I am a woman born 1949 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

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

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

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

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

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

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

Saturday, June 30, 2012

527. Objectification And The Empathy Gap

527.  Objectification And The Empathy Gap

"A hot-cold empathy gap is a cognitive bias in which a person underestimates the influences of visceral drives, and instead attributes behavior primarily to other, nonvisceral factors."

"The crux of this idea is that human understanding is "state dependent"."

"Implications of the empathy gap were explored in the realm of sexual decision-making, where young men in an unaroused "cold state" failed to predict that in an aroused "hot state" they will be more likely to make risky sexual decisions,"

But this works also in the inverted situation, when they make risky sexual decision, which are risky not for themselves as predators, but for their unfortunate victims.
Men, who are driven by a high physiological urge of sexual dishomeostasis are often void of all empathy for those women, who are free of such an urge, but who crave instead for attachment and bonding.   Due to this empathy gap, some such men even have the delusion of their implicating women as instruments for their homeostation as being equally beneficial for the women.   These men are clueless, that in reality the women experience this implication as objectification and abuse.   They are unable to realistically evaluate the amount of pain, harm and even trauma, which they force upon the objectified women deprived of the reciprocity of commitment.

Outright jerks are dangerous beyond remedy, when they objectify women's bodies ruthlessly and with no consideration or responsibility.

As a consequence of the empathy gap, it is possible, that some men commodify women even though they do wish to be responsible and considerate.   They are so much caught in the biological trap of their instinctive urges, that when they use a woman's body without getting attached, this is due to their fallacy of not only assuming, but taking for granted the alleged reciprocity of the objectification by consent.  
Being tragically afflicted with their deficit of the emotional response of getting automatically attached by physical intimacy, their lack of empathy causes them to remain completely unaware of the devastation done to those women led on to onesided attachment before being dumped. 
Their objectification and commodification of women as a fallacy due to the empathy gap is a deficit in these men's education and maturation.   This fallacy is perpetuated by the fatality, that the afflicted men do not suffer themselves, instead imposing the suffering upon the women.    This fallacy is additionally enhanced by the social norm of the oversexation of society and the empathy is further damaged by the desensitization following the oversexation.  

Friday, June 29, 2012

526. The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

526.  The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

This is my personal, subjective opinion:

The difference between genuine and pseudo intellectuals is their subjective identity.    Those cognitive capacities, which are generally attributed as to be those needed for intellectuality only exist in human brains, not in any animal.   
The genuine intellectuals identify with these cognitive capacities as the essence of their person, they identify with what is only typically human, they identify with the cognitive distinction as not being animals.  
The pseudo-intellectuals identify as animals with special additional cognitive abilities.  
In both cases, the subjective identity includes the actual self and the ideal self.    

I define an intellectual man as someone, who experiences and considers sexual activities as a dull, but unavoidable banality not worth wasting time and effort on it.   His cognitive needs for intellectual, cultural and creative pursuits and activities are so predominant, that in comparison he considers physical stimulation by food and sex as unattractive and unimportant.  
He is aware and in peace with the body's needs to be healthy and to keep the brain in the best possible functional state to ascertain the joy of intellectual pleasures.   
Such an intellectual copes with his physical needs for homeostasis in a way, that does not hurt women's dignity.  The cognitive basis of his way of life includes all aspects and thus also his attitude towards women and his awareness and interest concerning how women experience his behavior.  
He never commodifies or objectifies a woman.    He restricts his needs for homeostasis to non-damaging and non-abusive interactions.   He accepts a fair exchange, where he fulfills a woman's needs for being an exclusive companion for shared intellectuality in a monogamous arrangement.
An intellectual man focuses his reaction to the perception of his dishomeostasis on finding such a companion and on treating her with dignity, appreciation and respect.    The homeostation inside the relationship enables him to be not effected by any sexual stimuli from any third party.   
Instead of being triggered by pornography or by any other stranger's sexual intrusion into his perception, he just gets annoyed or he does not even notice it.   
He is not or little susceptible to such triggers to animal instincts, instead he is very perceptive to the attraction of a woman's mind and personality. 

Genuine intellectual men identify as their cognition, while they are aware of the necessity of some instincts to enable the survival of their brain.   But they do not see themselves as animals, they identify with all those cognitive capacities, which only humans have, but animals do not.
Genuine intellectual men are not driven by urges to commodify women by a blurred brain oblivious of what they are doing.    Their clear brain enables them to be free to use their cognition to be considerate and responsible. 

By the definition above I am describing a rare minority of men, because I am looking for a man as a partner.   If I would define women in an analogous way, the definition would be different.   While women lack the biological urge for proactive sexual homeostasis, they are more prone to be driven by the biological urge to procreate, which then lures them to comply with being abused by men's urges.   So genuinely intellectual women are childfree, because they experience raising children as dull, boring and unappealing.     

