653. Different Approaches To The Process Towards Knowing Someone Better

653.   Different Approaches To The Process Towards Knowing Someone Better

With whom to spend the rest of the life together is a very significant decision.  Mistakes can have very grave, long lasting, irreversible and extreme painful consequences.   

In entries 174, 176, 178 and 185 I developed a model for the process of getting to know each other.    The decision phase in entry 174 can be further divided.  
The preliminary phase is the phase of corresponding and talking over the phone to find out, if there is enough in common to rationally justify a personal meeting, the main decision phase follows the first meeting and includes further meetings.  

The duration of a phase includes a certain number x of hours of time spent by focusing the attention upon interacting by telephone, correspondence and even pondering over the prospects.   These x hours can be distributed over many months of only a short time daily or even weekly, or they can be spent with priority during a short period of time of intensive and extensive interacting.     
 

The more someone is an individual and not average, the more difficult it is to find someone suitable.  Therefore these phases, especially the preliminary phase, are usually repeated with several or even many different possible matches, before two persons find each other suitable enough for considering and attempting a relationship.   

There are principally two different approaches towards how to proceed:

The reciprocal absolute-cooperative approach: 

Goal:
 

This approach has the goal of finding just the one partner, who is minimally suitable for a relationship, but also sufficiently suitable to impede any further interest in others.   In this case, the most rational approach is to focus on only one intensive and extensive contact with one person at a time and to postpone considering and evaluating other contacts to after the possible failure.

Who:
 

The absolute approach suits and attracts those persons, who know themselves and their own needs well enough.  They are aware of what they are looking for in a partner and what they cannot accept.  

The absolute-cooperative approach only works, when two persons choose it as an option.  

Cooperation and consistency:
 

This approach is a form of cooperation.  Both share the task of discovering common ground and affinity and welcome finding them.   Every consent about any topic benefits both in getting them nearer to their goal, no matter if it is a trait, attitude, interest, habit, attribute.   The situation is transparent and to a certain degree reliable for both of them.   

No matter if the consent is more like tolerance by indifference or more like enthusiasm, as long as it is a consent between two persons, who want the consent, both can reasonably expect the other to be consistent.   Consent will not be easily converted into a reason for rejection out of the blue. 

Trust:
 

Growing reliable consent creates trust along with the growing probability of being compatible.   This reinforces and motivates to open up and to share more personal matters, which are also important for compatibility.   

Reinforcement:
 

Trust, consistency and discovering affinity and common ground reinforce the reasons for focusing upon exclusively this one possible match.  This then again reinforces the creation of trust and further affinity.

Emotional risk:
 

Every contact is of course emotionally risky.   But the risk of the absolute-cooperative approach is not so much the risk of an incomprehensible rejection.   It is mainly the risk of ending a contact by agreement because of discovering clearly defined lacking or intolerable traits and attributes.  By accepting someone's having rationally comprehensible criteria, an agreement of not meeting the criteria is not even really a rejection but the consent to be not compatible.  


The reciprocal relative-competitive approach:

Goal:
 

This approach has the goal of finding the best of all possible matches, not just one good match.   Nobody can really know, who is the best unless after having scrutinized every one of them.   As this cannot be done, every good match is considered with the doubt, that there could be a better match yet to be found.    The rational procedure for this goal is to prolong any phase and to explore and to compare many possible matches simultaneously.

Who:
 

The relative approach is often an expression of immaturity, ignorance, lacking self-awareness and having a limited theory of mind.   Some people enter the contact with haphazard persons without a clue about how little there is in common nor what they really want.  Some are attracted by looks, but beyond this they are not able to find out, what they do or do not want, unless and until they are confronted with it.  They only experience incompatibility by noticing the contrast in comparison with someone else.   They need to compare to find out, whom they want.  
Being vaguely discontented but not knowing why leads to a process of recurrently and endlessly probing, discarding and moving on attempting to find someone better.  They continue like this, as long as they are unable to decide, what and who is good enough for them.  

Whenever one person chooses the relative-competitive approach, the other has no choice to get anything else if preferred.

Competition and no consistency:
 

In the relative-competitive approach, there is not consistency.   Consent about a topic is not a reliable step forward towards a wider common ground, consent is only temporary and easily annihilated onesidedly, as soon as someone else appears to be better.   Being accepted or rejected does not depend primarily upon one's own traits and attributes, instead it depends at least as much upon those of competitors.   

These competitors are unknown powers in the background.   Ignoring both their number as well as their traits and attributes makes losing the other's consent by being compared with a successful competitor an unpredictable event coming out of the blue.    

When people are competing to get a job, they do know, that they are competing and they have some idea, what is required.  They have a clue about the qualities for being the best   This gives them a chance to attempt appearing as the best.

The person in the situation of competing against unknown competitors for an appealing partner is in a much less advantageous situation.   Due to not knowing anything about a potential match, there is no way to influence the comparison with others nor to attempt to appear being the best.  Who is perceived as better is determined by the lottery of who happens to be there to be compared.  

Trust:
 

When the rejection can come at any moment out of the blue and cannot be predicted, there is no reliable consistency.   This impedes trust.  The relative-competitive approach keeps contacts superficial and less personal.   The possibility of a rejection out of the blue does not motivate anybody to open up and get more personal.   

Reinforcement: 
 

The fragility of a contact adds to the maintenance of some mental distance.    Being prepared for a pending rejection at any time makes the own relative-competitive approach the most reasonable behavior.   If the rejection by the preference for someone else can happen at any time, then it is beneficial to also have other contacts to fall back upon.   The fragility and superficiality of the relative-competitive approach also reinforce it by preventing trust and closeness.   
 
Emotional risk. 
 

The main emotional risk is the unpredictability of a onesided incomprehensible rejection at any moment and for unknown reasons.   Having such a rejection imposed upon oneself without having any part in causing it is much more painful than an end by agreement.


When the situation is asymmetrical, then the person following or preferring the absolute-cooperative approach is the one having all the disadvantages.   

Jerks play games and pretend to follow also the absolute-cooperative approach, until they find the someone to prefer and then they reject the flabbergasted other out of the blue.  

When the situation is clear, the person with a preference for the absolute-cooperative approach has two options, either to recoil directly or to go along while also continuing to search, but not to find someone better but someone, who shares the preference for this approach.     

The relative-competitive approach is probably enhanced or rather aggravated by the social norm of the lifestyle in capitalistic countries, where people are encouraged and brainwashed towards consuming and discarding, towards the greed of wanting always more and always something better.    

When people are made to buy a better car, a better computer and a better cell phone every few months or years instead of using things until they break, then it is not really astonishing, that they generalize this consumers' attitude also to human relations. 

601. Anecdotal Evidence: How Instinctive Urges Blur, Distort And Deactivate A Man's Reason

601.   Anecdotal Evidence:  How Instinctive Urges Blur, Distort And Deactivate A Man's Reason

A few days ago, a man's profile gave me the impression of his being a nice, decent, and considerate guy.    He used words like honesty, sharing, loving, kind and compassionate in his profile.   He told me, he were fitting my own profile, where I have explicitly mentioned, that I do not want any contact with promiscuous men.   

He seemed interested in further contact with me.   We exchanged a few emails and he agreed also with the importance of communication and of intellectual compatibility.   

