Evolutionary Psychology Journal -- The Myth of Promiscuity: A Review of Lynn Saxon, Sex at Dusk: Lifting the Shiny Wrapping from Sex at Dawn (PDF)
'...So what is all this talk of human promiscuity in Dawn all about, really? When an argument so blatantly and so stubbornly persists in the face of what would seem to be clear, undeniable evidence against it, it is usually a good idea to look for something other than dispensation of accurate knowledge about the world as a motive. Frequently, the obverse of accurate understanding of how the world is, is ideological pronouncement on how the world ought to be. -- Where Sex at Dusk really shines is in Saxon‘s exposé of the subtler prescriptive message of Dawn. Ryan and Jethá are not simply arguing for a revision of the scientific view of ancestral human sexuality as more promiscuous than the "standard narrative" would have it. Upon closer inspection, what they are actually up to is advocating for a change in contemporary human female sexual behavior, or at least a change in how everyone views women‘s sexuality; specifically, Dawn advocates a shift from women as "whores", to women as "sluts" (e.g., pp. 64, 159) -- You see, according to Dawn, a whore is a female who engages in sexual activity in exchange for resources or other benefits beyond the act itself. A slut is a female who engages in promiscuous sexual activity only for the sake and pleasure of it. Ryan and Jetha attempt to convince the reader that whoredom is an unnatural consequence of post-Pleistocene cultural systems (and a bad thing), while the slut is a female‘s natural, primitive state (and a good thing). Au contraire, Saxon argues, whores are the order of the day across the living world (p. 328). Even Dawn’s paragons of promiscuity, female bonobos, are strategic about when and with whom they engage in sexual behavior, as if to maximize returns on the effort (e.g., pp. 105, 108). The reason for widespread whoredom, Saxon explains, can be traced to the disparities between males and females in parental investment. Reproduction involves a quite significant investment of resources on the part of females, human females especially. Such a costly endeavor explains why females are, in most species, the choosier, more discriminating sex when it comes to mating; and the more costly reproduction is, the choosier females are. Thus, if human females are in some way anomalous in this regard, as the characterization of women‘s sexuality by Dawn makes them out to be, it must be explained why. I assume the reader does not need to be told of Dawn’s success or failure at providing such an explanation. So how do Ryan and Jethá expose the sluts of Eden dwelling within modern women? By downplaying, if not expunging, mate choice from the human female; or at least mate choice involving the use of their mental faculties. For the most part, Dawn simply posits the promiscuous tendencies and lack of choosiness in ancestral women. However, they do bring some evidence to bear in attempt to support their contentions. For example, female erotic plasticity is meant to show that women‘s bodies, not their brains, know what they really want (e.g., pp. 199-200, 290-291). Their physiological responses are genuine, revealing their true promiscuous nature, while their conscious brains are corrupted by modern society, preventing them from realizing this. Disconnect between physiological responses and verbal reports are also used by Ryan and Jethá to try to convince us that female relationship jealousy is another modern day phenomenon; that is, women, by nature, aren‘t really jealous of their partners‘ extra-pair dalliances — they only think they should be. -- Saxon argues that the emphasis on sperm competition in Dawn is also part of the larger agenda of removing female pre-copulatory mate choice from the picture of human female sexuality (e.g., pp. 200, 225). Rather than conceiving of Pleistocene forager females as exercising discriminatory choice of sexual partners, we are to imagine instead that any choice that occurred did so unconsciously and through the physiological barriers in the female reproductive tract designed to make sure only the best sperm got through to fertilize the egg. However, as Saxon points out, there are numerous problems with this scenario of ubiquitous sperm competition in ancestral humans. The corpus of morphological, physiological, and genetic evidence does not support the contention that sperm competition played a major role in hominin evolution (pp. 248-272). But, again, Dawn is loath to let evidence get in the way of its message. "[I]n this fantasy world of Sex at Dawn young females are not meant to make mating decisions with their heads — or eyes, it would seem — but let all the men in, young and old, ugly or handsome, and let those wonderful sperm fight it out" (p.318).'
