110. Women's Stupidity Enhances their Plight

Women's Stupidity Enhances their Plight

It is a known fact with enough scientific evidence:   Seeing a naked, nearly naked or provocatively dressed woman or even a picture of one triggers a man's animal instincts.   The higher his instinctivity, the stronger this effect.   This means, that women should be aware of men's limitations.  
Men's triggered instincts are never valid or acceptable to be used neither by themselves nor by anybody else as an excuse for misbehavior and lack of self-control.   But those instincts, when triggered, do incapacitate men's reasoning and functioning as rational beings.  That is a reality to take into account when evaluating men's behavior.  When their instincts are triggered, they are temporarily rationally challenged.   They cannot help it to be mentally disenabled by their instincts.  Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is subtle and not easily to be noticed.   But women better are clever and reckon with it all the time to protect themselves against the detrimental effects.  

I claim that monogamous bonding in couples like Dorine and André Gorz leads to more happiness and less suffering as the sum for both and seen over a lifetime than any form of promiscuity and polygamy does.   Even if this could be debated concerning men, it is certainly true for women, who are more inclined to be monogamous, as long as they are not brainwashed by men to overcome and destroy their innate promiscuity inhibition.
It is obvious, that any person, who is bonded in a monogamous relationship and whose promiscuity inhibition is intact, fares better by kindling the monogamous relationship than by jeopardizing it, even if this means the need to use self-control once in a while.  

The behavior of all people is determined by two forces, the animal instincts and the capacity to make rational decisions, that has evolved to make them humans and distinct from animals.    Those persons, who have evolved to the highest level of humanity, have evolved the capacity for self-control based upon wise foresight and learning from experience.   They are capable to make a reasonable estimate of the outcome of their actions, based upon previous own experience, observed others' experience and knowledge, and they are capable to control their behavior based upon that estimate.

A man with low disgust sensitivity, whose instincts get triggered by a woman dressed not very decently, can still have so much foresight and self-control, that he never risks to cheat.   Even though he feels his instinct, he does not let it determine his behavior.  
His temporary need to use self-control is no contradiction to my claim, that he in total and long term will be more happy, suffer less and cause less suffering than someone, who is too weak or too stupid to resist his instincts and cheats.   When his partner has the dignity to leave him immediately, he has forfeited happiness.    

Some religions incorporate some good knowledge about human nature, of course without this knowledge validating them in any way. The islam has a wise understanding about the reaction of male instincts to women, but its cruel reaction of punishing the prey for the dysfunction and weakness of the predator is preposterous.   It is an outrage to make the women prisoners in the house or under a walking tent, while the men are allowed all the freedom.   If they really would see the necessity of such a drastic segregation, then they should lock the men away.    

Wise people cooperate to avoid unhappiness and damage by triggering instincts in inappropriate circumstances and situations.   Such cooperation means that men use self-control upon their instincts, and that women avoid triggering those instincts by dressing decently.   Together both genders could reduce the detrimental effects of male dysfunction due to their instincts in every day life.

A wise woman knows, that it is in her own best interest to only trigger the instincts of her own monogamous partner in the privacy of the couple.    Whenever she wants to be perceived by a man with his brain clear and undisturbed by the animal inside him, then she needs to dress in a way, that her body is covered well enough.  In all everyday life situation, when the woman wants to be respected and perceived as a person at work or when doing business, she needs the colleague's or business partner's brain functioning properly.    She would make her own life unnecessarily difficult, if she would be triggering men's instincts without any benefits for the purpose of her dealing with him. 
Only if a woman consciously wants to be approached for a fling, then she better runs around provocatively dressed and they will all be chasing her.  
In short, intelligent women adapt their attire to their purpose.   

But the majority of women in modern western societies are too stupid to be aware of all this.   They believe consciously in being protected by the law and by the publicly declared equal rights against the bad effects of male instincts.    They have the illusion to be free to trigger men's instincts and not suffer from it.   
They complain with a lot of reason about the macho men, who disrespect, depreciate, repress, exploit, abuse them.   Their complaints are more than justified, but they are blind to their own responsibility of triggering in them the instincts, that enhance their macho attitudes.    They want to be treated by humans as humans, but they contribute to them being animals.  

In reality, they are as much driven by instinct as are men.   Their own instincts drive them to trigger men's instincts in the most inappropriate situation with the most unfavorable results and they do not know it.   When they are successful, they feel flattered.  They identify themselves with their looks and their body.  They run around half naked, provocatively dressed like prostitutes.  The more they can trigger men's instinct, the more they feel good about themselves.   They are proud to be able to trigger men's instinct.   They are pathetic.

But instead, those foolish women are driven by their own instinct to trigger the promiscuous instincts of the worst emotional psychopaths, they fall for the pick-up-artists like flies into traps.   Being driven by their procreation instinct, they get pregnant from the least suitable psychopath and then either they get dumped immediately or after having been married and cheated and divorced, and in the end they are raising their brats by themselves or have to cope with all the hazard of patchwork-families.   They trigger instincts and get hurt as a consequence.  

Wise women do not waste one minute of their time with a man, who is in a relationship or interested seriously in wanting a relationship with someone else.   Competing causes a lot of pain, that can be avoided by focusing on the free and available men.   No man could cheat on his partner, without a woman accepting to be the one he is cheating with.   With her human emotions, this co-cheater would suffer hell, when cheated upon herself, but she does not hesitate to let her own instincts make her the cause of suffering of the women, who has been there first.   

They consciously want a monogamous relationship, but instead of being happy with one partner each, they compete with each other for other women's men. 
The most idiotic women are those, who are successful in luring a man away from his previous partner, and when he then cheats on them too, they are astonished and outraged.  

Both men and women get dysfunctional under the influence of their animal instincts, but in the end, the women suffer from both, the men's emotional psychopathy and their own stupidity.   
Unfortunately neither the women nor the men are fully aware of what they do and of what goes on between them.  These women do not only cause damage to themselves, but to all women, even those, who are wiser than to trigger instincts.    If men are getting used to experience women provoking their instincts without hesitation often enough, then they generalize their own mental dysfunction of considering women as objects to all women, even to those, who are decently dressed and who attempt to avoid suffering under this dysfunction.   


This is like the marshmallow test.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_gratification
The promiscuous man and the woman with blind eagerness to breed are both like the kid, who greedily devours the marshmallow immediately upon getting it in reach.   The monogamous person is like the kid, who is capable to wait, until the much bigger reward comes later, be it two marshmallows for a kid or the long-term bonding in true love for an adult.   


Women are supposed to be from Venus and men from Mars.   But when I observe those breeding animals and particles driven by instinct to hurt each other and consider this as normal, then I feel that I am an alien from another galaxy.    From the distance of that galaxy, Venus and Mars are very close together.   
I observe them from my distance of an alien, and I can see the logic in their behavior, when that logic is based upon the instincts main objective of the survival of the species.   But in spite of all my observations, I have never understood and I will never understand, how triggering a man's instincts can make a woman feel good.   It will always be beyond me, how what is an insult to me is flattering to them.

But I am convinced that I am not the only alien from the galaxy of monogamous, anti-promiscuous people capable to bond.  I am an expat from monogamy land.  Where are my fellow country people?  Dorine and André Gorz came from there.   My mind-mate from there is somewhere.    We only need to find each other.     

109. Atheistic Moral Concerning Promiscuity

Atheistic Moral Concerning Promiscuity

In entry 108 I explained my assumption, that those people become promiscuous, whose saks (misspelled to avoid appearing in filthy men's searches) drive is stronger than their disgust sensitivity. 
This is much more the case with men than with women.   The real percentage is of no importance, but there are many more promiscuous men than women. 

In an oversimplified example, 100 men and 100 women get newly involved intimately.   Of those 30 couples were both monogamous and would get bonded, 40 men and women would both have a promiscuous fling and forget about it unaffected, that leaves a mismatch of 30 promiscuous men and 30 non-promiscuous women, who are not suitable for each other.   The women get emotionally bonded automatically and will be very hurt, when they are dumped, abused or cheated upon by the men, who lack the ability to bond. 

Promiscuity hurts the non-promiscuous victim.  It causes serious emotional damage.  Therefore, this is a very serious moral issue.   Hurting others is morally wrong.    Moral requires consideration and responsibility. 
But this is not just a moral issue limited to not following specific rules of some societies or religions.   It is worse, it is a breach of basic humanity. 

Basic humanity means to me as an atheist to follow some kind of the golden rule.   This includes as a very important part, maybe as the core of it, to avoid hurting, damaging, exploiting others.   Avoiding to hurt others is more than empathy or projection.  It is requires active efforts to find out, what would hurt them and then refrain from doing it. 
Therefore any promiscuous person has the moral obligation to make sure, that a partner is also promiscuous, before starting a fling.   Making a non-suspecting monogamous woman the victim of promiscuity is an atrocity and deeply immoral. 
 