But when I had another look at his profile, I was really puzzled.    He had changed his declared intention from actively seeking a relationship to dating but nothing serious.   When I asked him about this unexpected and seemingly incongruous change, his answer was so different from what he had appeared before, that he appeared like a different person.  
.   
He wrote,
1.  that he was "totally discouraged with online dating"
2.  that he now intended to have "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex."

For a moment I was speechless.  When he wrote this, it was morning in his time zone.  Had he written this in the evening, I would have suspected him to be drunk.  
  
1. Even by not being his dream woman, according to his initial interest, the contact with me could more logically have encouraged him.
  
2. Something is strange, when someone with this man's profile decides on such a project.  It is not something to achieve with honesty.   Most women, to whom a man would unequivocally suggest "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex" would feel insulted by this objectification and disrespect.  They would consider him a ridiculous fool for having such expectations.   
Most men, who succeed in getting "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex", do this by lies, manipulation and other methods of misleading a woman to consent based upon the false hope of beginning a relationship.    This is abuse. 

It seemed incongruous and inconsistent, that a man, who had declared himself as valuing compassion and kindness, suddenly plans coldblooded abuse.   It is incomprehensible, how someone suddenly decides to abuse a female body as a toilet for his body waste in spite of his claim of wanting intellectual compatibility.

The following are of course only speculations, as there is no way to find out the truth. 

Desensitization to full comprehension for how much a woman gets hurt, when she is used and discarded is not enough to explain this contradiction.  Desensitization to harming others works best in the absence of compassion.    

The most plausible explanation is this man's overreacting to a state of strong physiological dishomeostasis.    The guy seems to have been reduced from a thinking and feeling human being to a mere animal, being completely under the power of overwhelming instinctive forces.   In this state as an animal, all his human reason appears blurred, distorted or deactivated.    

Any option for behavior guided by human compassion and kindness seems to be concealed behind the predominant urge to copulate like a dog in the gutter, and behind the drive to be a predator and to ruthlessly hunt for prey.   This state as an animal lasts until homeostation restores humanity.

I replied, that a man, who objectifies women, is not worthy of me.    His reaction was "F**k you, you crazy broad. Go back to the asylum."    I was merely blunt, but the animal in him became vulgar.


While I am scared of men's dangerous instincts, I also feel sorry for them.   They are afflicted with instincts, which destroy for them the chance to get, what is most beneficial to their human cognition, especially in the case of men, who are intelligent and educated, and only deranged when they experience dishomeostasis.   

This guy is just one example.   Without being deranged temporarily by his instincts, he could have a happy symmetrical committed and bonded relationship with a woman like me.   But his instincts reduce him to a disgusting beast, who temporarily sinks so low as to intend to abuse women as a toilet for his body waste.   No decent woman with dignity and self-respect wants anything to do with such a man.   

It is very difficult for me to imagine, how men's specific physiological sexual dishomeostasis of needing to get rid of body waste feels.   Biologically, women's bodies do not provide this same experience of dishomeostasis.   
My best attempt to comprehend the magnitude of men's problem is to compare it to the urge of an addiction like alcoholism or even an extreme deprivation as is starvation.   Sometimes an extremely strong craving deactivates and overrides all higher cognitive and moral consideration.  The craving person ruthlessly applies any atrocity, which allows him to restore homeostasis, even killing, stealing and robbing. In the case of men, it can be abuse and rape of women.       

Those jerks, who always copulate like dogs in the gutter, oblivious of the damage done to the abused women, are just animals, who have never really become fully human.  
But assuming, that the guy in this incident knows the full meaning of the words used by him in his profile, like kindness and compassion, makes me wonder, what happens after he had his night in the gutter.   How will he feel, when he is back temporarily in a state of homeostasis, becoming fully aware of what he had done to the woman by luring her into his gutter?    Will he feel the same shame and regret as the addict, who in the state of homeostasis wishes to be free from the addiction?

600. Review

600.   Review
This is blog entry number 600 and there have been over 20,000 page views since I started this blog on July first, 2010.  

I am amazed, that I have still not run out of ideas to write about.   Blogging has helped me to clarify my own world view.  

But mainly I am disappointed.   I had hoped to find my mindmate long before arriving at entry 600.   

I cannot know, how many different people have contributed to those 20,000 page views, nor how many ever really read the page, which they had opened.  But it is disappointing, that nobody has ever recommended me as an apparent match to anybody.    While I do not expect strangers to care for me, also nobody seems to care enough to make a friend or family member happy by telling him about me.       

I am an atheist and a realist.   I do not expect anything good ever coming from fate or a deity.  Nor do I expect any hazard to happen to me more often than by its statistical probability.  The only realistic way to gain or acquire anything is the investment of efforts to earn it.    Sometimes the return of an investment is certain, sometimes the mere hope for a return is proportional to the investment.  

A happy relationship is something to be earned.   This earning is a two step process.   While the second step of cooperating in the effort to make a relationship work needs the combined effort of two partners, the first step of finding a suitable and compatible partner is entirely my own job.  
My mindmate is out there somewhere, but this does me no good, as long as he is not aware of my existence.    Getting in contact with him requires efforts to be noticed by as many persons as possible, until one of them is either my mindmate or knows him and recommends me.    The more people know about my search, the more there is hope.
 
Writing blog entries is a part of this strategy.   Every time someone finds and reads an entry as a result of a google search, this adds a tiny chance, that this person may get interested and even fascinated by my way of thinking as the expression of my personality and is either my mindmate or can recommend me to him.   

Therefore I will continue to write blog entries, until I find him or am found by him.  This is one part of creating hope and thus making myself to feel less desperate.

550. The Irrationality Of Diatribes In Personal Interactions

550.   The Irrationality Of Diatribes In Personal Interactions

Whenever I am the recipient of a diatribe or angry rant, I am puzzled about why people bother to approach me in this way, even though this is not a method to gain anything.   The last good example is a comment to entry 549.   

http://dictionary.reference.com

Diatribe
noun:  a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism:
Rant
noun:  ranting, extravagant, or violent declamation.
noun:  a ranting utterance.

The following is not about the benefits of people sharing the same grievances against any third party while being in harmony with each other, nor is it about someone finding relief by telling grievances to a sympathetic friend.   Many important social and political movements have been initiated by a few justified diatribes. 

It is about the irrationality of sending me diatribes by email or blog comments.    Such diatribes are as irrational as is the man's behavior in Watzlawick's story:

A man wants to hang a painting. He has the nail, but not the hammer. Therefore it occurs to him to go over to the neighbor and ask him to lend him his hammer. But at this point, doubt sets in. What if he doesn’t want to lend me the hammer? Yesterday he barely spoke to me. Maybe he was in a hurry. Or, perhaps, he holds something against me. But why? I didn’t do anything to him. If he would ask me to lend him something, I would, at once. How can he refuse to lend me his hammer? People like him make other people’s life miserable. Worst, he thinks that I need him because he has a hammer. This is got to stop ! And suddenly the guy runs to the neighbor’s door, rings, and before letting him say anything, he screams: “You can keep your hammer, you bastard.” (Paul Watzlawick, “The Situation Is Hopeless But Not Serious: The Pursuit of Unhappiness”)

There are many reasons, why any man and I are not suitable to have any beneficial contact.   The rational reaction of such a man is to zap without wasting any further thoughts on me, when while reading this blog or my profile on a matchmaking site he notices such reasons.
In the case of doubt, a friendly question invites a friendly clarification.    Any provocation on my part is not intended and it is no invitation to hostile arguments.    There is no rational reason to express anger by attacking me with diatribes.  