psychology  men  women  hypergamy  sexuality 
The Blackdragon Blog -- Serial Monogamy Revisited [Kryptokate]
Comment: Kryptokate: 'I’m in my late 30s and have spent my life since age 16 going from one boyfriend to the next with basically zero time in between and every man I’ve ever been with has fallen madly in love with me, so those are my credentials. I wasn’t raised with religion and I’m an INTP so I saw through the social conditioning earlier and easier than most (though it still took 3 guys before I realized it was just a biological reaction and had nothing to do with the actual guys themselves)... -- ...just to be clear, the same result with happen with any guy…it’s not just betas who will eventually be dumped. The only real difference is that with a beta I will spend a LOT longer fucking him after I no longer want to, and I’ll take many more pains to try to convince myself to still be attracted to him and just generally try to make it work (which it won’t, but I’ll at least try). With an alpha…well let’s be honest, these don’t exist over the long term, they all turn into needy alphas or betas eventually... -- ...Why would I continue having sex with my old boyfriend when the whole reason I leave him is because eventually I find it gross to have sex with him? The ONLY time I’ve continued to have sex with an old boyfriend is when I broke up with him because he was a Needy Alpha (i.e. not because I was bored of him but because he was a pain in the ass…in which case I would still be attracted and could return every month or two to fuck until it blew up again because he was trying to clamp down the cage over my head). -- ...I would *love* to just date for six months or a year. But what you’re forgetting is that MEN WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS. I have never, in my life, met a single guy who I can have sex with who will not insist on monogamy and locking me down. I have literally gone out of my way to seek out scumbags and it still doesn’t matter. It’s in their nature to try to lock down women and if they sense that you’re less interested in monogamy than they are they will become obsessed with trying to block other men from your vagina. Therefore, this idea of just dating/fucking is a fantasy. If I tried to do that I would have no dates because I have literally had men withhold sex from me and tell me that they refuse to have sex with me anymore until they can get a commitment from me. I know you will think I am making that up but I swear I’m not. -- At this point, I do NOT want to be married ever again. My “plan,” if I had my way, would be to live for the rest of my life with my platonic best friends (either male or female) and have them be my source of companionship and family, while fucking new guys every few months. Basically the Golden Girls model would be the ultimate old-lady life for me and seems way more fun than living with some old guy you can’t stand and have to listen to fart in bed every morning. -- However, society won’t let me do this (though I think in the future it will be the preferred way of living). Right now, almost everyone is universally horrified when I tell them that that is my preferred way of living *with the exception of smart women* who always understand why it would be a desirable arrangement. They are the ONLY people who don’t meet the idea with defensiveness, anxiety, or anger. -- ...I make up a different viable and personalized excuse for each guy which is custom-tailored to preserve his ego and dignity and emotions to the maximum extent possible. I’ve come up with all kinds of crazy things. But the one reason I will *never* tell them is “I don’t want to have sex with you anymore and I want to have sex with other guys” because that is the single worst and most devastating thing for any man to hear from a woman. It is also the *actual* reason that women end ALL relationships except for those with Needy Alphas (who I’ve often still wanted to have sex with but they are so annoying and unpleasant to be around that even the great sex isn’t enough to tolerate them for long). -- Let me explain it because it is very, very simple: when you meet a new guy you’re attracted to, you get wet just thinking about him. After a while it takes making out to get you wet. A little while longer and *nothing* will get you wet except for direct stimulation of your vagina while you think about something else that turns you on. And then a little while after that and you will start to feel actively repulsed when he touches you or tries to kiss you and it will take a very strong force of will to not slap his hands away or snap at him out of visceral revulsion. -- This will happen even though you think he is the most wonderful person you know and your best friend and you care about him more than anything. And you would do anything to jumpstart your vagina or be attracted like you used to. But it is a completely biological process and works on its own and has nothing to do with your thoughts or opinions or conscious desires. At the beginning of your relationship you will be dripping for him and aroused. Later it will take work to get you there. And still later, nothing in the world will get you there and that’s why there are a billion brands of lube sold (no one needs that in the beginning of a relationship). -- It is purely biological. Also, after you have been with the same guy for a while and a new guy touches you, your physical reaction will be so volcanic that there is literally nothing to stop it. The longer you’ve been monogamous, the more extreme your reaction to a new man will be. After I was married for 5 years (far and away the longest period of monogamy in my life), the first time I hooked up with a new guy I was literally almost unconscious with arousal and desire. Wild horses will not stop your arousal once it is triggered by a new guy in this manner. Seriously. That is why women will blow up and burn down their entire life and it will just be because their vagina is on fire for a new guy and there is nothing they can do to stop it. See the scene in the movie Unfaithful where Diane Lane’s character is literally convulsing with desire for a dead-on portrayal of what it is like. For guys, I would suggest that the most intense and reactive sex they’ll ever have is with a married woman. -- I was in love with a few of them. Being actually “in love” makes zero difference as far as the biological mechanism that I described above. In fact I would say it makes for an even starker and more disturbing distinction when your attraction dies, which it will, and not even on a slower track. -- The only things that extend the length of the attraction dying track are a highly volatile relationship with a somewhat scary needy alpha (though