There are three main varieties of promiscuous men:

1.  Those, who are aware of the consequences of their behavior, they restrict their demeanor to promiscuous women.   They have their emotional disability of being unable to bond, but as long as they stay with their own kind in the gutter, they do no harm to decent women. 

2.   They are the emotional variety of psychopaths as explained in entry 104. These psychopaths do know, that they hurt and damage others, in this case the monogamous women, whom they lure and manipulate into allowing the psychopath to abuse them.

3.   But there seem also to be some promiscuous men, who are either so incredibly stupid or driven by a delusion, that they just have no clue, what they do to their victims.   From looking at some men's site, I start to suspect, what goes on in those abominable creatures' mind:
- They project, that women are as much driven by instinct to want flings as they are themselves.  They belief that by 'offering' a fling, they are doing the woman a favor and the woman should be pleased and flattered. 
- They are too stupid to even imagine, that a woman could get emotional bonded, while they forget them the next day. 
- They are completely ignorant and oblivious of the fact, that women are not mere bodies, but persons with dignity and self-esteem.
- They believe, that all women are promiscuous and all run after the alpha-males to be allowed into their bed.   If their own approach is rejected by a woman, they are too stupid to even imagine, that the woman is just decent and monogamous, they attribute it to the alpha males getting them all.   These idiots then pay a lot of money to be trained as pick-up-artists.   Psychopaths teach other men to become more successful as abusers.  It would be pathetic, were there no victims at risk.  Nobody seems to bother.   I wonder, what would happen, if a full psychopath would start training others in how to forge and steal.    There is no real difference, those pick-up-artists can do as much damage to a woman's emotions as does a thief to a person's possession. 
 
For the case, that one of those abominable creatures reads this, here is a chance to reconsider his delusion: 
= When I was approached by a man, and it was clear, that he wished to use my body, I considered this as an insult and I spat in front of his feet.   This was the strongest expression of disdain and scorn, that I could think of.
= If I were forced to choose between two man, one is a non-promiscuous, hyponanimalistic man able to bond, but he is impotent, the other is a stud, but promiscuous and not able to bond, I would choose the impotent one without a moment's hesitation. 


To sum this up.   Promiscuity 1 is pathetic, they may deserve compassion for their lost bonding ability.   Promiscuity 2 and 3 are immoral, because the used victims suffer. 

Unfortunately, the emotional suffering of women is usually not recognized by their society, not only when it is directly caused by emotional psychopaths, but in general.    Men dominate society, not only by political power, but mainly by the power over the media, so they manipulate men in their delusion of what they are entitled to do to women, and women in their willingness to suffer, what should cause their outrage.   Religion adds to this by promising the reward in the afterlife, if they willingly suffer on earth, whatever is done to them. 

108. Promiscuity and Disgust Sensitivity

Promiscuity and Disgust Sensitivity

I am suspecting, that promiscuity or the inhibition of promiscuity are related to differences in disgust sensitivity.  

There is certainly a wide variety in disgust sensitivity between people.  As an obvious example, some people allow their dogs to lick their faces without any hesitation, others feel already disgust when merely watching it.
I assume that while all people have some amount of disgust of other's body fluids, there is probably also a wide variety of how much disgust people feel about the contact with a stranger's body.  

What in previous entries I had described as promiscuity inhibition, could be mainly or partly a strong repulsion to get near any stranger's body, which then as a consequence impedes promiscuity.    This does not contradict my previous assumption, that promiscuity is a loss of the inhibition, but it is an elaboration.   

In this elaboration, promiscuity inhibition means, that disgust sensitivity prevents hypoanimalistic individuals from physical involvement with a stranger.   Such involvement is delayed, until the emotional and intellectual intimacy have prepared both partners for physical bonding, when they are no more strangers to each other.
I strongly suspect, that only people, whose instinctivity is higher than their disgust sensitivity, are prone to become promiscuous.  

The destruction of the promiscuity inhibitions and the development of promiscuous psychopathy is a two step process.  
The first step is beginning promiscuous activities with strangers or persons, with whom emotional and intellectual intimacy does not exist.   Assuming that promiscuity is caused, triggered or enhanced by strong instinctivity, then it could be that when two strangers agree on a fling, they do this in a moment of strong instincts overriding their disgust sensitivity and their repulsion of a stranger's body.  
This would be similar to someone, whose extreme hunger overrides his disgust and he eats food from the garbage container, that would cause him nausea, if he were less hungry.  
Of course, in such a situation, the physical intimacy is not creating any bond, as the major requirement of emotional and intellectual intimacy is lacking.   They experience the physical encounter as something completely different from a bonding experience.   The more often they repeat non-bonding flings, the more they get desensitized to not feeling any restraining disgust and habituated to not getting bonded.  
When they have lost all ability to bond, they become dangerous emotional psychopaths.  In this state, even when they know someone for a long time before getting involved, for them as desensitized emotional psychopaths this is still nothing more than uncommitted promiscuity, even though they are no more strangers.   But for their unfortunate and unsuspicious hypoanimalistic partners it is bonding.  


So far, I have used the word disgust in a vague and unspecified way.   My assumption, that disgust sensitivity to a stranger's body is something developed by evolution needs some evidence.  

In my attempt to find some scientific backup,  I found this text based on research as recent as 2009:  http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/137596.pdf

As a result of several studies, the authors distinguish three varieties of disgust:  Pathogen, saksual (misspelling on purpose), and moral disgust.  They reject previous concepts, where disgust was meddled with feeling creepy.   
They consider all three disgusts as the result of evolution.   The pathogen disgust aims as a protection from pathogen substances, the saksual disgust as a selective protection against have unfit progeny, and the moral disgust as a protection for the cohesion of groups.   That sound plausible.  
The authors consider all three disgusts as the same emotion.   But this is somehow not fully convincing to me, when I compare it with my own subjective experience and introspection.  
Yet again, such studies were made on a representative sample of average people, of whom most were most probably breeders and particles, and I am the one, who is different.  

Therefore I cannot really know, what kind of disgust another non-promiscuous woman feels, whenever she is approached by a stranger and perceives his intentions as aiming to use her body for a fling.   But she would most probably feel disgust, as is shown in the results of these studies.  

But I know my own reactions from such experiences in the past.   It is a very strong sick feeling of the disgust to pathogen substances to get in touch with a stranger's body fluids.   An analogy for the understanding of promiscuous readers: It is the same disgust as if someone would suggest to smear dog poop on me.    Morally, I feel outrage, that somebody has the disrespect and depreciation to even consider for one moment, that I were someone to be degraded as low as a body, an animal, an object.  But this is a different feeling from the pathogen disgust.  
Since I feel no instinct to procreate, so of course I have no specific instinctive disgust rejecting some males as more unsuitable than others.  I choose a partner with my brain to bond with, not with instincts to procreate.   Therefore I feel saksual disgust against all strangers, but always combined with the pathogen disgust towards the stranger's body, so I cannot distinguish both as different emotions.  

107. Homage to James Randi

Homage to James Randi

James Randi has the mission to educate people against delusions and irrational beliefs.   I admire him for his never tiring of his battle against woo-woo. 
He has even sacrificed one million dollars, which anybody could get by producing scientific evidence for anything, that Randi considers as woo-woo.    Even though the probability, that anybody will ever get that money is near zero, he has sacrificed the money, as it is in a bank and not his anymore.   All my kudos to James Randi.

I have no mission.   When I am confronted with someone's belief in woo-woo, I feel tedium and repulsion, I do not want to even hear it.   I have been reading atheists' and skeptics' discussions, and I was amazed every time, when someone reported his success in using logical reasoning to make someone doubt his or her delusion.   I have no clue, how they manage to get through.   Maybe they just triggered doubts, that there had been already.

Like most skeptics and atheists, I had my share of being in contact with people, who were ardent christians, because they experienced their prayers to have been answered, who believed in homeopathy, because they experienced their dog getting better while it was given to him, who believed in their own immortal soul because of an own near-death-experience.   Instead of me making any impact with reasoning upon them, they usually had condescension for my defect of disbelieving. 
I am capable to teach people, what they want to learn, when it is a paid job.   I suspect that to have any impact on a belief, one has to be a person, who radiates some kind of authority and charisma.   Since I am lacking this, I have given up any futile attempt to use reason against woo-woo. 