The irrationality of sending diatribes indicates, that the sender has some problems, concerning both the cause of his anger and his hostility when coping with it:

1.  Entitlement and grandiosity delusion. 
A man feels entitled to get anything and this is justified for him by nothing more than his wish to have it and/or he believes himself to be god's gift to women, who cannot have a valid reason to reject him.    Therefore he considers the choice of a partner only justified by his own selection or rejection. Being rejected is not acceptable to him.   Even anticipated rejection due to my clearly expressed criteria is for such a man a reason to be angry.   A woman's disagreement with his grandiosity is also a reason to be angry. 
2.  Displaced anger.   Something in my text triggers anger, which is caused by his own experiences and has nothing to do with my person.   This something can be either a provocation by any real attribute of mine or it can be something misunderstood and misinterpreted.   

3.  Paradoxical coping with the anger.   The devaluation of what is not available as in the fable of the fox and the sour grapes are a valid coping strategy as part of realistic resignation.    Attacking someone with the declarations of devaluation by email is absurd.    

When people write emails, they enhance the probability of getting a reply by showing as much appreciation for the recipient as they can do sincerely.   In the case of intended manipulation, appreciation is insincerely exaggerated.   

An email of devaluations is supplying the recipient with reasons not to reply and not to communicate.   Therefore there is no reason to ever bother to write devaluing emails, while not writing has the same effect without wasting time.  


The diatribe comment on entry 549 gives examples.   His (assuming the commenter to be a man) attacks me for being German.   This indicates displaced anger about Germany or German culture or maybe some German individual.   Now he attacks me for being German in spite of my explicit declaration of not identifying with being German.

I cannot know his level of formal education.   But his attack on my valuing a university degree makes it obvious, that he has none but does not accept this as a reason to be not suitable for me.  

He calls me 'dogmatic, unscientific, irrational, dictating, intolerant, sexist, emotional, arrogant'.   These being obviously all unacceptable attributes in his opinion, I can fully agree with him that any woman, whom he subjectively perceives as having such attributes, is not suitable for him, no matter who and how she really is.   I have no problem with being perceived as not suitable by an unknown commenter.   But his bothering to write a comment, which forfeits any communication, is weird.  


Expressing and sending a diatribe is a distorted method of counterproductive communication.    Constructive communication motivates the recipient to reciprocate an interaction perceived as beneficial.   Diatribes create antipathy for the hostile sender, who presents himself as someone to be avoided, not as someone to interact with.    Everybody writing and sending diatribes just wastes his own time and gains nothing.  

1.  One possible interpretation of diatribes is to see them as related to real life bullying.    

Based upon his physical strength, a man can sometimes succeed to get his will by intimidation.  A woman cringing under outbursts of anger does not dare to resist.   The woman suffers and is driven away by this bullying.    

Men with long term thinking and wisdom learn, that bullying gets them nowhere and nothing.   But when they are only learning short term direct effects, they are mislead to learn, that expressing anger is a successful method to get their will.    Bullies misinterpret the success of their outburst of anger as if this were a method of influencing the victim's thinking.   They mistake enforced apparent acquiescence with agreement and they believe in their power to obtain agreement by expressing anger.         

As a result of this distorted learning these men are oblivious of the limited reach of the weapon of anger.   Anger and aggression only work in direct contact, when the intimidation triggers spontaneous fear, elicited not in accordance with the probability of a physical attack but by the mere possibility.    

Therefore expressing anger at the target by email is the futile attempt of distance bullying.    Due to not eliciting fear, this does not work.   Diatribes are the consequence of a man's overestimation of the power of his anger without physical intimidation.   

2.  Diatribes are an indication of an asymmetrical attitude to women and of the intention and purpose of a relationship for getting advantages by commodification.   A man pursuing a symmetrical relationship appreciates the information of any woman's needs and preferences for his own evaluation of possible symmetry.   Finding out that he cannot give her, what she needs, is not a reason to get angry and even less to send a diatribe.   For him it is a reason to accept incompatibility.  

533. Cohabitation And The Safe Haven

533.  Cohabitation And The Safe Haven

Some days ago, I exchanged a few emails with someone, who appeared as a good match by the first superficial impression.   But the futility of pursuing this contact became evident, when he explained his situation:   By marrying or cohabiting, he would loose his rather high widower's pension.  

I personally consider a happy relationship being a safe haven as worth much more than money.   I would not hesitate to accept a man, who is suitable and compatible, no matter his poverty.  I would reject an unsuitable and incompatible man, no matter his affluence.  Generally I think this widower's priority of his money is a mistake.   
But when it comes to considering my own person, I do not even expect, let alone demand from someone to value living with me as preferable over his money or any other priorities.  A man has his priorities and choices, and whenever they are incongruent with mine, I do not consider myself as a sufficient reason to modify them.   Any decision in my favor would only be valid, if it is based upon a man's need, independent of any influence from my side. A man's incongruent priorities are a reason to keep away from him, not a justification for stupid and futile attempts to influence him   

The essence of a bonded and committed relationship is for me the safe haven, which it cannot be without cohabitation.    Only a cohabiting couple really sits in the same boat, for better or for worse.  Only when sharing the home and applying the shared survival resources, both financial and skills, then all troubles, inclemencies and problems of everyday life really concern both partners equally without a back door. Whenever something breaks or goes wrong, the partner in a LAT-relationship can feel relaxed as he is not under the same pressure to solve the problem.  Having still his own home to retreat to, he has the back door to abandon the partner in need.   

Practical problems like when a needed household appliance or installation breaks cause situational pressure.  The less there is the alternative of affording the easiest and most comfortable solution, the stronger is the pressure upon me.  My resources are more skills than money.  Being alone under the pressure of needing to cope with situational problems of any kind drains and exhausts me, no matter how successful I am in solving it.   Even when I find a solution making me feel clever and adding to my confidence, the coping process nevertheless leaves me drained.    

The safe haven of a cohabiting relationship, in which the partner is equally concerned by situational pressures of any kind, is the relief I need to not get drained.   Being alone when problems require coping is what drains me.
Of course, being equally concerned does by itself not suffice as a relief.  A safe haven requires not only to be equally concerned as a team by all problems, but also to share basic agreements about rational coping strategies derived from the same evaluation of the shared situation and resources.   Only this enables a couple to be a team in problem solving and a source of relief to each other. 

Someone adding more pressure upon me than the problem itself can instead make the situation even worse. 

I cannot accept a man's putting pressure upon me to waste my own money.   If a man is as poor as I am, I expect him to support me in solving problems by the principle of compensating for expenses by efforts.  He can give me the best relief by sharing the efforts.  

Only if a man can afford himself the comfortable expensive solutions preferred by him, it is his choice.   

But the poor man putting pressure upon me to waste my own limited money on the comfortable solution sparing him efforts drains me even more, having to cope with the combined pressure of the technical problem and from him.     