you will also hate his guts). Sadly, fear does make vaginas wet. I’m convinced this is an evolved protective mechanism to ensure that women are lubricated and supplicant in the presence of a potentially dangerous/violent person, since that would drastically increase their survival rates. There is no solution to any of this and it sucks for women just as much as for guys. I’m not sure you really realize how heartbreaking it is to find that your body is *disgusted* by the person you love most in the world and once loved to kiss and fuck for hours. And there is literally nothing you can do about it. Or how bad it sucks that you will stay most attracted, and for the longest, to a guy that you otherwise can’t stand (a needy alpha). You men might get left, but at least you can love and lust the same person and not have it evaporate in just a few months. -- Also, I just want to say that the only reason that all women don’t do the above is that most aren’t attractive or smart enough to be able to. But that’s the only reason. But in the same way that a harem/polygamy is the ultimate expression of man’s unrestrained sexuality, serial monogamy that doesn’t last longer than a few months (maybe a couple years if they have a baby but that is it TOPS) is what all women would do if they were unrestrained. Lots of women are so unattractive that they can’t be sure of getting a new guy so they will stick with their guy purely out of fear and no options. And lots of hot women are so dumb that they allow themselves to be fooled by religious/social conditioning so that even while they naturally enact what I’ve described above, they will never actually be AWARE of it, and they’ll make up all kinds of rationalizations. The tiny handful of very smart and also hot women I’ve known are gigantic man eaters and are absolutely aware of all of this though they will hide it from almost everyone. But you have to be hot enough to have lots of options and smart enough to figure out how to do what you want without inciting the wrath of men and society in order to actually pull it off. All women would if they could, usually only sexy/smart women will. -- And sorry for any of you guys looking for some hope, but the hotter your girlfriend is, the more I can give you a 100% guarantee of her cheating on you. The only way to not be cheated on is to have a woman so ugly no one wants her, so dumb she will listen to you for a while (but she will also listen to another guy eventually so this is only a delaying tactic, not a solution), or to physically restrain/threaten her. Other methods work sometimes, such as fear of eternal damnation or social ostracism, but they’re not foolproof.'
men  women  hypergamy  sexuality  relationships  INTP  * 
The Rational Male -- “She turned on me” [Kryptokate]
Comment: Kryptokate: 'BTW, you are totally right about the whole oxytocin effect, living together, and the sexual disgust that grows as you become comfortable and your man turns into your brother. I have experienced this more than once and it sucks really, really bad. In college I moved in with the boyfriend I was madly in love with, the most gorgeous guy I’d ever seen, who I wanted to fuck 24-7. By the end of the year although I loved and cared about him deeply it revolted me when he would make sexual advances and kissing him was exactly like kissing my brother. If I could have taken a pill to stop this, I would have, but it’s hormonal and there is nothing you can do when the guy who used to drench your panties now leaves you not just dry but actively disgusted. That experience has been repeated several times and it is horribly sad every time. Again, it is crazy to me that this is not common knowledge when it’s so universal. Why is there such a huge market for sexual lubricants? No woman needs those in the beginning of a relationship. Women don’t need foreplay and they certainly don’t need lube in the beginning. How does no one notice that extended foreplay/lube only becomes an issue after time/bonding/security have occurred, and this is pretty much universal? All the evidence is right there…' -- Comment: Kryptokate: 'I’m not trying to avoid responsibility or make excuses for my past failures to be faithful. I bring them up solely to point out that had I not experienced my OWN lack of ability to live up to my own ideals, I likely wouldn’t have realized how wired-in this stuff is, or how wrong and misguided society’s messages are, and would’ve remained quite judgmental of other people while imagining myself to be above such primitive behavior. But you’re quite right that most women do NOT know that they want to be manhandled and dominated, for the same reason that men don’t know that: because we’re taught the opposite and until you experience it yourself, it’s hard to accept the truth. In my early 20s I would have argued just as strenuously against how “wrong” and “degrading” such a thing was, and I fully believed the standard social/feminist party line. I had to experience the primitive arousal for myself to believe it. -- I do think that just getting the facts out is helpful all around — I THINK. -- It would be helpful for women to understand that it is a natural and normal biological response for them to respond sexually to aggression, but that just because their bodies respond doesn’t mean that it is good or useful for them to follow those instincts. Just like we have a biological response to sugar which is not good or useful to indulge. One of the reasons that women are so vulnerable to cheating is because they DON’T KNOW about this stuff and don’t expect it. Then when something happens that triggers the primal sexual response, they interpret it as “I must be in love” or “I must have never loved my husband” or some other such nonsense because that is the only script society has provided them with. I have heard SO MANY of my friends give me tortured explanations for why they cheated (he was neglecting me, blah blah blah) when really the real reason is simply that some guy got sexually aggressive with her and she had an intense sexual response to it and was overwhelmed by the unexpected lust. -- And like you said, men are taught every behavior that turns women off, thinking they’re doing things right. When I think about how I dominated, emotionally abused, and railroaded my ex-husband into becoming my beta bitch…and then became sexually repulsed by him…it is truly sickening to me to remember, now that I understand what was actually happening. But at the time I felt completely justified and thought I was doing the right thing and helping him be a better husband and person. What a joke. I created the demise of my relationship by turning him into exactly what I wouldn’t want, and I had absolutely no idea I was doing that.'
