasoning or by contradicting experiences, this indicates, that this person's brain is not working at full human mental capacity.    Something is dysfunctional or deviant. 

I have been attributing this dysfunction to either immaturity of the brain, very low intelligence or to a delusional mental illness. In the latter case, the delusion is maintained by some urge and need overriding rationality and it works as a shortcut around the inhibitions of the frontal lobe.    I was also considering weak rationality, but only recently I found out, that the concept of weak rational thinking has a name.  It is called dysrationalia and described in this article:
http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/feature/why-people-are-irrational-kurt-kleiner/

It seems that religious beliefs are like fever.   Fevers are frequent, because there are many different illnesses, of which fever is an observable symptom.   
Irrational beliefs are so widespread, because they are observable symptoms of very different forms of dysfunction of the brain. 

Friday, January 6, 2012

475. Research About Gender Differences

Research About Gender Differences

I just read this article: 
Men and Women Have Major Personality Differences: New Report Suggests Previous Measurements Have Underestimated Variation Between the Sexes
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120104174812.htm

"The researchers used personality measurements from more than 10,000 people, approximately half men and half women. The personality test included 15 personality scales, including such traits as warmth, sensitivity, and perfectionism. When comparing men's and women's overall personality profiles, which take multiple traits into account, very large differences between the sexes became apparent, even though differences look much smaller when each trait is considered separately."

"The authors conclude that the true extent of sex differences in human personality has therefore been consistently underestimated."

This raises some important questions:
  1. Are the differences related to the differences between instincts that are subconsciously shared with animals?
  2. Are these differences causing harm and suffering to the other gender?
  3. Could awareness for any harm due to these differences be a valid basis for a rational and non-religious moral focusing on reducing the suffering, that people inflict upon each other?

Thursday, January 5, 2012

474. Intuition And Logic

474.   Intuition And Logic

People usually contrast gut feelings or intuition as something very distinct from conscious logical reasoning.   This never really convinced me.   
Instead it seemed more plausible to me, that conscious and subconscious cognition were both using logic, but applying it to different informations as premises.   Conscious thinking seems limited, because it is restricted by what information is available to the consciousness.  The subconscious reasoning probably uses more information, even though it is not the consciously available.   
The quality of both, conscious reasoning and what appears to be intuition, depend equally upon the general ability to use logic.  Cognitive dissonance can be experienced as an intuitive feeling, even though the person does not consciously understand the reasons.   

There is some interesting scientific research: 
People Don't Just Think With Their Guts: Logic Plays a Role, Too
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111229131356.htm

"For decades, science has suggested that when people make decisions, they tend to ignore logic and go with the gut. But Wim De Neys, a psychological scientist at the University of Toulouse in France, has a new suggestion: Maybe thinking about logic is also intuitive."

"De Neys thinks this sense, that something isn't quite right with the decision you're making, comes from an intuitive sense of logic."

473. Dehumanization Shown By Brain Scanning

473.   Dehumanization Shown By Brain Scanning

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111214162103.htm
"But it may be that a person can become callous enough to commit human atrocities because of a failure in the part of the brain that's critical for social interaction."

"The result is what the researchers call "dehumanized perception," or failing to consider someone else's mind. Such a lack of empathy toward others can also help explain why some members of society are sometimes dehumanized, they said."

The differences between the perception of valued and of dehumanized persons was shown in this study by a MRI scanner.  Now I am wondering, if this study has shown the representation of the ingroup-outgroup instinct by conscious attitude?

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

472. Instincts, Choice And The Frontal Lobe

472.    Instincts, Choice And The Frontal Lobe

I have been speculating before, that human behavior is the result of an instinctive urge either overridden by rationality or not.     