A safe haven can bring reciprocally many protecting and relieving benefits, no matter if the problems are practical, social, psychological, physical.  The emphasis is on the reciprocity.     The more a man also needs a safe haven, the more I can expect to be given one in return.    This is very significant. 

A man's refusal to cohabit tells me, that his goal is not the same kind of a safe haven as is mine and logically then a safe haven is also not available for me.   

A LAT arrangement enables a man to get all the benefits of using a woman's body at his convenience, as this can be achieved without cohabitation.   But a LAT arrangement also enables a man to limit, what he decides to give to the woman.     

A man's refusing to cohabit indicates and implies the presence of some or all of the following good reasons justifying suspicion.  While his superficial reasons may appear as convincing as is the example of the widower's pension of my contact, but the following reasons are probably hidden behind:
1.  A man does not expect a safe haven available from any woman, because he commodifies her and he is blind to even notice any other option besides using her.   A man can experience a safe haven only, if he is aware and appreciative of women being persons with cognitive qualities sufficient as providers of a safe haven.    
2.   A man has already a fragmented supportive system consisting of any combination including his family of origin, friends and even exes and children.  He does not feel a need for a safe haven, which would motivate him to provide one for a woman.   Having sufficient supply for all other social and psychological needs, a woman is only a body.   Only homeostasis is not available from his supportive system.   

3.   A man is so powerful and affluent, that he solves all problems by paying services, no matter if it is the craftsman or the therapist.    If he is decent, he prefers a monogamous relationship for his homeostasis over paying prostitutes.      


As I mentioned already before, the decision to get involved with someone has to be a very careful rational decision, which certainly cannot be rushed into without a high risk of failure.   What matters is is the shared goal of cohabitation and the shared need of a safe haven.  Sharing the goal of cohabitation is very different from making the mistake to rush into cohabitation with a haphazard person.

The refusal of cohabitation is a good reason not to pursue a contact, but the shared goal alone is only one of many necessary but not sufficient criteria for compatibility.    

500. Statistics Of My Quest

500.  Statistics Of My Quest  

This is the 500th entry in this blog.   When I started blogging, I did not expect to write so many entries.   But by looking at the endeavor statistically, it is no surprise.   Nothing in life comes without efforts.   Happiness like everything else has to be earned, and not only by investing efforts in making relationships work, but also by investing efforts to find a suitable and compatible partner as a match.   

In entry 69 I already estimated by rough statistical assumptions, that maybe 1 in every 10,000 men in my age group is a suitable match according to my search criteria.   

By the algorithm of sequential searching, a ratio of 1 in 10,000 requires on average to look at 5,000 until success.  

The result of having written 500 entries about a variety of topics is a growing number of google search hits and of daily page views.    The overall number of page views since I started this blog in July 2010 is close to 14,000.   But some persons read multiple pages (every entry has its own page URL), and the visitors are persons of any age and of both genders.    Probably even 14,000 page views do not indicate, that there had been more than 1000 men in my age group being unique visitors.

Statistics and estimating probabilities supply nothing more than numbers.  But this is nevertheless a rational way to be aware of reality and to continue my efforts without losing hope.    My task to earn happiness includes the task to get notoriety for my blog.   Every person reading the blog for the first time could either be my mindmate or at least know him and get us into contact.    


Writing more entries contributes to increased notoriety.    But sometimes help comes from unexpected sources too.   A few days ago, someone involuntarily did me a great favor.   The guy meant to present me on his own blog as some kind of an oddity.  
As a side effect, I got an amazing boost of publicity.   This guy sent lots of visitors to my blog.   Suddenly, on one single day there were more page views than there had been in some entire months.   
Not all people are gullible and immature and automatically share that guy's attempted mockery.  Some of these visitors are certainly able to appreciate my blog as independent thinkers.   

He labeled me as the 'finalized product of feminism'.    Calling me a mere product of feminism is an underestimation.   I did not need other feminists to gain my insights about what is obvious to any woman with dignity and intelligence.  I had my ideas, attitudes and values concerning egalitarian interactions between the genders and the logical baseline of equal rights and obligations long before I ever had even heard the word 'feminism'.  

But I appreciate being called a 'finalized feminist'.   Finalized means considered as perfect due to being finished without any need for possible further improvement.  
It is encouraging to be presented as the prototype of a feminist.  This involuntary and accidental compliment is a reliable, valuable and genuine feedback.  According to an old proverb, children and fools speak the truth.   In this instance, immature men can be included either with the children or with the fools.   But this is also an example, that while immaturity does damage to those close enough to be victims, immature people can also do unintended favors.  

I do hope to get more publicity of any kind.   When my mindmate will have found me, it does not matter, if his finding me was enabled by praise or by mockery.

423. Mate Search And The Emotional Dynamics Of Consent And Dissent

Mate Search And The Emotional Dynamics Of Consent And Dissent

This continues entry 420.   There I declared: 

Consent and agreement make me feel good, dissent and disagreement make me feel bad.  

I am fully aware, that this is my personal tendency, which I share only with the minority of those people, whose brain is predominantly Epicurean.   That includes the innate trait, that their pleasure center is more sensitive, perceptive and responsive to emotional and intellectual stimulation, and less to physical stimulation.   As a consequence, they are attracted to a mate, with whom they can develop emotional and intellectual intimacy, before they want physical intimacy.  
 

All those people, who get infatuated with a body as a consequence of being driven by the mate selection of their subconsciously acting instincts, seem determined by this and consent or dissent have no emotional impact upon them.  

Sometimes people in profiles on dating sites or on dating advice pages claim, that if two partners were too much alike, this would make the relationship dull.  There are also many people, who are willing to mutually tolerate very contradictory attitudes in a mate, like christians and atheists or the politically left and right wing oriented.  The only explanation for this is the force of infatuation completely overriding anything else.  

For people emotionally reactive to consent and dissent, being alike and sharing interests is important.   If for example two partners both enjoy visiting museums, there are more museums on earth then any couple can ever visit together during a lifetime.   Sharing impressions, pointing things out to each other and agreeing on the opinion is joy.   Why would people need to argue about a different or controversial opinion?   It is the same about movies, books, lectures, theater plays to be shared, which then leads to the joy of consent.    Doing sightseeing in a church or temple and sharing the mockery about that preposterous faith is so much more enjoyable than visiting the same church but being obliged to bite my tongue to avoid hurting the feelings of a believer. 

Logically for all those, for whom consent causes pleasant emotions, the expectation and probability of consent is an important criterion in the choice of a mate,    Experiencing consent requires knowledge about what the potential partner thinks.    Whenever I am in contact with someone, who could maybe be a mate, I am avidly reading, whatever expressions of his attitudes, values and opinions I can find.   I am very motivated to find consent and to discover the red flags of dissent.  
But this is only reciprocal, when a man has the same wish to find his own consent with my expression of my personality too.    That means, a man, who is more attracted to feel consent than to get infatuated, would be as much motivated to read this blog as he is interested in getting to know my person.   

But this is not, what usually happens.   Often when I get in contact with someone and I suggest to him to visit this blog and find out, if we are compatible of not, there is no or little interest.   Instead they demand a picture, or they want just small talk in the chat.   With the same frame of mind, many men are not bothered to fill in their own profiles, or they contact me in spite of clear statements in my profile, that they do not fulfill my criteria.   