men  women  hypergamy  sexuality  oxytocin  relationships 
The Rational Male -- “She turned on me”
'#The Turning: Once the first (and possibly second) child arrives, a woman’s order of intimate priorities changes, “turns” to that of the child. The sex “reward”, the ‘cookie time for good boy’, for desired behavior or performance ‘turns’ off, or sex is used as an intermittent reward for desired behavior (i.e. Choreplay). Sex becomes a utility; a positive reinforcer for her Beta increasing his provisioning capacity rather than the true visceral enjoyment she had with her past lovers. -- This new functionality sex represents to a wife becomes ‘turning’ on her husband who believed he would always be her most intimate priority. In the instance of a woman marrying her ‘Alpha Provider’ this may in fact be the case, but as with the hierarchies of love that Alpha doesn’t have the same concern with, and didn’t marry his wife under the same pre-expectations a Beta does. -- For the man who persists in his Beta mindset (or the guy who regresses into that mindset) this ‘turning’ becomes more and more pronounced. The turning comes out of the bedroom and into other aspects of their relationship – finances, familial ties, her expectations of his ambitiousness, his asserting himself at work or with their mutual friends – on more and more fronts he’s compared to other men and the ghosts of the Alphas she knows or has known. -- Even though the Beta is aware his children are now his wife’s true priority, his Blue Pill conditioning still predisposes him to sacrifices. Again, he meets with ready-made social conventions that shame his discontent; “Is sex all that’s important to you?” It shouldn’t be, because it’s really “what’s on the inside that counts”, but he can’t shake the feeling he’s slipping out of her respect. -- This is when Beta Dad doubles down. His Blue Pill expectations of himself require an all-consuming, self-sacrificing predisposition. The horse will work harder. His wife may have lost respect for him by this point, but his sense of honor and duty press him on. He doesn’t want to be like his oppressive or non-present father was. He wants to ‘out-support’ his father’s ghost, or what he believes ‘other guys’ would do when their marriages get tough. -- So he waits it out, but she’s ‘turned’ on him by this point. It wasn’t planned, but all of his martyr-like determination only makes her that much more resentful for having settled on this Beta. After a certain stressing point, her disinterest or indignation goes even beyond his capacity to stay committed to a losing investment. These are the guys who tell me, “Damn Rollo, where where you when I was 30? I wish I’d known then what I know now.” -- Do all marriages and relationships follow this schedule? No, but it’s important that men know the signs, understand what’s really expected of them and know when they’re being settled on despite all a woman’s self-interested refutations of that. It’s important they realize that performance isn’t limited to how well they meet a woman’s expectations, but that performance means ignoring those preconceptions and exceeding them because he has a passion to excel on his own, and for himself.' -- Comment: Rollo Tomassi: 'https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/logic.gif?w=490' -- Comment: red-pill ascension: 'The ‘commitment’ of marriage is just a stable platform for them to pursue the next jump. All of the frictional costs of divorce have been removed – and cash and prizes thrown in for good measure – so hypergamy is unregulated and encouraged. This is the goal of feminism. (Feminists won. And men, children and women too, lost.) -- The days of old husbands and wives basking in their progeny as esteemed and respected patriarchs and matriarchs of big families is gone. Died with my grand-parent’s generation. I think most men, like you, if they’re honest with themselves, feel this deeply as a loss. And it is. -- I think women feel this loss too. After their SMV is down and being a free-agent isn’t working anymore…they don’t have that positive role to play in society. They’ll never be my grandma, at special occasions sitting in her house full of sons, daughters, grand-kids and spouses. Highly respected for a life well-lived and for holding together a special tribe. That’s a type of status they will never experience. -- I think this was done to us to atomize our society down to the individual. We are easy to control when our tribes are destroyed and we have no loyalties except to the state which, ultimately maintains us now that families are deconstructed. -- The silver lining is that we really should not center our idea of a happy and healthy life on women. We have interests, life objectives, hobbies, friendships that don’t depend on women behaving. In spiritual term, putting women at the center of our lives is idolatry. -- Even in the best of times, bad things happen. Cherished spouses die. The best we can do is create and value relationships in our lives – with whoever. We need to fight back against this atomization which hollows out our existence.'