An example: 
  • A man can be promiscuous, when he only follows his instinctive urges.
  • A man can be monogamous because he has no strong innate urges determining him to ruthless promiscuity.   One woman is all he feels a need for.
  • A man can be monogamous in spite of innate instinctive urges to use any accessible female body.   His rational long term thinking allows him to consider detrimental consequences of promiscuity and to choose monogamy in defiance of his instincts.   
This was a vague concept, while only interpreting behavior.   But there is a part of the brain, which in fact is the tool to supply the inhibition for the willpower to act in accordance with rational choices. 
"The orbitofrontal cortex is concerned with response inhibition, impulse control, and social behaviour"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe_disorder

The frontal lobe is the part of the brain directly behind the forehead. It is responsible for providing inhibition, essentially censoring any impulse to say or do anything, and now appears to be also related to many aspects of personality, particularly a person's sense of self.
http://house.wikia.com/wiki/Frontal_lobe

Rationality allows a man to consider the long term consequences of either resisting or succumbing to his instincts.   The frontal lobe is the tool to enforce his rational decision and control the instinctive urges.  
Promiscuity is just one example of an innate urge, that is detrimental to either the self or others and therefore is in need of being inhibited by rationally defined self-control.  
Conscious rationality as a part of the unique human cognition allows humans the choice between acting by instinct or in defiance to instincts.  The frontal lobe enables them to enforce the choice.

Since there are wide differences between the self-control of different people, it seems plausible to assume a bell curve distribution of individual differences in the strength of the successful inhibitory powers of the frontal lobe.   

The unique ability to override instincts has evolved in humans for very logical reasons.  
Animals act by instinct without any awareness for causing harm.   But they also suffer subjectively less when harmed than do humans.   Animals only suffer physical pain and discomforts like fear in the moment of the danger.   

Along with the evolution of cognition, only humans have evolved a sensitivity to non-physical pain, that can be strong enough to devastate, traumatize and disable someone completely.    Such pain can be caused by the indirect and non-physical impact of others.   Humiliation, betrayal, disappointment are just a few examples.   Long term memory prolongs the effect of such pains over a long time.   Prediction of future events causes feelings like anxiety or grief in anticipation.  

As a result, being the target of the same instinctive behavior causes a human today much more suffering than it did to our ancestors some million years ago.    What did not have any impact upon them, can devastate people today.      Our animal ancestors before evolving cognition did not suffer any harm by the promiscuity of the mate, due to lacking the cognitive ability to get emotionally attached to a specific person.   Today being cheated upon can seriously harm a person. 
 
Had humans only evolved more sensitivity to non-physical pain without also co-evolving a compensation, the human species would long ago have been distinct due to disabling emotional sufferings.   Therefore the ability for inhibition and self-control in the frontal lobe has co-evolved together with cognition.   

The co-evolution of loving attachment and monogamy are an example.   
Animals mate by instinctive selection of a mate suitable for healthy offspring.   
The evolution of cognition included the evolution of a growing ability to distinguish other humans as individuals, enabling humans to perceive and recognize non-physical qualities.   Getting attracted to a unique person enabled couples to get bonded by emotional attachment and love.   The wish for exclusivity was the logical consequence.   
But this mental wish to be exclusive did not diminish the instinctive urge of most men and a few women to be promiscuous.   The general low instinctive urge to procreate did not contribute to the gene pool.  
As a consequence instinctive behavior was experienced as more and more hurting and thus disruptive to the same evolution of cognition, that also caused the technological progress.   Natural selection solved this by the evolution of the frontal lobe to control the instincts.   
The monogamous couple was emotionally more stable and healthy.   Their focusing in cooperation on raising their offspring had an advantage in procreative fitness over the couple, in which one, usually the man, cheated.  
While promiscuity in male animals usually was a method to spread their genes most successfully, the emotional consequences changed this in humans.  Emotional damage has detrimental consequences upon the mate and as a consequence upon the reproductive success.   The man, who cheats, has less chances to have not only physically but also emotionally and mentally healthy offspring.   Therefore the ability to inhibit the impulse to promiscuity evolved in the frontal lobe by natural selection as being the best non-physical trait contributing to fitness.     

But it is an ongoing evolution, that has not reached the quality of inhibitions stopping all men from being jerks.  While happy couples sharing the burden of raising children give them the best start in life, therefore they are those contributing innate monogamy to the gene pool, there are still many jerks forcing and manipulating women into raising unwanted children, this still maintains also the lack of inhibition in the gene pool.  