Sometimes I am getting reproached for not being sweet.     If a man wants me to be sweet, nice, kind and friendly, the best method is to make me feel good by enabling me to experience consent.    But someone, who instead of cooperating to discover consent, leaves me ignorant and thinks that his attention alone of contacting me or chatting should make me feel good, is not the kind of man, who is compatible with me.   

The world is full with two legged male animals, but mindmates with an epicurean brain are very rare.    

412. Where's A Need There's A Fraud

412.   Where's A Need There's A Fraud

In entry 411 I described the fraud of the PUA (pick up animal) trainers, who defraud nice guys by training them to become jerks, in spite of the nice guys' goal of wanting to find monogamous commitment, which they cannot get with jerk behavior. 

Searching google, I have come across a similar fraud based upon the Ex-Back-Craze.   As a reaction to people discussing their break-up trouble and their pain in getting over it, some crooks have made it a business to sell false hopes to people hoping to get their ex back by buying books and training programs full of allegedly magic tricks.     Some of their customers may even be themselves jerks or narcissists, who want to find out, how to hoover their victims back, who had succeeded to free themselves from their abuser.    Of course I cannot know, who the customers really are.   

When people get involved with someone, who is incompatible and not suitable, the relationship or marriage is doomed to fail.  It does not matter, if they got mismatched being driven by instinct, infatuation, superficial benefits, or if they were the victim of deceit and manipulation, or if there were whatever other reasons.  

If they are capable to learn from mistakes, then they get more mature and more wise as a result of the experience, and their next partner is a better choice.   

But being unhappy and missing someone can cover the unresolved conflicts and incompatibilities with temporary oblivion.  That makes people susceptible to fraudulent remedies.    But would they really get reconciled, the disaster would be resumed the same as it had been, when they split.  
Even when both would really want to restore the relationship, the problems are the same as before.   But when one is not even interested, and the other feels compelled to pay money to be get enabled to use tricks and manipulations as taught by the fraudulent trainings, then it is even less a viable option.    Reconciliation with an ex is rarely a good idea.  


Wise and mature people are as careful and responsible in ending a relationship as they are in choosing a partner.    But once they do end it, this is final, because there was no alternative.   

For wise and mature people, there are only three reasons to end a relationship. 

1. Both partners have worked hard to communicate and cooperate to solve their conflicts, until they both agree to end the relationship by consent.
2. The partner has committed an unforgivable transgression.  
3. One partner considers his behavior as morally correct, as his right and entitlement, while the other experiences and evaluates the same behavior as unbearably hurting and as a serious transgression.   

All three reasons are final, because an improvement in the future is inherently impossible.   For a wise and mature person, this is obvious, unfortunately not for the other partner, if he is an immature fool or jerk.

1. The first reason can only be an agreement between two wise and mature partners.
2. A wise and mature person knows the meaning of unforgivable and that some damage is unrepairable and he knows, that only the victim's judgement is valid concerning what is unforgivable for her.    Only an immature fool expects to be forgiven for the unforgivable or disputes that it should be forgiven.    
3. A wise and mature person refuses to expose herself to hurtful treatment and transgressions, when it is obvious, that this is the unchangeable ingredient of the relationship.  Logically, for her this reason is final. 
   Only an immature fool expects a woman to deliberately decide to suffer from being the target of permanently recurrent hurtful transgressions.  

409. Poor Men's Mental Trap

Poor Men's Mental Trap

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

According to my own observations from correspondence, reading forums and blogs, I have come to the conclusion, that having money or not is in men's own perception and self-assessment the most important factor, to which they subjectively ascribe their failure or success with women.   This is independent of the role and purpose they want the woman for.   

Even the most stupid but wealthy men feel as if they were god's gift to women, while even the most intelligent and educated men feel as losers and disheartened, when they are poor.    There may be exceptions, but I still have not found him yet.  

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

1.   Withdrawal

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

2.   Trust

I found this today:

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

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

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

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

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

3.   Asymmetry

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

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

403. The Comfort Zone, Mutual Adapting And Compatibility

The Comfort Zone, Mutual Adapting And Compatibility

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

There are two principles as the basis of a relationship:

• The importance of accepting the other as is, without any attempts or demands to change him or her.
• The importance to be reciprocally as attractive as possible, in all aspects, emotionally, intellectually and physically.   That means, attractive according to the perception and the taste of the other.     

Therefore adapting to the other is an active process based upon the motivation to be knowledgeably beneficial for and attractive to the other.   It is voluntarily, by free will and own decision.    Adapting to the other is an expression of appreciation, affection and caring.  

If one or both partners refuse to adapt and/or demand the other to change, the relationship is doomed to fail.   This happens often, when a couple's initial infatuation wears off and they discover to be mismatched. 

Compatibility of a couple means, that reciprocal adaptations are both, sufficiently beneficial or pleasing to satisfy the other's needs and still entirely inside the comfort zone.   

A couple is incompatible and should not get involved, whenever either the adaptations are painful sacrifices for one or the lacking adaptation is painful for the other.                 

A man's beard as an expression of naturalness is a good example to illustrate the difference, even though it seems a trifle.

  
Some men

1. have beards because naturalness is a part of their personality.
2. are temporarily shaving for whatever external reasons, but it is inside their comfort zone to allow their beards to grow.
3. experience having a beard as unpleasant.   It is outside their comfort zone.   This strong wish for self-modification indicates, that they identify too much with their body.   There is more superficial vanity than naturalness, if there is any.       

A woman like me, who values naturalness very much, considers a bearded man as compatible.  She feels appreciated and valued, when a man adapts by growing a beard to please her, but only, if this is in his comfort zone and not a sacrifice of his own comfort.    Because physical intimacy requires, that both partners are in their comfort zone.  This goes both ways, by what each perceives as attraction and by meeting the partner's taste and expectations.  
But if a man feels an urge to shave and a beard is not in his comfort zone, then we are not compatible, because there is no shared comfort zone.    By his choice to be clean shaven he is making himself deliberately repulsive to me so that he can feel comfortable.   The fact, that it is his choice and decision, impedes the physical attraction, that would enable intimacy.     

A man, who wants sexual homeostasis from a woman is foolish, if he makes himself repulsive or if he chooses a woman, who perceives him as repulsive by what makes him feel comfortable.   And if he thinks to be entitled by considering himself as god's gift to all women, or if he thinks to be able to compensate by spending money on her, he is even more a fool.    But if he would grow a beard and feel uncomfortable, this would be equally disruptive.    A healthy relationship requires both partners sharing a common comfort zone of behavior.

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

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

400. Meta Thoughts And Considerations

Meta Thoughts And Considerations

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

1.  I had expected that the more I write about a variety of topics, the more this blog would be found in a wider variety of google searches.   I was hoping that this would lead to an increasing number of page views, until my mindmate to be found would stumble upon this blog.  

I always felt, that whatever I want, I have to make efforts to earh it.  There are moments, that I have the illusion, that by writing blog entries, I could earn a relationship as a reward.    I know that it is not true, but this illusion is a strong force motivating me to keep on writing.    I am writing against the nightmare of spending the rest of my life alone.   