That is the reason, why I am so grateful for the existence of the one-million-dollar offer of Randi.   It spares me any futile arguing, because it is the one super-argument, that makes any other arguments redundant.   Whenever I am getting contacted now by any man, who refers in his profile or email to astrology, to be a Reiki master, to be selling magnetic devices for improving the efficiency of a car's engine, or to any other woo-woo in his life, then all I need to do is tell him to apply for the million dollars as evidence for his belief.
Even though this does not make any difference to them, it is a good and effortless way to end the contact with such hopeless cases without me thinking to have not given them the chance to reconsider.   Anybody, who at the age of above 60 still believes in woo-woo, is doomed to die believing in it.   I have no reason to waste my time with them.       

106. Migration, Evolution, Cultural Differences

Migration, Evolution, Cultural Differences

I am wondering, if migration is an event of natural selection of the fittest, precisely self selection.   People, who successfully migrate to another country, appear to be physically fit enough to survive the hardship of migrating and to be daring enough to go.  

There is an entire nation to look at as an example.   Except around 1% (source Wikipedia) of the population of Native Americans, every citizen of the USA is either an immigrant himself or a descendant of immigrants.  

Due to my lack of more knowledge, I am restricting the following speculations on Americans with European and African decent.  

1.   European descendants:
They survived famines in Ireland and other countries in the mid 19th century, they survived being shipped and checked in Ellis Island and they were millions.    Many survived the trek out to the west under harsh conditions.   The weakest, the helpless, the destitute stayed back and perished in their misery.   And the rich and powerful stayed back too, but they were probably not fit enough to survive hardship either.  

2.  African descendants also are the fittest.   Their ancestors came as slaves, they survived atrocities and extreme hardship.    Their ancestors were also the tragic victims of betrayal by their own kind, because they were sold by other Africans as slaves.    Maybe the morally better were sold, and their worst kin stayed back, providing the world now with the worst crooks and scammers.   

Beyond differences between ethnic subgroups, from my distant view, there is a general American culture, that is in some ways noticeably different from all European cultures.   Since by now, one can walk through a German city center and see so many American fast-food, soda and shop chains, that one could nearly think to be in the USA, the differences are deeper than that.   I perceive the American culture as a culture of daring and risk-taking.  

Example 1.   In Germany, the last bears and wolves have been killed centuries ago.   A few wolves are allowed back now into national parks, but many people resent this as dangerous.    One stray bear having come from Slovenija killing sheep caused a big upheaval, until he was finally killed.  
If Germany were like the USA, there would be some huge national parks, where the bears would be, with huge fences around, and nobody would even have to keep people out, because most people would not even dare to enter.    They are just content to have a bearfree safe country outside that fence.
In the USA, the bears are everywhere, they come to people's gardens and enjoy their swimming pools.   Once in a while, a bear kills a camper or rips off the face of a hiker.   People read it in the newspaper, shrug their shoulders and go on hiking.   I was amazed about this unconcerned attitude towards the danger of ferocious animals.

Example 2.  There are infrequent slight earthquakes around here.   The worst under the geological conditions did slightly shake the house, and it was a big deal for everybody.   When in California the house shakes as much as that, some people seem not even to notice, for others it is such a minor thing.  
Scientist expect an earthquake of a magnitude of up to 8.1 with a high probability in the near future along the San-Andreas-Fault.   
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/san-andreas-capable-of-80-earthquake-over-340-mile-swath-of-california-researchers-say.html

If there were such a prediction in Germany, this would cause mass panic, any person able to do so would move away as far as possible.   Houses would loose their value down to a fraction, and most probably the administration would evacuate the area nearest to the fault.  
In California, people are not impressed by the danger of such an earthquake.   People continue to invest millions in expensive buildings, public and private houses, infrastructure is build as if there is eternal safety guarantied.   They build water supply lines, roads, power lines all crossing the fault, as if nobody had ever predicted that one side of the fault could easily shift 26 feet to the north all of a sudden.  
People fill their homes with expensive consumer goods, in complete oblivion that one big shake up will destroy hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of such stuff in any household at any moment. 
I have seen museums, where very precious ancient porcelain, glass and ceramic had been brought from far away by a collector.   It was standing there in showcases, in no way secured, and after the earthquake, all the millions worth of rarities will just be a heap of shards.   Even if an insurance pays money, the loss of cultural heritage from several cultures can never be replaced.   Why did that collector not leave the stuff in a safer part of the world?

But risk taking is also noticeable in financial matters.   People get risky mortgages and then loose their houses, people loose money in risky investments.   Even the entire invention of the credit card seems to be the product of a risk taking culture.   

If I would think enough, I might come up with more examples.   But I have made my point, why I am wondering, if this difference is just historical development, a consequence of living in a specific environment, socially and geographically, or if indeed the migration was such a strong selection of who migrated and who stayed behind?

Any comments welcome.

105. Careful Choice Should Not Be Intimidating

Careful Choice Should Not Be Intimidating

Yesterday I got the feedback of someone, after looking at this blog, that he perceived me as intimidating.   So I better clarify a few things.  

As I already mentioned in entry 61 about Male Disrespect, I am indeed attempting to be very explicit in discouraging the wrong guys from bothering me.    

But I want to encourage the compatible men, and certainly not intimidate them.   I do have very personal priorities, that other women do not have.   But I also accept a lot, what the average women do not.    I am looking for a man, who is as little immersed in and attracted to the world of the instinct driven breeding particles as I am, who is just as little impacted by their ostracism as I am.   That means, that his thinking is as independent and out of the box as mine.    

First of all, when I declared my admiration of André Gorz as a role model, this is only referring to his monogamous deep love for Dorine.    I am not looking for someone with any accomplishments, that can be measured by social status, fame or wealth.    I will readily accept someone, who is poor, unemployed or on welfare without hesitation.    His human qualities and his intellectual capacities are important, not his selling them on the market of social success.    

Second, I do not need a stud, a hero, a bundle of physical strength or sportiness.   I am perfectly fine with someone as small and weak as I am.   I value a strong brain, a strong personality with strong principles and strong values much more than a strong body.   

Third, looking for a hypoanimalistic individual, whose promiscuity inhibition has not been destroyed, I know that someone like this is to be found between people, whom the particles have given labels like nerds, eccentrics, mavericks, outsiders, recluses or even Aspies.   

I am very blunt and drastic in my rejection of the unsuitable guys.   But for the right guy, once I am convinced that he is really someone, whom I can respect and appreciate, I am a kind and caring person and not at all intimidating.   

Therefore if you can see yourself as my mindmate, please do have the courage and contact me.  

And if you are just a haphazard reader of this blog and you know someone, a neighbour, a friend, a colleague, a relative, who could be my mindmate, please get him in touch with me.   You have no reason to do this for me, but you can do it for him.    

104. Promiscuity is Emotional Psychopathy

Promiscuity is Emotional Psychopathy

This continues entry 101- Promiscuity is a Scourge of Humanity.

I prefer using the expression Psychopathy, even though in the DSM IV, it is now defined as Antisocial Personality Disorder

These are some of the symptoms: 
# consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
# lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
# promiscuity;
# having shallow or seemingly nonexistent feelings

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_Personality_Disorder#DSM

The first of the above symptoms should not only mention financial obligations, but also emotional and ethical obligations.

The expression of 'promiscuous psychopath' is really a tautology, when used on humans, because I consider promiscuity in the species of homo sapiens by my definition as a form of psychopathy.   But since I cannot find a noun for a promiscuous person, I am distinguishing between full and promiscuous psychopaths. 

Full psychopaths exploit, hurt, damage, abuse other people without a conscience, without empathy, without responsibility, as if they were entitled to this.

Promiscuous psychopaths exploit, hurt, damage, abuse monogamous people without a conscience, without empathy, without responsibility, as if they were entitled to do this.   

There is only one difference.   The damage by a full psychopath can be anything visible from killing, mutilating, material  and not only psychological damage.   The damage by the promiscuous psychopath is limited to the mostly invisible emotional and psychological damage, except when spreading a disease.

Therefore everybody acknowledges the existence and unacceptability of the obvious damage done by the full psychopath, while the damage by the promiscuous psychopath is hidden and socially not recognized.  

Of course, the definition of mental illness or mental health are relative to the evolution of the human part of the brain.   Promiscuity could not be defined as emotional psychopathy for those prehistoric times, where the brain had not yet evolved the promiscuity inhibition.   When animals behave as animals, they cannot be called psychopathic.  
But in modern civilizations at least a part of the population has evolved to such a progressed state of true humanity, that they are capable to be monogamously bonded and their bond is protected by the promiscuity inhibition.   In this situation, promiscuity is a regression to a less evolved state of mind, that is pathological compared with the benefits of monogamy for the individual.         