Pseudo-intellectuals share with genuine intellectuals the cognitive capacity to enjoy intellectual pursuits.   But they are afflicted with so much animal instinctive urges, that these urges partially deactivate or blur their cognition in their treatment of women.    Whenever their instincts are triggered, this effect is stronger then their cognition. 
When pseudo intellectual jerks objectify women, they are not any better than moronic jerks.   For the suffering of an abused woman, it makes no difference, if the jerk is always a moronic animal. or if he is a brilliant man all the time in all other aspects of life, but turns into a moronic animal only whenever interacting with a woman.    Their cognition is dysfunctional, whenever they fail to recognize the damage done by the objectification of women.  

Pseudo-intellectuals accept to be animals, they are comfortable when identifying with their instinctive urges and their entitlement to follow them.   They even consider their most primitive instincts as something valuable, because they subjectively experience it as pleasure, independent of the cost for the victims.   They do not value cognition by itself, only as a tool to serve their instincts.

Prototype 1 is Sartre.   While he wrote philosophical texts of high value, which were mostly independent of his primitive instincts, in his personal behavior, he was nothing more than a jerk and a pseudo-intellectual.    He and Beauvoir could have been the model of a monogamous companionship of two caring and exclusively bonded partners.   They could have been the ideal intellectual couple.   
Instead they both left behind them an insensitively cruel trail of hurt, abused and objectified women and men.    He was a jerk, because he was ruled by his most primitive instincts feeling entitled to abuse any woman, whom he could manipulate into compliance.   Beauvoir imitated him.   She was at least his equal as a jerk, because she most probably had not the same biological proactive urge for homeostasis, as men have due to their biology, but she was as abusive as a man.  

Prototype 2 is Casanova.    Sartre wrote intellectual texts, which were not under the influence of his affliction, he became an animal only when abusing women.    Casanova was even worse.   His intellectual capacities were never free to be used for their own sake and benefit, they were reduced to be only a tool dominated by his instincts.    He used all his cognitive abilities to serve his instinctive goals of acquiring supply for his never ending urge to abuse.    And his cognition was so blurred, that he misinterpreted his abuse as beneficial to women.    Some pseudo-intellectuals are very dangerous. 

My mindmate to be found is a genuine intellectual according to my definition and he agrees with this definition.     

Saturday, June 23, 2012

525. My Wish For A Jerkoscanner

525.  My Wish For A Jerkoscanner

Along with the myth of the free will, I have given up all illusions, that the difference between drooling over a woman's body and appreciating a woman's personality as a companion were men's conscious free decisions.   This difference is determined by the man's innate needs and instinctive urges and his individual sensitivity to what stimulates the pleasure center of his brain.   

When men drool over women's objectified bodies, their cognition is deactivated and they are not any better than animals, they are just instinct driven robots.   
When men love a woman's personality, they are on an evolutionary level above being animals, because to love a person requires enough cognition to be able to appreciate this person's non-physical qualities.  

As either drooling or appreciating is outside the realm of men's decision, it is even more outside the realm of women's influence.    It is a dangerous illusion, when women hope to gain a drooling man's appreciation as persons by compliance with being used.    

Wise women valuing their dignity reject being objectified by the drooling animals.   Instead they choose those men, by whom they are needed and wanted as companions.   

Unfortunately for these women, it is often difficult or impossible to distinguish by his observable behavior between a man's true level of what attracts him.  Mistaking men's animal drooling for love and commitment is one of the biggest hazards for women.  

There are good news:  While the behavior may be misleading, the brain tells the truth.

"Love and sexual desire activate different areas of the striatum. The area activated by sexual desire is usually activated by things that are inherently pleasurable, such as sex or food. The area activated by love is involved in the process of conditioning by which things paired with reward or pleasure are given inherent value. That is, as feelings of sexual desire develop into love, they are processed in a different place in the striatum."

In an ideal world, a woman could send a man to get a brain scan before she allows him to touch her.    This way he could prove to her, that he deserves her by dignified love, in contrast to being merely an unworthy animal attempting to abuse her objectified body.   

But we do not live in an ideal world, but in one, where women too often only find out, that a man is unworthy of her, when it is too late, when she already has made the mistake of getting involved, due to confounding his objectification of her body with apparent but lacking commitment. 

Sending a man to get a brain scan is theoretically and technically possible.   But if I were to have a science fiction fantasy about the perfect world, a woman would invent an instrument called the 'Jerkoscanner'.  This would be a portable and affordable brain scanner, which women could use on men's heads before getting involved.   
The Jerkoscanner would warn her, if a man's apparent interest in her person is nothing better than his strategy of manipulation and seduction caused by his drooling for the body.     

Saturday, June 16, 2012

524. The Absence Of Urges Is Better Than Self-Control

524.  The Absence Of Urges Is Better Than Self-Control

"A study by University of Iowa neuroscientist and neuro-marketing expert William Hedgcock confirms previous studies that show self-control is a finite commodity that is depleted by use. Once the pool has dried up, we're less likely to keep our cool the next time we're faced with a situation that requires self-control."

"But Hedgcock's study is the first to actually show it happening in the brain using fMRI images that scan people as they perform self-control tasks. "

"The study could also modify previous thinking that considered self-control to be like a muscle. Hedgcock says his images seem to suggest that it's like a pool that can be drained by use then replenished through time in a lower conflict environment, away from temptations that require its use."