Monday, January 2, 2012

471. Communication By Correspondence

Communication By Correspondence

This continues entry 470.   

When I am corresponding with someone, who could be a possible mindmate, I do this for several purposes
  1. It is important to discover mutually, how much there is in common and if there are dealbreakers.   Superficially, this means mainly to check for common or incompatible attitudes, and for shared interests and hobbies as declared by direct statements.   
  2. I like to find out the role and purpose of a woman in the man's life but not only from his own declarations.   Men can theoretically claim to value and respect women and to agree about women's equality.   They can be very convincing, when they believe themselves, what they say.  People can use the same words like equality and sharing and still not mean the same.
    Jerks do not hide, who they are.    But someone can seem to be a potential mindmates just by misunderstanding.   I need to find out, if it is real, when someone believes himself to be an egalitarian.   Therefore I am paying a lot of attention to all indications, whether someone is capable to be a genuine companion, or if there is a risk of domination.   
  3. I like to find out, how much intellectual intimacy is possible.  This means, how much he is interested and motivated to communicate on a deep and complex level, how important it is for him to find agreement and mutual comprehension, how much he is also sensitive to be attracted to feel the joy of consent.  


The following is an example, how a correspondence can be disrupted, even though I did attempt to be the least possible antagonistic in my emphasis on what is important for me. 

Recently I thought to be on the way of discovering some common ground with a correspondent, until he called an expression of a personal taste and inclination of mine explicitly a flaw, even though it was something, which was of no detriment to nobody.    Had he called it a peculiarity, I would have accepted it.   Calling me flawed is an insult.  
He ended the correspondence instead of giving me a chance to influence his opinion about me. 


Calling me flawed implies defining my partial inferiority.  It is a big red flag, when someone calls me flawed without being bothered.    Obviously pursuing a woman does for him not depend on her mental qualities.   If a man is not influenced by a woman's mental qualities, he logically perceives a woman mainly as a body.   Calling me flawed was the first devaluation.  I wondered, how many more flaws he would ascribe to me, devaluing me more, and yet continuing to be interested in my body.   That scared me.    Being rejected for a reason, which I can logically comprehend as a man's dealbreaker would scare me less, because this would indicate, that he is not prone to want only my body.  

An insult does not have to be carved in stone.   Any person can be mistaken, gain an insight, and apologize.   Conflicts can be solved, as long as someone is open to be influenced.   But when I lack the influence on what someone thinks of me, then I am also lacking the influence on what he does to me.   Insulting by alleging flaws can be the first step to domination.   
Therefore it scares me, when someone decides to consider me as flawed, and I cannot influence him.   Therefore in the situation of an alleged flaw, it is important to solve the issue and correct the wrong impression.  

This man was obviously mistaken, that alleging a flaw were acceptable behavior to a woman.   He had no clue, that I felt insulted and disrespected. 
I want to avoid antagonism.   Had I suggested to him to apologize for the insult, things would have escalated.   Instead of blaming him for insulting me, I attempted to gain comprehension by rationally explaining my reasons.   I did not need an apology, just a corrected and more appreciative opinion of me.    But my rational communication did not work this way.   The harder I tried to make him understand me, the less he seemed to understand, neither my reasons nor the importance of correcting his opinion of me.  

Constructive communication only works, when both persons concerned not only cooperate, but are also convinced of the necessity of cooperation.   I am motivated to communicate about any discrepancy until there is agreement.  I do not feel at ease with unresolved disagreements pending.    Even when the agreement is only the shared conclusion of insurmountable differences, it is still preferable to end the contact by agreement.  
My correspondent was oblivious of the necessity and importance of reconsidering his judgment.  An allegation of a flaw is similar to an accusation of some wrong doing.   It warrants a chance for self-defence.   This man denied me the defence, he did not give me a chance to influence his opinion of me.  
I experienced his insult as a serious disruption of our communication, he experienced my refusal of acquiescence with his allegation as the disruption.