Assuming a woman, whose emotional sensitivity of having a promiscuity inhibition is still intact.    That woman gets involved with a man based on her trust, that this is the begin of a relationship for the rest of her life, and automatically she feels committed and bonded with him.  
There are some varieties of this scenario.  
1.   If she is lucky, his promiscuity inhibition is as intact as hers, and they are deeply bonded ever after like Dorine and André Gorz.
2.   If she is unlucky, a full psychopath cheats and tricks her out of a lot of money and then dumps her.   She gets empathy and sincere outrage for the loss of money, because that damage is obvious, but her agony of the broken bond is mostly overlooked.
3.   If she is unlucky, a promiscuous man, who is an emotional psychopath, just allows himself to be driven by his instincts, without even considering a future with this woman.   If he has not sunk too low yet, he might even be vaguely willing to get seriously involved with a woman some day, but postpones the decision.   After having got involved, he decides against her and dumps her.   He having already been so much emotionally crippled, is not affected at all by a broken bond, that he never was capable to feel.  But the woman is devastated, because her deep bond is broken.  
His behavior is psychopathic.   He has no conscience, no responsibility, no consideration, no empathy for the bond, that he had created in her.   She gets not much empathy and no outrage for her sufferings, because in a society, where this kind of emotional psychopathy is widespread, even those, who are no afflicted themselves, are often accepting it as fate and as the normal risk of life.  

Whenever a psychopath makes a non-psychopath his victim, this causes a tragedy.   When two psychopaths deal with each other, they both get, what they deserve, and if they kill or damage each other, they were equal adversaries and do not deserve compassion.   But full psychopaths are only a minority of society, and they usually only get at each other in institutions like prisons.   Most of the time, their victims are innocent decent people.

Two emotional psychopaths having both been emotionally crippled in the same way, cannot hurt each other and they can believe that there is nothing wrong with promiscuity in general and hurt others as if this was normal and their right.   Two people already having both a contagious disease are not dangerous to each other, but they are dangerous to those, who are still free of the disease.   As a metaphor, promiscuity is like a disease, that destroys the ability for deep bonding.  
Unfortunately, there are so many promiscuous, emotional psychopaths, that they are considered as normal and not as pathological.   If they are growing into promiscuity too young, they will never even know, what they are lacking.  

It is the same as with the delusion of the existence of a god and a life after death.   Too many people share this delusion, that it is considered as normal and not as a mental dysfunction.  


There was this famous couple, Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre.   So many people admire them.   They have written valuable books and they were certainly very intellectual.  
But as persons, they are both the prototypes of promiscuous, emotional psychopaths.   They agreed on how to treat each other the way they wanted to be treated.  
They both have gone through life leaving behind a trail of deeply wounded others, who got involved with each of them for a monogamous bond, but where just used and dumped without conscience, consideration and responsibility.    Beauvoir and Sartre not only committed emotional atrocities to those, who loved them more than they deserved, but they were also misunderstood role models, who have indirectly caused lots of emotional atrocities committed by those, who imitated them.  

103. German History and the Particles Identity

German History and the Particles Identity

I grew up in Germany not too long after the end of WW2.  The fact, that most of the German population of the generation of all adults around me had at least agreed, if not participated in a political system committing atrocities, was far beyond my comprehension.  

It took me decades, until I finally can see an explanation.  
I perceive civilization as the attempt to balance the instinctive urges for the survival of the species with the wish for individual wellbeing as the result of the evolution of intelligence, rationality and deeper emotionality.   Therefore in civilized societies, hierarchies are formed by those, whose fitness is not only physical, but also intellectual or even predominantly intellectual.    Those, who would have been the Alpha-males in a savanna tribe, are not capable to be equally successful in a complex society.   

But the balance is fragile, as can be seen in this worst case scenario.  If a non-sportive leptosome intellectual and a sportive stupid brute would survive a shipwreckage and meet on an deserted island, the stupid brute is capable to kill the other to obtain any scarce resources or even eat his body, and he has no way to defend himself.   The brute takes, what he wants, before the intelligent has a chance to use his brain for more sophisticated methods of survival.   
Whenever the stupid brutes have a short term advantage, they can overrun the long term advantage of intelligence.    The day has only so many hours, and it takes a long time to become a learned specialist in any subject, just as it takes a long time of training to become physically fitter and stronger than others.   Therefore unfortunately, the intellectuals, even when they would feel inclined to, just cannot become strong enough to defend their brain power physically against the stupid brutes.  

It does not really matter, how one would define the intellectual elite of any country, nor if by such a definition they are 10% or 30% of the population.   They are always the minority.   They are always at risk to be overrun.   
But I dare to even assume, that hypoanimalistic individuals contribute more to this elite, while the less educated masses mostly consist of breeding particles.  

When two things happen, a catastrophe becomes probable:  The breeding particles gain enough power and control over a society, and they share the delusion, that they are entitled to live according to all their instincts as this being morally acceptable behavior.  

I am not enough instructed in history to know, how the particles gained the power over the intelligent elite in Germany leading to Hitler being elected in 1933.   But I can clearly see, that the Nazi ideology represents every strong instinct of the savanna principle as morally not only good but as the obligation of every citizen.    As soon as the gullible breeding particles were given the delusion of being a large pleistocene tribe, called Arians, they were released of all constraints to enact the procreation instinct, the ingroup-outgroup instinct and the hierarchy instinct.
Women were reduced to be wombs, raising children was officially their purpose in life, and men's dominance over them was not disputed.  
All non-arians were the outgroup, as much inside the country as outside.   War was initiated to gain resources, for the explicit purpose to gain country to expand and to find a home for all the progeny, that those wombs were supposed to produce.    Non-arians were killed or first temporarily used as slaves.   Enforced labor is not legally considered slavery, but it was nothing better.   
New hierarchies were formed, but by the criterion of the dominance of the physically fittest.  In a speech in 1935, Hitler wanted the German youth be "Flink wie Windhunde, zäh wie Leder und hart wie Kruppstahl".    This means:  Fast as greyhounds, tough as leather, hard as steel.   Those qualities were helpful for someone to become a leader of a pleistocene tribe, as they were vital for the survival in the savanna.  
Intelligence and rationality were not valued.   The core of the intellectual elite of Germany was destroyed, just because some of their ancestors happened to have come from Palestine 2000 years ago instead of being barbarians sitting at the Rhein river and throwing the bones over their shoulder after eating.
In every hierarchy, there are always those, who are not content, because they are at the bottom.   Now, in this new hierarchy, they had nothing to achieve, no own qualities or efforts to invest, just by identifying themselves with being arians, they had got the underdogs to look down upon.   Their former intellectual superiors had become their underdogs, either by being enslaved or otherwise deprived of all status and influence, driven out of the country or even killed. 
The true intellectual elite of Germany was destroyed and replaced by an caste of power, who had enough intelligence to rule over the less intelligent, but whose intelligence was only a tools serving their even stronger instinctivity.   Being controlled of the delusion of the superiority of the Arian tribe themselves, they used their tool of intelligence to spread the delusion.   The gullible masses were more than ready to shake off the restraints of civilization.  

This is another example of how even highly capable brains can still be overridden by the forces of instinct an delusion.   There is not much difference, if someone has the brain to learn Latin, Greek and Hebrew and still believes in god and witchcraft and therefore burns people alive as part of the inquisition, or if someone has a brain to study law or medicine and then has the delusion of being a member of an arian tribe justifying the destruction of colleagues just because they are not members of his tribe.

102. Preparing Commitment and Preventing Unhappiness

Preparing Commitment and Preventing Unhappiness

While any expectation to onesidedly be able to make a partner happy or to be onesidedly made happy by a partner, are illusions, the real task for a couple is to cooperate to avoid making each other unhappy.   There is a lot, that they can do to prevent unhappiness.

As mentioned before, for hypoanimalistic people with an intact promiscuity inhibition, commitment is sealed by physical involvement, but it is preceded by the creation of emotional and intellectual intimacy.  

A part of creating emotional and intellectual intimacy is an active endeavour to define together the future relationship.  This is done by a conscious working through a list of commitment essentials and finding agreement and consent on the balance of giving and taking for each.   Both partners need to put on the table, what they have to offer, where their limitations are, what they expect and what they need.    If they are both aware of the paramount importance of this to avoid suffering pain later, they will be motivated, sincere and unrestricted in this process.   They need to be very explicit, not to take anything for granted, but to avoid all misunderstanding and misinterpretations very carefully by verifying all assumptions and not jump to conclusions or get trapped in projections.  

As an example, mutual trust is a vital basis of commitment.   But that requires both partners to be trustworthy persons and also that both are capable to trust, to entrust themselves.   Trust needs to be earned and trustworthiness deserves to be honored, both needs to be balanced.  Preparing commitment requires here for both to agree on how much convincing  the other of the own trustworthiness is fair and reasonable and when to trust. 