 
Blogger allows to see the number of page views and the facts are disheartening: 

• In August 2010, there were 418 page views. 
  By August 31 of 2010 I had written 62 entries.  
• In August 2011, there were 594 page views. 
  By August 31 of 2011 I had 384 entries.  

• Page views had increased to 142%, but the number of my entries to 619%.  

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

3.  If someone would read this entire blog, this would probably take more than two days.   I am not the world's guru or teacher, and I do not think that anybody stumbling upon this blog has a reason to read a lot of it.  
But this blog is a form of a mindmate test.   As far as the sites allow it, I have added the link to this blog to my profiles on dating sites and whenever I get in contact with someone, I suggest reading it.    

If someone asks me to send pictures, but is not interested in reading my thoughts, this tells me, that he is just another instinct driven animal hunting for a female body.   But if this blog catches someone's interest, and he reads it as a way of getting to know the essence of my person, then this is a good indication, that he is really interested in a relationship based on intellectual intimacy as an important part.  

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

392. Additional Thoughts About Defining Jerks

Additional Thoughts About Defining Jerks

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

So here is the more general definition:

A jerk is a man,

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

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

But I am worried about those jerks,

• who do not take for serious, what a woman wants, no matter how explicitly she declares it, and who sometimes are not even bothered to read it
  or
• who do not understand clear and unequivocal statements in my blog or profiles

and

• who are sincerely convinced to offer me what I want and to be able to give me, what I need.

These jerks do have a serious problem, either of lacking intelligence or some serious personality problem.   
When they are unaware or in denial of their problem, and the problem is not immediately obvious, then they are a hazard to me.  

387. A Scientist's Dating Advice

A Scientist's Dating Advice

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

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

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

1. Know that you don't know what you're doing

"Many of our most important decisions are made in our brains unconsciously. We are constantly bombarded with sensory input from the world and our conscious experience only captures a small percentage of this information,"
"So much of our 'chemistry' and attraction to others occurs without us really knowing. We often can't tell why we are drawn to certain people and sometime that's just because our brain has worked out something we are not directly aware of."

Not knowing this is a hazard.   I consider it as of paramount important to be aware of how subconscious instincts determining behavior and choices are very detrimental to long term happiness.   Self-monitoring based upon the knowledge, which impulses, urges and inclinations can be explained by animal instincts is very important as a method of prevention, which is a part of the strategy to reduce this hazard.    This strategy includes also the conscious decision, what traits in a partner are essential for a long-term bonded commitment. 

2. For the guys: Appeal to a woman's brain

"There are key differences in the way sexes choose partners, obviously, and this is because the female and male brains are just wired differently...although this isn't always black and white but rather a continuum. In general men are mostly visual, whereas women are 'cerebral' for a better way of putting it. They require more than just visual stimulation to be attracted to someone."

I am looking for a mindmate.  Who disregards my brain, is not suitable.

3. Love is the result of "feedback loops"

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

As an aside, I'm personally a romantic, and even though I'm fascinated by the biological basis of human behavior, I don't think trying to understand love at a molecular/cellular level takes ANYTHING away from the emotion or the way I view love."

This is behind what I described in entry 385 as the reciprocal reinforcement of expressing caring love by proactive behavior enhancing the other's subjective wellbeing.

4. Know what your dealbreakers are

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

I have stated my dealbreakers clearly in this blog.   

5.  You've got to respect them

"I'm no expert on relationships but respect is key. The chemistry needs to be there of course but if you don't respect your partner for their intellect, drive, etc. then it's not going to work. I think this is really important for people who are ambitious and set high goals for themselves."

I have put emphasis in several entries, that a bonded and committed relationship is only possible with mutual respect.  

384. Predictability And Pseudo-Compatibility

Predictability And Pseudo-Compatibility

A relationship as a safe haven needs to be reliable and predictable based upon the justifiable trust, that the other will not commit transgressions and will not do harm or hurtful things.   

Predictability means to be able to make a realistic prognosis of future behaviors by the estimation of probability.   In entry 95, I already mentioned the importance of calculating probabilities of the occurrence of behavior in the future.  In entry 173 I elaborated this by including the importance of considering the attitudes, which are causing or modifying behaviors.   

But the matter is even more complicated.  

Estimating the partner's future behavior implies:

1. It is important to listening to what he declares himself as his attitudes.  
2. His behavior needs to be compared with his expressed attitudes, if it is congruent or if there are contradictions.   Sometimes people are not aware of subconscious attitudes, that are nevertheless strong determinants of their behavior.   Subconscious attitudes can be incongruent with expressed attitudes, when the latter are superficially learned or imitated and not connected to innate tendencies.  Then behavior is congruent with the true hidden attitudes but contradictory to the expressed attitudes.       
3. Observable specific behaviors are indicators of attitudes, but attitudes determine usually a wider variety of correlated behaviors, that can be predicted only when knowing the attitude.
4. Observable proactive behavior allows to estimate probable future behavior.    The absence of proactive behavior is not as much a reliable source of information, because it is not the same as a decision to refrain from a behavior.  

I will use lying as an example.
 
If a woman catches her partner lying to her, she can predict, that he will lie again.   The more frequent his past lies, the more frequently he will lie in the future.  
His lying is a clear indication, that his attitude towards her is not suitable for treating her as a close and bonded partner deserving sincerity and honesty.   This faulty attitudes makes it probable to expect also other sly, manipulative, deceptive behaviors.   

But if the woman never catches her partner telling her a lie, this does not allow equally good predictions, because this by itself is not an indication of his general attitude towards her.   

Her lack of experiencing a lie from him can be due to

1. She did not catch him lying because of her unjustified trust.
2. He had so far no reason or occasion to lie but would otherwise not hesitate
3. He has a reason or attitude to actively refrain from lying. 
   
   These reasons are

• in his person  
  
  • He is someone, who always blurs out what he thinks, no matter to whom, even with unrelated persons, when it has detrimental consequences for him.
  • His self-esteem requires moral behavior and this includes special rules how to treat closely related persons, like not lying to them and not hurting them. 
• his attitude concerning her significance for him.   He values and appreciates her enough to enclose her in the ingroup of people, whom he honors with sincerity and honesty.   
• consideration of the consequences.  
  
  • He fears to be punished for lying by losing her
  • He wants to avoid the disapproval or other punishment by other significant persons like his family 
  • He fears being punished or wants to be rewarded by a deity due to some religious delusion.

Therefore not catching someone lying can either indicate true compatibility with someone, who is sincere and honest and who values her person in a relationship, or it can indicate pseudo-compatibility, when not having experienced someone's lying yet just does not allow predictions for the future.        

382. Disrespect And Criticizing

Disrespect And Criticizing


Expressed conscious disagreement with any attribute in another person can be either hostile, neutral or benevolent criticizing.  

1. Hostile criticizing is a part of the rat race of people, who are driven by the hierarchy instinct to fight for higher positions for the purpose of gaining power and control over resources.   But this is not my topic, because this blog is mainly about how a relationship can be made a safe haven against the outside world of hostility.   

2. Neutral distance: In entry 377 I suggested that it is possible to disrespect someone for being either morally or intellectually not suitable for close contact, but that by avoiding close contact, people can be civil and courteous with disrespected persons. 