This study backs up my opinion, that if a woman wants a man predominantly for the safe haven of the companionship of two persons, then the wisest choice is a man, whose instinctive subconscious reactions to the stimulation by objectified female bodies is as low as can be found.  

A low instinctivity man is no hazard, because by his own innate predisposition, attitudes and genuine needs he is more attracted to a woman's personality than to her body.   Therefore he is not prone to be drawn into a struggle against temptations, which he does not have.     

A high instinctivity man, who only has rationally decided to treat a woman as an equal partner according to her needs, because he has cognitive conscious reasons to do so, including the wish to prevent losing her, needs to exercise a lot of self-control against strong instinctive urges to objectify women.   He is a hazard, because whenever his self-control has been depleted by any other task, he is prone to behave in an inconsiderate and irresponsible way. 
This has even further implications.    A relationship needs hard work and effort to improve it, to communicate about unpleasant conflicts, to face reality without denial and avoidance.    Sometimes a lot of willpower is needed to do this.  
Someone of low instinctivity, who does not need to waste his willpower on fighting the strong animal inside himself, has more willpower left to invest into the constructive work on the relationship.  
Also whenever a high instinctivity man has depleted his willpower in an attempt to solve relationship conflicts, he is prone to behave as a jerk due to not being able to resist some temptations.         

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

523. Advertising As Evidence Of The Growing Desensitization To The Social Norm Of Oversexation

523.  Advertising As Evidence Of The Growing Desensitization To The Social Norm Of Oversexation

"A recent study from the University of Georgia looked at sexual ads appearing in magazines over 30 years and found that the numbers are up."
"Using sex to sell everything from alcohol to banking services has increased over the years: 15 percent of ads used sex to sell in 1983; that percentage grew to 27 percent in 2003."

"Reichert said this upward trend in erotic ads is a reflection of society."

""Sex sells because it attracts attention. People are hard wired to notice sexually relevant information so ads with sexual content get noticed.""

""It takes more explicitness to grab our attention and arouse us than before," he said. "In the early 1900s, exposed arms and ankles of female models generated the same level of arousal as partially nude models do today. We can see during our lifetimes the changes in sexually explicit content on television, movies, books and other forms of media beyond just advertising.""

Generally, the spiral of habituation and desensitization followed by increasing the strength of the stimulation followed by more habituation and desensitization is well known from addictive agents, which are used for the purpose of stimulating the brain's pleasure center.   This is the case, no matter if the agent is physical like alcohol and drugs or non-physical like gambling.   Most addictions are predominantly detrimental for the addicted person himself.

The spiral of habituation and desensitization to the oversexation of everyday life followed by more drastic oversexation included into the social norm followed by more desensitization and so on is especially fatal, because it externalizes the suffering and damage to women as victims, while the afflicted men themselves succeed to avoid any conscious experience of harming themselves.  
Many men get habituated and desensitized to feeling entitled to the objectification and commodification of women and too often they unfortunately also have the power to impose this upon the victims. 
The women suffer, while too many desensitized men are so much addicted to the primitive physical pleasures of being animals, that they are completely oblivious of paying a very high price for this compensation by having lost and forfeited the true joy of bonded commitment. 

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

522. Luddites

522.   Luddites
Someone described himself in his profile as a Luddite, so I got curious:
"The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanized looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, that replaced them with less-skilled, low-wage labour, and which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life."

This reminds me very much of a German proverb:
Man schlägt den Sack und meint den Esel.
Translation: Hitting the bag, aiming at the donkey.
Meaning: To punish someone for someone else's mistake.

Every invention reducing the work, time or effort needed to produce the same amount and quality is progress and is principally beneficial. 

There is but one huge problem:  Who benefits from such progress?  

When for example someone using a mechanized loom can produce as much fabric in one hour as he can produce using a traditional loom in a day, then this progress does not predetermine the distribution of the benefits between the workers and the owners of the mechanized looms.    Without even considering the utopia of the benefits going only to the workers, there are two possible principles, depending on the availability of the power to implement it. 

1.  The principle of a fair share.   By this principle, the workers' hours for the same pay are reduced.    The worker would work one hour to produce as much as he did before during an entire day, and he would put in a few more hours to repay the owner's investment in the mechanized looms including some interest for the owner.    It is a fair deal, because the worker works less and the owner has a bit more profit.

2.  The capitalistic principle.   The ruthless owner of the mechanized looms uses his economic power and usurps all the benefits.   The workers work as many hours as before, and some are even made redundant.   Only the capitalistic owner reaps all the benefits of progress.   Instead of improving the workers' life, their plight remains the same or gets even worse.    It is an outrage, but it is the predominant principle, wherever there is the power.   

Luddites fight a real grievance but they fight the wrong enemy.   Progressive inventions improving productivity are not an enemy, the real enemy are those, who abuse their power to usurp all the benefits.     
I have no solution, how the exploited could force capitalists to share the benefits of progress.   But destroying progressive inventions as the Luddites did seems not to be one either.