The following is a list of other essentials, that need consent as a fundament of a relationship.   People are different, so what is consent for one couple could differ very much from the consent of another. 
This list is different from the mindmate checklist in entry 83, which is a preselection of being compatible or not.    The focus in this list is on finding consent, but if no consent is possible, then again it indicates incompatibility.    

This list contains, what is important to me.  For other people, there might be more or other topics on their list.  

• reliability and predictability
• responsibility and caring
• obligations of commitment
• defining exclusivity and priorities
• using combined resources
• respect, appreciation, equality
• gender roles
• sharing information and decisions
• how to handle conflicts
• rationality, evidence, convincing
• earning forgiveness and what cannot be forgiven

While I am writing this, I am daydreaming of sitting at some beautiful spot, like the shore of a lake, talking about these topics with my future partner.    Where is he?

101. Promiscuity is a Scourge of Humanity

Promiscuity is a Scourge of Humanity

I found one more quote: 
"André and Dorine Gorz were consistently faithful, with a relationship of unquestioning trust, according to friends, physically and intellectually."
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2678781.ece

I am wondering, how they could get so bonded, and why men in our times are so completely emotionally disabled by promiscuity.  

After some thinking, I started to see a parallel between saksuality (misspelled on purpose) and killing.   Again as before mentioned, I see human behavior as the result of two independent evolutions, the evolution of animal instincts and the evolution of the rational brain controlling them.    Killing others of the own species to take their resources and to eat them is a part of animal evolution, just as is promiscuous copulation to spread the own genes.  
Both such behaviors are uncontrolled not only advantages, but also a hazard to the survival of a group of humans, who depend on some coherence inside the group for the entire group's survival.   So the rational brain has evolved an inhibition against starting some activities, that are only suitable for adults after some careful instructions concerning wise restrictions.     

There is a killing inhibition in all people, and if someone lives in civilized surroundings, he may never loose it.    This is especially true for the direct killing in physical fighting, which is the way of killing under savanna conditions as the result of animal evolution.    The built in inhibition to shoot at someone is probably less strong than the inhibition to strangle someone with the own hands.  
The killing inhibitions can be overcome by role models in criminal subcultures, and it is on purpose overcome by training in the military.   But once the inhibition is overrun, there comes habituation, until killing has become normal, unrestricted behavior void of emotions.   There are many activities and actions, that a person growing up experiences the first time with thrill, elation, fear and other strong emotions, but after doing them more often, they become routine, that does not elicit emotions any more. 

Once the inhibition to kill is overcome, it cannot be reinstalled.   There can be laws and rules to threaten with punishment, if the trained killer kills the members of the ingroup, but the readiness to kill will persist.    And when the inhibition to kill was removed by military training, this of course also removed the less strong inhibition to use violence as a method to gain some advantages. 

As many other traits the relative strength of the killing instinct and the evolved killing inhibitions are different between individuals.    At one end of the scales are those, whose inhibitions are maybe non-existent or very low and overcoming is easy, therefore they choose the military to be allowed to live in accordance with their natural inclinations.   Others are further evolved towards being truly human and no training can ever make them ready to kill.  

Unfortunately, the world history is a history of wars and of having armies.  As a consequence, there has always been a big amount of men, who have been made uninhibited by training and by having been a soldier in a war.   Therefore there were always those men apt to kill and to use violence in civil live.   There are enough cases of soldiers returning from war and killing or abusing their wives.   And the criminal and other violent subcultures of every society are certainly in part supplied with active members by the military training.  

But there is another development too:   The effect of the flood of realistic moving and still pictures on people's, especially on children's minds.  
I had mentioned in previous entries Kanazawa and the Savanna Principle:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201002/the-savanna-principle
According to Kanazawa, by evolution, the human brain is still confounding the reality of real people and the reality of pictures, that appear to look like real people, as are movies, TV and photography.   His example are people on TV becoming friends as if they were real.  
This makes so much sense, that I assume the existence of the same effect also upon the destruction of inhibitions.    The young caveman needed to observe the role model of his teacher to initiate him into killing and attacking the members of outgroup tribes.   After watching this a few times, he then could be encouraged to do it himself.   
Now already children watch killing and violence in such frequency and so realistically shown on TV from early age on, that by the time they are the first time in a situation of conflict, there inhibitions are already so fragile, that the last step to actually attack is a small one.   It seems to be a doubly detrimental situation:   While the fact of knowing well enough, that TV is not reality reduces to feel an inhibition as there would in a real situation, watching countless murders and acts of violence still causes disinhibition by the habituation of watching it.  

I explained the killing disinhibition extensively, as it is a neutral topic to make my point comprehensible.   Because I am convinced, that the evolution of the more human brain has not only evolved the inhibition to kill, but also the inhibition to promiscuity.   Only the damage of a murder is obvious, while the damage caused by promiscuity is more subtle and not so obvious to those, who are themselves void of the sensitivity for deep bonding.   
A deaf person cannot miss hearing music, as he had never been able to experience it.   A promiscuous man cannot miss the bliss of feeling a deep bond, as he had never been able to experience it.   Both are tragically disabled.

The disinhibition and desensizitation of the promiscuity inhibition are as detrimental as that of the killing inhibition.    Just as the killing inhibition prevents the first killing, so the promiscuity inhibition prevents to get physically involved with strangers, it protects the privacy of the own body from being abused.
 
People, who seal a bond of emotional and intellectual intimacy with a bond of physical intimacy do not overcome an inhibition, because when there is emotional and intellectual intimacy, there is no involvement with a stranger.    Two people can have a bond of the combined intimacy and still keep their promiscuity inhibition intact preventing them from cheating.   They feel a strong emotional and intellectual bond, and when they add the physical bond, it is forever associated with the strong emotions of a bond.  
It is the same effect as with Pavlov's dog.   First his mouth watered, when he saw food, then when he saw the food and heard the bell, and then when he only heard the bell.   First the couple feels bonded and committed by emotional and intellectual intimacy, then the feel bonded by adding physical intimacy to emotional and intellectual intimacy, and then even the physical intimacy by itself makes them feel bonded.   With their sensitivity intact, they can forever preserve a healthy promiscuity inhibition, that makes them recoil from physical encounters without a bond.  

I admit, I am void not only of empathy but even of the imagination, how someone can perceive his body as so alienated from his mind and personality, that he can have his body use a woman's body as a tool, a kind of a toilet, and forget her completely unaffected afterwards.   But I know, that the majority of men are such emotional cripples.   Even worse, they even claim, that their disability should be considered as the norm of society.     

Dorine and André Gorz met in 1947 and married in 1949.   When I grew up in the 50s and 60s, the environment was still pretty much the same as it was for them.   I grew up with no TV.   But even though TV started in Germany in the 50s, it was black and white for years to come, and the effect of confounding pictures with reality seems logically depending on color pictures.    In those days, saksuality was a part of the world of adult couples, there was abstract knowledge, there were weird rumors between curious kids, there were novels, but there was no visual pollution of every day life.   Curious kids had to seek information, it was nowhere pushed upon them.    Women were decently dressed, there were no commercial selling things by using saks to do so.   Physical intimacy had its place in the privacy of the couple.   Therefore young people had a chance to enter their first intimate relationship or marriage with their full potential of the sensitivity to get deeply bonded by the combined treble intimacy.   

Nowadays children grow up in the visual pollution of an oversexed world.   This pollution is everywhere, on TV, on newspapers, commercials and the web.   People's minds get poisoned by that visual pollution and it is as unhealthy as the pollution by bad air.    A child, who has seen countless saksual activities on TV with the same emotional understanding as watching people play tennis together, is too desensitized to ever learn to associate physical intimacy with creating an emotional and intellectual bond.   If the promiscuity inhibition has been destroyed by role models, norms of society, TV, the web or peer group pressure, before the person has reached the maturity to be able to feel an emotional and intellectual bond with a partner, then this person has lost a quality and ability most probably irreversibly, that makes humans truly human.  

Ruthless promiscuity of the fittest has been a way of evolution to increase the fitness of the species, so the tendency for promiscuity would have spread accordingly, causing more and more suffering to individuals, who needed monogamous bonding to be happy.   Fortunately spreading of promiscuity was limited successfully by saksually transmitted diseases until very recently.    Monogamous couples were spared, while the more someone was promiscuous, the more he risked to be killed by such a disease, before he could spread his horrible genes too much.   Then slowly, human evolution added the promiscuity inhibition as an additional stop to the spreading of promiscuity.  

But now, things are changing in a dangerous way.   The promiscuity inhibition has lost its protective influence, and the progress in medicine has gone so far, that saksually transmitted diseases do not rid the gene pool of the promiscuous, before they can spread their genes.  
The future is bleak.   One of the most valid results of the evolution of the human brain, the capacity for monogamous deep bonding, is at the risk of disappearing and being replaced by the predominance of animal instinctivity.   