3. In entry 164 I explained, that a couple can only get close and bonded, if they share the same basic values.   If the behavior of each partner is logical, but based upon different values, then criticizing is futile and cannot solve the conflict between incompatible values.   In entry 379 I looked at the difference between disrespect in a couple due to being a mismatch, and feeling disrespect or feeling disrespected by mistake.

Disrespect kills every relationship, except if its purpose is consciously restricted by mutual consent to using or abusing each other.  While discovering incompatible values and losing respect after having got involved by mistake with a mismatch cannot be remedied, it is very important to prevent both, feeling disrespect and feeling disrespected, due to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, misperception.

Only in fairy tales, a couple lives happily ever after having conquered the obstacles of getting together.   Every real life couple has disagreements and conflicts at least once in a while, and the older people are, when they get together, the more they have become individual personalities, the more initial conflicts they have to overcome.  

A person, who wants to improve his behavior in general and as a partner in a relationship, needs the other's sincere feedback.   Feedback includes both the spontaneous non-verbal expressions of how behavior is experienced, and the verbal feedback of either criticizing or approving the behavior.  
Non-verbal feedback is for example the expression of pain in the face.   Criticizing is verbally telling someone, that a specific behavior is hurting.  
As a part of adapting to each other, a person has the choice to focus the attention on observing the non-verbal expressions, to listen to criticizing and to ask for criticizing.   The partner has the choice to give feedback by not censoring his non-verbal expressions and by offering verbal feedback, whenever it is either asked for or when there is a behavior to be modified by feedback.  This concerns both, behavior perceived as disruptive, disturbing and hurting or pleasing behavior, of which more is welcome.   There is the choice to receive or to ignore feedback and to give or to deny feedback.  

Constructive conflict solving to prevent disrespect means, that both partners cooperate as both, the motivated recipient and the sincere giver of feedback, they apply the method of beneficial criticizing.    

Beneficial criticizing is a vital part of the process of getting bonded.    Beneficial criticizing means to name, describe or define a specific attribute of the other, either a behavior or an expressed thought, and to offer support in improving it.   Beneficial criticizing means the full respect for the other based upon the assumption of sharing the same basic values and attitudes.   It is based upon the premise, that the criticized attribute is either something independent of the basic values or something, that is a contradiction to the basic values and the other is either unaware of this or is struggling with it. 

Beneficial criticizing can concern:

1. Disturbing habits, like for example burping and cursing
2. Self-damaging habits like eating too much.  Example: The supportive partner distracts and interferes with getting fat. 
3. Behavior damaging the welfare of the couple:  Examples:  Criticizing for wasting money by buying household items without asking first, if it is needed or already on stock.    Criticizing for spending money on himself with priority over spending it on shared benefits. 
4. Helping someone to correct errors of contradiction with the own value system.   Example:  Informing someone, who is a skeptic and atheist, that NLP is not a branch of psychology, but pseudoscience and a cult.  
5. Correcting morally wrong behavior.   Example:  A man with the basic value of equality has grown up with the role model of a macho father.   Or he has been mislead by reading and following the detrimental advice of PUAs (pick-up-animals)   He is not aware, that when he makes a solitary decision and forces the decision upon the partner, he is acting in contradiction to his value system.   He needs to be informed, what a woman expects from him as being included in the process of sharing decisions.     

All the above are examples, where beneficial criticizing is not an act of disrespect, but an attempt to improve the bonding by measuring the behavior by its being in accordance with the shared values.  

If the criticized partner resists, refuses and reproaches the other, each of my examples indicates, that something is dysfunctional in the relationship.  

1. Disregard and lack of care for how the partner feels.  
2. Not valuing the other enough to want to be attractive and healthy.
3. Selfishness and devaluation.
4. Probable incompatibility either because he is not a real skeptic or because he is unable to comprehend.
5. Probable incompatibility because there may be psychological troubles impeding the man to treat a woman as an equal. 

Beneficial criticizing is not an expression of disrespect, to the contrary it is an attempt to remove reasons for potential disrespect.    But if there is refusal to react to beneficial criticizing, this destroys the respect of the supportive partner.  Feeling disrespected leads to the reaction of also losing respect.  

Beneficial criticizing can also be a method to avoid misinterpretations and misperceptions and of giving someone the benefit of the doubt before jumping to unfavorable conclusions. 

An example:  A man spends money on buying something, what the woman perceives as very selfish and as an act of disregard for her equal valid needs.  Only be criticizing him, she can find out, if he really is as selfish, as she assumes.  

• In the case, that he was so convinced, that she would also enjoy his purchase, that he omitted consulting her first, maybe meaning to surprise her, he is not selfish.   This misunderstanding is a step of learning to be more cautious about his assumptions about her.      
• If he insists, that it is his right to buy, whatever he wants without consulting her, even though they share expenses and he spends indirectly half her money, then he is disrespecting her and his selfishness gets her disrespect in return.

By criticizing him, she makes a step of progress towards either improving their relationship or learning that he is not suitable for her.   Would she keep silent, she would continue to doubt him for being selfish, and he would not even know.   This would undermine the relationship.   The more often someone does not express experienced criticism, the worse it gets.      

Beneficial criticizing is a vital part of creating a bonded and committed relationship.   

379. Thoughts About Disrespect

Thoughts About Disrespect

In entry 377, I mentioned that when there is disrespect, the best way to handle it is mutual avoidance.  

But disrespect should be looked at a bit more closely.  

There is disrespect due to a specific, defined reason and there is diffuse disrespect.  
In the case of a specific reason, the disrespectee knows, why he is disrespected, no matter, if he agrees with it or not.  

Some criminals have the insight to have earned to be disrespected.
When an atheist disrespects a religious person due to stupidity, the religious person knows why but disagrees.

When disrespect is diffuse, there are several constellations.

• The disrespectee perceives to be treated with disrespect, but without any acceptable reason.
  Example:  A narcissist disrespects a person and attempts to press that person into the role of a narcissistic extension.
• The disrespectee does not perceive the hidden disrespect.  
  Examples:  A manipulator uses a gullible person for his purposes.  A man promises a woman a long term relationship by pretending commitment, but only wants to use her.  

Both cases are reasons for the disrespectees to avoid the disrespector, because they have no chance to ever be respected.

But there is a different situation, when the disrespectee perceives non-existent disrespect.      

• There is misunderstanding, misinterpretations, misperception.
• The person feeling disrespected has personal problems.  
• The person perceived as disrespectful is not aware of how his behavior is received by others.  

In these cases, people have a chance to overcome the difficulties by communicating, until they reach an agreement of reestablished mutual respect.  


If couples are at all concerned about the importance of respect and not just driven by instincts, they get involved by reciprocally respecting and feeling respected.    They have the impression of sharing all the values and attitudes, that are the fundament of disrespect and therefore for a committed relationship.
Disrespect is the result of either getting aware, that the respect had never been justified but had been an error all along, or of losing respect due to experiencing behavior indicating it as an error.  

An example is the pseudo-non-believer described in entry 305.   When I got in contact with him on an atheist dating site, I wrongly interpreted this as him being an atheist worthy to be respected.    When I discovered on his website his praise of the bible as a book of wisdom, and when he admitted to be a cultist of tai-chi and to chant to a Japaneses scroll, I rapidly lost respect.   He did not pretend to be an atheist, he was convinced to really be one in spite of all his irrational religious behaviors.           

