Men's Fallacy When Interpreting Their Incomprehension Of Women
The same fallacy as explained generally in entry 494 happens very often between men and women. Men are usually not only oblivious of it, but also out of the reach of any attempt to help them gain an insight concerning this fallacy. This fallacy is self-protecting.
Anybody, who bothers to read a part of this blog, can easily get aware, that I am learned and knowledgeable about some topics. There are many men, who are learned specialists in their own field, but who know less about what I am writing about, often because they have not been pondering with the same interest over the same topics. When they talk about their interests, of which I am not well informed, I ask questions, I read further information, but I do not dispute or debate, what they know better than I do. I do this not, because they are men. I attempt to learn from the better informed, no matter if they are female or male.
But men too often do not behave like this. When I share my thoughts with them, not matter if talking over the phone, by email or in real life, often their first superficial reaction of not immediately understanding my statements is enough to trigger the fallacy. They do not hesitate but jump to the conclusion of misinterpreting their own incomprehension as if I were wrong.
While writing this blog, I have put a lot of emphasis on my wish to find a mindmate, defining a mindmate as someone with a high priority on getting bonded by intellectual intimacy derived from sharing the joy of consent. The method to create the joy of consent is communication to find and enhance agreement.
Therefore a man's style of communicating by email or on the phone is a good indication to find out, what to expect from him in a relationship. The way, how he reacts. when he does not comprehend a statement of mine, is a part of his style of communication. He shows his own preference for either consent or a hierarchy of intellectual superiority.
If a man values consent and intellectual intimacy, then incomprehension for him is the task to gain comprehension by giving me the benefit of the doubt, that I know, what I am talking about, that my statements are the result of sound reasoning. He therefore is motivated to find out more about my thinking. He asks questions for the purpose to getting explanations and elaborations from me. He cooperates as an equal, because it is his wish and interest to gain better understanding as a way of intellectual convergence. This makes me feel good. It shows an appreciation of my person. It is a way of reciprocal emotional enhanced shared benefits as the result of shared consent. But it rarely ever happens.
The sad reality is very different. Most of the time, as soon as a man disagrees with any statement of mine, there is a rut in his brain that automatically starts the fallacy of considering my statement as wrong. It does not even occur to him to wonder about his own comprehension or lack thereof. By believing in his own male superiority while lacking the least need or wish for consent or intellectual intimacy, such a man starts an intellectual power struggle with the purpose of establishing a hierarchy, where of course he dominates.
He starts verbal fencing to reach his goal of believing himself the winner of a fair fight. He competes to win by believing to be right, and that make him feel good.
But what makes him feel good makes me feel bad. As soon as I am told explicitly, that someone believes me to be wrong, or if his reaction tells me this implicitly, I perceive this as antagonism and as his creating an emotional crevice. When I feel, that he wants and feels entitled to win by making my lose, I recoil. This attitude towards me is repulsive and it scares me.
Such competition for intellectual superiority is usually already noticeable by email or on the phone. It is a big red flag, that he feels entitled to dominate, even if he declares in the most explicit way the contrary, that he wants equality. But his competing to be right tells me the truth of what to expect. Claiming to offer equality does not always indicate, that a man even knows the true meaning of equality.
Some of the men are unaware, that this fallacy is a contradiction to what they present sincerely as their attitude towards women, and there is an explanation. But an explanation is not a justification, it is a challenge for men to gain more awareness.
It is known by statistics, that men tend to mate intellectually and socially downward. The medical doctor marrying the nurse, the engineer marrying the secretary are examples. This is aggravated by the unfortunate fact, that in my generation, the
average level of education of men is higher than that of women.
Men are unfortunately so much blinded by their physiological need for homeostasis, that their intellectual needs are often temporarily deactivated when they choose a mate by infatuation. They are oblivious of the woman's inadequacy for intellectual intimacy, until the infatuation wears of.
This gets some men into the repeated and long term experience, that when they do not comprehend a woman, or when a woman does not comprehend them, this is indeed caused by the woman's inferior knowledge, intelligence and education. After a while, a man takes this bias so much for granted, that he loses the perception for any woman's intellectual adequacy and corresponding needs. When he then gets into contact with a woman, who offers him intellectual intimacy, he is already so blind and biased, that he has lost the ability to even notice. Before he has a chance to get aware of the woman's real intellectual qualities, the rut in his brain has already mislead him into the fallacy.
It seems that nearly every man, with whom I get into online contact, has been biased towards the fallacy of underestimating me. It is very frustrating to be misjudged, because he life experience has been with too much stupidity and superficiality in all those women, whose bodies attracted his instincts. It is frustrated to be confounded with such women and to be treated as if I were one of them.