100. Homage to Dorine and André Gorz

Homage to Dorine and André Gorz

This is entry 100, and this is the right moment to sum up my search with a role model.   Dorine and André Gorz are the modern Baucis and Philemon.  

http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2191&editorial_id=25733
http://www.dominiquesvillas.co.uk/en/News_and_Features/Books/Lifetime_of_Love.cfm
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article2651472.ece

They were together for nearly 60 years, and loved each other so much, that he could no bear to survive his beloved Dorine, so they ended their lives together.    They were happy without having children.   
She was his one and only.  Even though I cannot know it I am convinced, that they created a bond of intrinsic commitment when they got involved, that most probably it has never even occurred to him to cheat on her nor to impose a harem of ex-partners upon her.     


They are the role model of a couple attached to each other by a truly human bond of profound quality.   

I wished I could find a precious man like André Gorz.   There is enough left of life to share some years of the same kind of a deep bond as they did.  

Such a man is out there somewhere and he is craving to find me as much as I am craving to find him.   But were is he?   How can we find each other?    

Compared with André Gorz, I cannot help but to perceive all those pseudo-progressive men, who admit being promiscuous as if this were human decency, as trash and riffraff.   They are animals void of the precious quality of true humanity, that I see in André Gorz's bond with Dorine.   

99. Mutual Priority

Mutual Priority

In the Mindmate Check List I asked:

Is living and spending time together your priority for the rest of your life?   Will your partner be the most important person in the world for you?

Feedback about this shows me, that it needs a bit of clarification.   I am trying to find someone, who is like me and who has the same needs as I have.   What is natural to a hypoanimalistic man, who like me is sensitive enough to create a deep bond of exclusivity, is incomprehensible to promiscuous men and to people with a particle's identity.  

The priority of living and spending time together means, that I prefer to find someone, who shares many interests and hobbies with me, so that doing them together is an important part of our lives.   It does not mean, that I expect someone to share activities with me, that he does not enjoy, just to please me, nor is it the other way around.   If he has an interest or hobby, that I am not interested in, then I just keep out of it.   Also of course when two people want to have a continuing interchange of learning by discussing books, they need time alone  to read them and to reflect about them.   24 hours focusing attention on each other is certainly not a good idea.   But spending 24 hours together sharing breakfast, going for a swim, sharing a picnic, going to a museum, looking at the pictures and sharing impression, sharing dinner and then maybe each reading for a while is a perfect day for me, and I would neither miss other people nor anything else.
But if someone is leaving the house at 8 in the morning and comes back tired at 8 in the evening, then I ask myself, what benefit such a relationship would have for me.   The same, if someone is retired, but has an interest or hobby, that is so important to him, that he organizes his life around pursuing it, and the woman has to fit in. 
What I want is someone, for whom the priority of shared interests and shared activities is as important as it is for me, and who can restrict time apart upon agreement.

The partner being the most important person also comes natural, when an hypoanimalistic man enters a deep bond of exclusivity.   The partners are each other's best friend with a clear difference to all other persons being considerably less important. Ties to the family of origin are of course an exception.   It is my task to be agreeable to a partners family and not to attempt to get between them. 
Friends are common friends, the partner is never excluded from any social contact, except when the partner has no own wish to participate.    Any contact or friendship with another woman, that has private content, of which I am excluded, is emotional cheating.   If a previous female friend refuses to include me fully into the friendship, then it is the friend to yield, not me being emotionally cheated upon.    And of course a sensitive hypoanimalistic man would not even consider to continue contact with deactivated intimate partners.    That is the realm of the desensitized promiscuous guys.   
Again, this is not a condition to fulfil as a price in an extrinsic commitment, but a natural consequence of intrinsic commitment.   If some promiscuous man feels it natural to have emotional polygyny, he is doing, what is good for him, he is just not suitable for me.    The suitable man for me has not wish or need to have onesided women friends, only common friends.

This does not mean that I am a control freak or insecure, as I have been accused.   This is just a question of the quality of the relationship.   When I know, that a man is indeed hypoanimalistic and bonded in a way, that he is not interested in any contact with other women, then I have no reason to be jealous or control, what he does.   In an extrinsic commitment, a woman has to be alert all the time, if the man does, what he has promised against his inclinations.  
Therefore I really attempt to make sure not to get trapped into extrinsic commitment and a relationship, that is not good enough, but to really get the intrinsic commitment, that I deserve, because the partner gets the same from me. 

98. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Commitment

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Commitment

Commitment in a relationship or marriage is basically the agreement of sharing some part of life and of mutually accepting obligations agreed upon.  

Extrinsic commitment is a decision, and intrinsic commitment is an emotional bond, following the decision to create it.    In extrinsic commitment someone accepts obligations as an unpleasant but unavoidable price to pay in return for benefits, in intrinsic commitment, the emotional bond makes obligations to appear not as obligations to the other, but as giving what is expected and needed, or even as something, that would be done readily and is not perceived as an obligation at all.
Example:  In extrinsic commitment, a man refrains from cheating for the purpose of not jeopardizing his subscription to have the committed partner's body available at any time.   In intrinsic commitment, he feels so much part of a unit and being bonded, that for him, other women do not exist as women anymore, only as neutral parts of the social environment.   The wish to cheat just does not occur to him.   

I grew up with the idea, that people get married for better and for worse, and that they form a union against the inclemencies of life.   Getting married meant three symbolic acts, marriage in church and at the townhall as the beginning of extrinsic commitment, and their first night together as the beginning of intrinsic commitment.  
Growing older, becoming an atheist made the church wedding superfluous, and becoming more of an individual, I decided that the government had nothing to do with my private life, so that the signature in the town hall also lost any meaning.    There was no more extrinsic commitment for me to look for.  
What was left was my strong wish for the intrinsic commitment of creating an emotional bond, of becoming in my identity half of a unit, half of a couple, being transformed automatically by the beginning of an intimate involvement.  

When I was young, I suffered a lot of pain, because I was so naive as to assume, that it was the same for men.   Now I know better.   For the majority of men, a woman is a body to be used as a valve for their instincts, independent of being attached to her person or not.    But I have my dignity, and the knowledge, that I am a body without a bond to a man, turns me into an asexual sack of potatoes and I am proud of this.   
Therefore the symbolic act of starting the physical intimacy after having created emotional and intellectual intimacy first, has two effects upon me.   It not only creates the bond and makes me transform into having the identity of being half a couple, that bond also validates physical intimacy to become the shared joy of nonverbally expressed attachment.   The bond of attachment modifies an otherwise beastly instinctual act into an act of human interaction, that is enjoyable, because it is in sync with my dignity.   It is human, because the physical intimacy is an additional expression of the pre-existing emotional and intellectual intimacy of two personalities.       

There are promiscuous and hypoanimalistic men.    The promiscuous men are by their innate tendencies disabled to form an intrinsic bond of commitment at the moment of entering an intimate relationship.   For some this has been hardwired into their brain genetically, for some it is the sad result of desensitization after having more than one fling and not stopping there, because they have been brainwashed that promiscuity makes a man a real man.  
I feel sorry for them, because they are lacking some profound human capacity for the special joy of being deeply and exclusively bonded.  

Hypoanimalistic men are rare and very precious.   They are those, for whom entering intimacy creates automatically a bond of intrinsic commitment, and from then on they feel like half a couple as much as I do.    Only they are suitable for me.

Since I am fully aware of all this, I know by now, that a man, whose capability is limited to only decide on extrinsic commitment, because he is promiscuous by nature, is a big hazard to me, he will cause me pain instead of happiness.   
Only intrinsic commitment can give me the emotional home, safety of belonging together, trust, reliability, that to me make a relationship worth having. 

I am aware, that a promiscuous man could enter extrinsic commitment, and it could then grow slowly into intrinsic commitment over time.   But I am not made to cope with this.   A promiscuous man enters physical intimacy to test, if the woman is suitable for him to get his instincts satisfied by subscription for the price of extrinsic commitment.   Would I knowingly agree to such an arrangement, this would be a disaster for me.   While I would still get myself bonded immediately, I would feel the lack of the other's bond, I would feel like a used body, and I would be as responsive as the sack of potatoes, while waiting for the other to develop a bond.   But since he does not want a sack of potatoes, but a responsive partner, so I would of course fail his test and be dumped feeling myself the agony of the broken bond.  

I am wise by now.  I know, what is good for me.   There could come a Nobel prize winner, a genius, a world famous scientist, he could impress me with aw, but if he is promiscuous, I would not want him.  
   