370. Self-Monitoring Against Irrationality

Self-Monitoring Against Irrationality
I am putting very much emphasis on finding a mindmate, who is rational and void of any kind of belief.   Believing claims without doubt, no matter what the claims are, makes a man incompatible and a hazard.   
While I am looking for a man, whom I can accept as he is, when we meet, and not as raw material to change, adapting to each other implies reciprocally changing disturbing habits by giving and accepting support.
But beliefs are a different matter and worse than bad habits.   When someone temporarily and superficially appears to be an atheist and skeptic, but it is only skin deep, then sooner of later he will relapse to needing beliefs as a crutch, and then his behavior is determined by the power of his beliefs.    If the faculty to be rational is lacking in his brain, then someone cannot be influenced by rational discussions and no caring support can replace the crutch. 
In entry 364 I have already explained, that a man, whose behavior is determined by his beliefs and who cannot be influenced rationality is a big hazard to a rational woman, who would be the helpless target of his behavior.   Such a man is neither reliable nor predictable.    There are very good reasons to shun away from all believers, no matter in what.   Whatever advantage the believer has for himself, there is no advantage from his belief for a partner, only disadvantages and hazards.

Without the faculty for rationality in the brain, believers are doomed to continue being determined by their beliefs.   
Those, whose dormant rationality has only been overridden by either a need for a belief or childhood brainwashing are in an unfortunate situation.   Since the believing majority of the population has established the insanity of believing preposterous nonsense as the normative baseline (entry 369), beliefs get reinforced, but doubting is discouraged.    Not even the most  stupid of beliefs are ever generally scorned or ridiculed enough to make anybody feel ashamed of having and admitting them.   Doubts about any belief need to overcome a high threshold, before a person can discard it.     

Overcoming beliefs has to be triggered and initiated by the person's own inner mental process.    Nobody can cure a believer from his affliction, as long as he wants to continue believing, support can only help to enhance doubts, but the doubts need to come from inside.   

1. It can be a sudden awakening by a shock, someone being disappointed by a deity.
2. It can be the slow awakening along with the growing rationality as a guidance of life.   

Most sources on the web claim, that the subconscious mind is irrational and illogical.   Already in entry 368 I disagreed with this notion.   The subconscious mind produces many of the premises, that the conscious mind needs for making decisions, emotions, sensations, signals of dishomeostasis, memories including contingencies and pseudocontingencies, and it also sometimes produces conclusions reaching the conscious mind as intuition.    

As a result, the subconscious mind produces impulses to behave, but the conscious mind can act upon the impulses or decide not to allow them.   

There is only one force in the subconscious mind, that is detrimental and hazardous, but evolutionarily logical.  It is the imperative to react by animal instinct to the premises.    

The subconscious mind commands 'breed', the conscious mind is able to know, that being childfree is a better life.   The subconscious mind commands 'eat', the conscious mind knows, that restricting the intake of food is healthier.  

I am convinced that the reasoning in the subconscious depends as much on the rational faculties of the brain as the conscious reasoning.   If someone lacks the faculty for rationality and for consequencity, then the conscious behavior is as irrational as the subconscious impulses. 

The subconscious mind produces impulses to behave.   Sometimes people

• are not even aware, but act automatically by impulse.
• repress impulses before getting aware.
• follow impulses without knowing why.    
• rationally evaluate impulses before acting.

Rationality enables people to use a very powerful method to avoid detrimental behavior by impulses, and to ascertain consistency and congruence between the behavior and the cognition.

   

This method is self-monitoring:

1. Attempting to get aware of every impulse before acting.
2. Asking questions like these:
   Why do I want to do this?
   What do I sense or feel, that is triggering this impulse?
   Do I consciously have or do I need information, that the impulse has omitted?
   Does the impulse lead to behavior, that is consistent with my values and my long term goals?
   Are there options of more suitable behavior?
   Does the impulse consider the fair deal with a significant other?

Self-monitoring helps to become less a robot driven by instincts, but it also helps to avoid being driven by ludicrous beliefs.    

Self monitoring can become a habit and easier over time.   But of course it has its limits.  It is much easier to do it when there is an impulse for a proactive behavior and no pressure.    When there is pressure to react under stress or in emotionally extreme situations, then one is often compelled to follow the impulse.   But asking the questions afterwards helps to understand the dynamics of conflicts and to learn from it.  

366. Compatibility And Personal Baselines

Compatibility And Personal Baselines

What is experienced by an individual as right, good, natural, as a basic value or a personal need is often very different from what the majority of the social environment does or expects.  The individual's baseline is not congruent with the surrounding social environment's baseline.  Instead there are two baselines, the personal baseline and the normative baseline.   Deviance is considered and perceived in comparison to what is accepted as the baseline.    Two baselines define two deviances. 

It is important

• to be aware of one's own true personal baseline and to accept it as a choice and not as deviant from what society demands or expects as the norm. 
• to focus on being independent and accepting one's position, instead of being bothered with defending oneself against the norm.   
• to live according to the true baseline and not submitting to the mainstream baseline against the own inclinations.

People, whose true personal baseline differs from society's baseline, can be in two different incongruent situations:

• They feel deviant and attempt to become, what they are not.
• They are not aware of having externally submitted to what is not their true self, of which they are oblivious or in denial.  

Example 1:  

• Congruent situation 1:  According to the skeptical baseline, nothing is true, because someone else claims it to be true.    Evidence and information can help to estimate the probability.    Skeptics consider all believing as a deviance from rationality.  
• Congruent situation 2:  In a christian society, the existence of a deity is not doubted, believers feel good because of their  belief, which is agreed upon as the baseline and norm, and atheists are considered to be deviant.   
• Incongruent situation 1.  People, who have been disappointed by some tragic event and have lost their belief grieving for having lost it.    For them, the baseline still is believing, and they experience themselves as deviant.   
• Incongruent situation 2.  People taking the belief in a deity for granted without it being of any personal meaning to them.   They would never expect anything from the deity.   They are atheists before getting aware of it.

Example 2:  

• Congruent situation 1:  According to the childfree baseline, it is good to be without children.   Children make life miserable.   For childfree people, breeding is a deviation from their baseline.  
• Congruent situation 2:  In average society, breeding is the norm, breeders follow their inclination, childfree or childless people are considered as being in a state of deviance.
• Incongruent situation 1.  People wishing to have children but having none accept breeding as the baseline and they feel as if they were deviant.  
• Incongruent situation 2.  People postpone breeding due to the lack of a true wish are not aware of this.  

Compatibility with a partner means compatible personal baselines based in the situation of congruence.  

• Absolute baselines are dichotomous.   One is either an atheist or one is not.  
• Onesided baselines.   While there is a minimal education to be equals, there is no maximum education.  
• Fuzzy baselines.   The baseline like the one of sharing all and being mutually the most important person in the world is fuzzy, there is no general definition for all couples.   Every couple needs to find an agreement of the meaning of this baseline due to limitations by differences in taste and in job requirements.  

A situation, where the baseline only appears compatible, because for one it is congruent, but not for the other, will cause disruption in a relationship.