Unfortunately too many women, for whom male promiscuity in reality is as devastating as it is for me, are brainwashed to accept it and to repress their own needs as a price for social status and acceptance.    Men could not have flings, if there were no stupid women first consenting and then secretly suffering.    Men would be less convinced of their strife for flings being justified, if more women would have the full awareness of what they really need and would resist male promiscuity with much more determination.   

As sad as it is, male tendencies still dominate the social climate so much, that they can brainwash women to tolerate promiscuity, instead of the women having the influence of teaching men to acknowledge their promiscuity as a dysfunctional tendency detrimental to the happiness of couples.   As much as it is in their genes, they are doomed.   But if promiscuity were considered as a form of anti-social and disruptive trait, then men could at least be spared to desensitize themselves even further by the routine of having flings without hesitation.  
Male promiscuity is similar to overeating and relief-drinking.   It gives short-term pleasure or relief and long-term damage.   Only the damage of obesity and alcoholism is obvious and visible, while the subtle loss of the capacity of deep bonding will not be noticed, because the unhappiness because of the lack of a deep bond is usually not seen as connected with promiscuity.  

Where are those precious hypoanimalistic men hidden?

97. Stupidification on the WWW

Stupidification on the WWW

When I started to use the WWW, finding information was easy.   Information was supplied mainly be universities, scientific institutions, newspapers, tv and radio stations, portals, non governmental organisations, and on all of them learned people had a reputation to preserve.   So most information was reasonably reliable.   The same with discussion forums.   
Only of course those people, who want to make money, are never to be trusted.  Any alleged information supplied for business and commercial purposes could never have been expected to be valid. 
In those days, there were mainly either learned people or ignorant people.  

All this valid information is still there, but it is hidden and buried beneath and between a huge amount of misinformation, prejudice, urban legends, lies, propaganda, rumors, delusions, half truths, that comes from those millions of people, who use the web to write anything in public blogs, web-pages, forums.      

Goethe, Faust:  "Denn was man schwarz auf weiss besitzt, kann man getrost nach Hause tragen."  That means: What one has in black upon white, one can carry home easily.  
Children grow up with written material, that claims truth without sources, books on geography, history, biology, they are meant to learn the content, not to doubt its truth.   Later they have the tendency to be taken in by the authority of printed material appearing as more true than it is, this is generalized even to what is printed on a screen.    Some even take the preposterous nonsense of the bible as literal truth.  

I have been repeating several times, that anything on this blog is just my personal world view, wild speculations, assumptions, no claims of anything based upon evidence, except as far as I have given external sources.   But no matter my warnings, anybody reading this blog can pick a sentence or a paragraph out of context and repeat it elsewhere as a fact.   The only reason, why this probably has not happened, is the lack of much popularity of this blog between millions of others.    

I know that I am complaining about the mental pollution and stupidification, and I am participating in its production myself.  

With more popular blogs and pages, it happens every day millionfold.    Someone writes his more or less correct thoughts on a public page.  Others read it, distort it in their mind with wishful thinking, selective perception, simplification and misunderstanding.   Gullible and lacking scientific thinking, they then write down themselves a more distorted version.   What is written as a claim, and repeated often enough, starts to appear more and more true.    Therefore, more and more people get their brains filled with distorted misinformation, they are getting stupidified.   

Googling for valid information has become very difficult.    On many searches, there are over a million results, of which google shows as maximum selection 10 pages with 100 results each, chosen by some obscure algorithm, that is not in favor of the quality and validity.   Sometimes I look over several hundreds of those results, and all there is looks doubtful.    Scientific articles are only accessible by paying, and it is impossible to evaluate private pages, if they are written by a learned person or by some halfwit or highschool kid, without opening the page first.  

The gullible people get, what they want, but for the skeptics, finding valid information has become difficult.   Now instead of learned and ignorant, there are learned and misinformed people, who believe to know a lot, but have no clue, how much they are the gullible victims of stupidification.   Misinformed people, who belief in their misinformation are more dangerous than people, who admit and acknowledge their ignorance, and more dangerous to themselves too.    Scammers, quacks, frauds of all kinds profit from this general stupidification.

96. Identity and Mental Health

Identity and Mental Health

On this page I found two definition of mental health.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/154543.php

According to Medilexicon's medical dictionary, mental health is "emotional, behavioral, and social maturity or normality; the absence of a mental or behavioral disorder; a state of psychological well-being in which one has achieved a satisfactory integration of one's instinctual drives acceptable to both oneself and one's social milieu; an appropriate balance of love, work, and leisure pursuits".

According to WHO (World Health Organization), mental health is "a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community".


There is a big difference between the two definitions.   The first one can be well applied to hypoanimalistic individuals, who want the homeostasis of their personal needs to the limit of not taking advantage of others, based on a fair exchange of giving and receiving.   (more in entry 93.  Identity and Needs)

The second definition claims, that mental health means to be a particle.    "is able to make a contribution to his or her community" is a clear description of having a purpose for others beyond a fair exchange.   

I seriously doubt, that submitting to the urge of having a purpose is beneficial for the mental health, because it creates recurrent and permanent serious conflicts between different needs.  

A simple analogy:   An addict with a limited amount of money in his pocket and a brain capable of some foresight knows, that if he gives in to his need to eat, he will later suffer from withdrawal syndrome.   So refraining from giving in to the hunger the stronger need of the addiction can be satisfied.
It is similar with breeders.   The caretaker of a baby might feel a need to read a book, go for a hike or to a museum, or simply just sleep, but there is this screaming bundle of her genes with the stinking napkins to be changed.   If she does not do it, then she gets punished for neglect, and since one major reason for sacrifices is the afterworld, she also feels failing her duties to her deity.   So she sacrifices her real personal needs and changes the napkins.
Both are principally the same situation.   The person got himself addicted by his own doing, the woman decided to become a breeder by her own doing.  

Particles and especially breeders get themselves stuck in very unhealthy situations, without a way out.    A woman, depending financially on a husband, who is absent most of the day, who cheats on her and mistreats her, has been coerced by her instincts and brainwashed by her religion to put her children above her own wellbeing.   When such a situation destroys her mental health, the rational way for her to restore it would be to dump her brats on the husband, whose they are as much as hers, get her freedom and leave.   But she does not do it, because she does not allow herself to see, how much her situation is unhealthy and her reaction of suffering is logical.   Instead she takes pills, goes to therapy and does everything possible to get herself deformed until she functions with a kind of artificial pseudo-mental-health waiting for the reward after her death.

Being the slave of brats 24 hours a day and 7 days a week is a serious mental health risk for many people.   If society and the government as the representatives of the species insist on the survival by having enough progeny, this should not be achieved by brainwashing particles into self-sacrifice.   Parents should be given enough respite to preserve their mental health.    Just as schools are free, so should be enough baby-sitting hours and there should be places like camps or homes, where people have a right to deposit their children for at least one weekend per month to recover from them.  

Breeding is a risk to mental health not only for the mothers, but also for the men, who have to work hard under the condition of stress and sometimes unhealthy work conditions to earn enough money to provide for an entire family.   When women work part-time to fulfill their need of being more than a cleaner and cook for their brats, this only adds to their stress.  

To preserve the mental health of the breeding couple, they both need a reduction of stress.   Society needs to supply them both with part-time jobs, so that they together with two part-time jobs have enough money to live on, and they can give each other enough respite to not being slaves to neither job nor brats 24 hours a day.  

Breeding is an unacknowledged major risk to mental health.  

95. Truth, Trust, Probability, Decisions

Truth, Trust, Probability, Decisions
I have eliminated the word belief from my active vocabulary for the purpose of my reaction to claims, I only use this word when describing others.  I also am using the word truth with a lot of caution.   Some things of my own experience and perception are certain enough to be considered as true.   Yet there can be hallucinations or other distortions.  

I prefer to calculate probabilities.    This calculation is based on the rational plausibility and the trustworthiness of the source.   Rational plausibility means the accordance or contradiction to other knowledge, that I have previously given high probability and the presence of evidence including own experience.  

The probability of a claim is a function of the scientific validity of a claim and the reliability of the source.   

A few examples:

If I read about the result of a research in a scientific journal with enough information about evidence from a double blind study, then it gets high probability.
If I read a claim without any evidence on a forum, I give it a probability, that is derived from how much it is similar to other claims, of which I do have evidence.  
When I hear the same claim, appearing plausible but without evidence and coming from independent sources, I start to increase the probability.
Any claim, that is in contradiction to evidence, automatically gets a probability near zero, no matter, how often it is repeated.   The same with claims, which are by their own definition beyond the applyability of evidence.  
When something plausible is beyond the reach of evidence, like the subjective experience of someone, then I calculate the probability by that person's trustworthiness in the past.   A person, who has never lied, can make the claim to have a headache.   In spite of the lack of evidence to measure a headache, I give it high probability as being told the factual reality of another.   
Would a notorious liar claim a headache, I would calculate a lower probability, because I would suspect a lie with a purpose.  
When a trustworthy person claims to have seen a ghost, then of course I can calculate a very high probability of the person's experience being subjectively real, but the probability, that it was a ghost and not something else, is still near zero.  

Of course my estimation of probabilities can be wrong, because many times I have only insufficient information.   But life requires again and again to make decisions, and decisions are as good as the information, they are based upon.   
Calculating the probability of the existence of a god as practically zero allows me the sound decision to behave as if I have never heard even the word 'god' before.  
Calculating that the probability of a claim without evidence is not good, even if it has been repeated hundreds of times helps to avoid buying, what commercials want me to buy.
Calculating the probability by reading on the web the independent experiences of other buyers and users of a product and the absence of negative experiences helps to make a wise decision in buying something.  

Calculating probabilities helps to make rational decisions undistorted by emotions, gullibility and manipulation.  

94. Empathy, Projection, Imagination

Empathy, Projection, Imagination

Empathy is an important ability, when bonded with a mindmate.   It allows to know, what the other feels, and to react to it and treat him the way he needs to be treated.  

But empathy has its limits when dealing with people, who are very different.   Especially people, who are the majority, like those with the particles identity, are often not aware, that what they consider universal empathy cannot be successfully applied to very different persons in a minority.    What they believe to be empathy, in reality is a projection.    Projection here is meant in a general way, not as a defense mechanism.

The behavior of the projecting person can be unpleasant and detrimental to the target.    This kind of projection should be avoided with great care.

What is needed instead is imagination of how different people in different situations feel, react and what they need.   This needs to be based upon knowledge, and not assumptions.  This kind of imagination is also useful to realistically know oneself under different circumstances.

An example:   A woman's child is stillborn.  
I lacking all procreation instinct, do not feel any empathy for her at all.   
But with imagination I know, that this is a traumatic life event and that she needs a lot of consolation and compassion.
With projection, I would buy a bottle of champagne and congratulate her to be spared 18 years of slavery.
It goes the other way too.  Many times I have been pitied by projection, when I gave the information of not having children.    Would those motherly types hear me tell them, that I am childfree by choice, with imagination they could more adequately react with something like 'good for you'.

Outsiders like hypoanimalistic persons with individualistic identities are quite often the target of unpleasant and hurting projections of well meaning persons from the majority of breeding particles.  

93. Identity and Needs

Identity and Needs

This is in general about needs, no matter, if they are physical, emotional or intellectual.  

There are mainly three methods of handling needs:  Fulfilling them, consciously fighting and controlling them and denying and repressing them from consciousness.  

There are intrinsic and extrinsic reasons influencing the decision, how to handle a need:
Intrinsic reasons are the knowledge of detrimental consequences like health risks, the respect for the rights of others, and protection of the self-esteem and dignity by not acting against the own values.
Extrinsic reasons are the fear of consequences from others like embarrassment or punishment, brainwashing by education, religion and culture as to what should be done.

Hypoanimalistic individuals have needs to enhance the own wellbeing, including the need to share and exchange with partners of their choice, based upon a tit-for-tat principle.  They are mainly guided by intrinsic reasons in how they handle their needs.

Breeders with particles identity have sometimes needs, that are the contrary of the needs of individuals or at least completely absent in individuals.   Particles feel a need to breed, to serve a purpose of apparent altruism (entry 86. The Myth of Altruism), the need to conform, to be like others, to get their approval, to fit in, the need to compete and to climb in the hierarchy.   In short, they have the need to be successful particles, their method of handling a need is much or maybe more guided by extrinsic reasons than be intrinsic reasons.  

That means, that when individuals have a need, that is impeded by obstacles, they work on removing the obstacles and get, what they feel is a legitimate need.    Particles consider obstacles from other particles as legitimate, and the particle is supposed to work on himself to remove the need from his brain and refrain from it.   The particle is supposed to submit to serving a purpose instead of pursuing own needs.  

As an example:   Individuals, who suffer from loneliness and who know, that it is more healthy to be a couple than to be alone, do the rational thing and make serious efforts to find a partner.    Particles seriously tell lonely people, that they need a therapy to stop feeling lonely, because feeling lonely indeed is unhealthy.  Instead of attempting to end being alone, they should pursue a purpose as a particle.
This is as preposterous as if a particle gives a diet pill to a non-obese hungry person instead of acknowledging, that the person needs food.  

Particles are the majority of society, and many have no clue of how hypoanimalistic individuals experience the world.   Particles do not restrict their attitudes, expectations and pressure to influence other particles, but apply them to all people.   They impose their expectations on hypoanimalistic individuals.    The world of the particles is not my world.   

92. Dynamics in Self-Help Groups

Dynamics in Self-Help Groups
As a part of learning more about what is hard-wired into the brain, and also as a way of coping with personal experiences, I have been a passive reader and also a participating member of self-help forums, blogs and mailing lists concerning couple's problems, narcissism, psychopathy, ADD/ADHD, autism and others.  

I start to see a pattern of the dynamics and structures of such groups.    There are hierarchies, there is no altruism and there are unwritten rules requiring to pass a kind of initiation ritual.

The reason for joining such a group is usually a crisis.   The suffering newbie feels low, with damaged self-esteem, miserable and helpless, a sponge for attention and sympathy.   That person is in need of respectful and considerate support, which means advice in accordance with the specific individualistic needs, and also encouragement and positive feedback for whatever they do in wise coping.    Instead of support the person in need gets patronized.  
Those senior members, who have somehow overcome their own crisis, project their personal strategy upon the newbie, with assumptions, ignorant conclusions and the hubris of automatically assuming to know something better than the other.  

The suffering newbie is grateful for anything and does very often not perceive the difference between support and patronizing.   Acceptance of being patronized is part of the initiation ritual.   Lack of submission and compliance, resistance leads to either being excluded or being driven out with aggression.

The newly initiated newbies form the lowest stratum of the hierarchy.   Once they have the crisis under control, especially those who get aware of being patronized, they fade away.   Those, who stay in the group, move upwards in the hierarchy of gaining benefits.  
In the middle stratum, they are still acquiring the knowledge needed for their own future patronizing role.   But they can already give sympathy and compassion to the next generation of newbies.  
Being beyond the crisis, but still stuck in an unpleasant situation, they have found, with whom they can favorably compare themselves.   Instead of feeling envious of their more happy neighbours, they feel good in comparison with the newbies suffering more as still in the crisis.  

In the top stratum, there is the elite of the group, who derive so much personal benefit from patronizing the newbies, that they invest a lot of time and effort in doing this.   Some of them appear quite narcissistic.   As long as their patronizing is welcome by the newbies, they can keep up their mask of the unselfish supporters quite well.   But as soon as someone resents their patronizing, the mask falls, and they get aggressive and show their full hubris. 
Since there are usually several of them, who have moved up the same hierarchy, they share the same patronizing ideas and are reinforcing each other in their delusion of being right.
 
Anybody, who has the confidence to doubt their competence in patronizing, even without doubting their competence in supplying valuable information, is a serious jeopardy to their source of narcissistic supply.   Confidence is a heavy provocation, that triggers aggression.   Anybody, who dares to resist patronizing, can in their opinion only be flawed and sick.  
When I dared to enter such a group recently and ask some question to gain information, without submitting to the initiation ritual, I provoked hostility too.
They believe, that everybody needs therapy.   Those, who admit their troubles, need it, but those, who just ask questions, are considered as too sick to even know their need of therapy. 
In reality, it is just the typically narcissistic urge to put other people down to feel better about themselves.  
In my latest contact with such a group, I did not get the answers to my questions, but I got aware of the dynamics.

91. French and English Profiles

French and English Profiles

There is a dating site, that bases matching on some elaborate tests and allows to see the results on the profile.   One item in the test result is the attitude towards fidelity.   Since this is of paramount importance, I always look at it in every profile.  
This dating site has two interfaces, one in French for France and one in English for the UK.   But everything else seems identical.    I made a search on both interfaces, in my age group, for an atheist without children and with a university education.    In both sides, the result were several hundred profiles.   

But then it got interesting.   I did not bother to count, but the difference was really remarkable.   Of the English profile, around half showed complete fidelity in the test, but only about one in ten profiles had any text.    Of the French profiles, about one in ten indicated full fidelity, but about 9 out of 10 had some text, some of considerable length. 

So the French appear to be verbose cheaters, while the English appear taciturnly faithful.   There can of course be many reasons for this difference, even the translation of the test causing the difference.  

But still, explaining everything in life with hard-wired brains is certainly a simplification, that can be misleading.