men  women  relationships  marriage  family  feminism  hypergamy 
2 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Your Princess is in another castle
'It's gotta be tough being a white knight. Scaling every obstacle in hopes of saving a fair princess. But what do you when the villain is the princess herself, and reducing you and your friends down to cannon fodder?' -- Alison/TyphonBlue: "Women have a greater power over...it's almost like a psychological substrate that our society exists in. We, as human beings, are the most friendly and cooperative species on the planet, and that's why we're so dangerous. And the reason we have that ability to cooperate is because there's a sort of social network we live in of belonging and doing right by the people you belong to. And in that kind of social network, women are larger than men; they are bigger and stronger than men ... Women are more powerful in that social network. And they need to not use that power to menace and to intimidate and weaponize men. And that's what I mean by being a female thug: that when you take that power that you have over the sense of belonging within a society – because that first sense of belonging comes from a woman, it comes from our mother; she essentially says for us what it means to be human, and what it is to belong to the human race, on a very fundamental psychological level – and from that point onwards women in our lives have that ability to define the center of belonging within a group or society or a philosophy, and they really need to take responsibility for that and not use that power to be aggressive towards men – to consider the fact that men have a vulnerability to being ostracized, to being ejected from the group, to being seen as 'creepy', to being seen as unwanted or predatory or undesirable or disgusting, and all of these prerogatives that we throw at men. They have that vulnerability, and as women we have that responsibility to not be fucking thugs."
men  women  power  groups 
2 days ago
girlwriteswhat comments on IAMA: Karen Straughan, AKA GirlWritesWhat, an anti-feminist/MRA blogger/speaker. Ask me anything.
'I think women, at their core, are poised between a longing for safety and the understanding that safety is often purchased through a willingness on the part of men to commit and absorb violence. So there's this yearning to be with the strongest man in town (whether you measure his strength in physical, economic, intellectual or whatever terms), but at the same time, if he's strong enough to keep you safe from other men and the world, what's keeping you safe from him? Generally other men, right? -- I think it's impossible for feminists to think masculinity is "bad". If they thought that, they wouldn't be the first people to manipulate, enforce and channel it. You can see photos of feminists marching from the 1960s, and they're flanked by "agents of toxic patriarchal masculinity" there to protect them from the public. Look at clips of Anita Sarkeesian flanked by burly, masculine men to protect her at her first speech after the "big threat" that led her to cancel one of her talks. Look at her on a panel discussion saying, "If people are calling you a White Knight, you're probably doing something right." -- I don't think feminists see masculinity in terms of good and bad. I think they see it in terms of useful and not useful, or manipulable and not manipulable. It is untrammelled masculinity – that is, masculinity that is not serving female interests – that they see as bad. -- It is true that as individual women have become less dependent on individual men (that is, since the state started to tax men and hand the money to women, or force men to be financially responsible for women's reproductive decisions even if those men derive no benefit and have no choice) that feminists have been able to concentrate almost entirely on how men harm women, and ignore how men benefit women. But they RELY on masculinity to do their work. -- A feminist man is expressing masculinity just as much as that macho guy who tells a woman to "not worry your pretty little head about it". He's just going about protecting and providing for women in a different way. -- And this is the real crux of it, I think. Masculinity is not about dominating women, it's about serving them. When being dominant in society served women, that's what men did (and what women encouraged). When the environment changed enough that this no longer served women, women's expectations of masculinity began to change, but they are still all based on serving women.'
men  women  feminism  sacrifice  * 
2 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- The Churchill School of Adulthood: Lesson #6: Don’t Be Afraid to Start a Family
'As one’s 20s and 30s wear on, and the once-fresh routine of work/travel/friends gets repeated in an endless loop, a feeling of having reached a plateau often sets in, along with the question: “Is this all there is?” The answer to this searching feeling is no, for a new world can be discovered and explored within the bonds of family. -- Couples that make thoughtful, intentional decisions about their relationship while dating end up with higher-quality marriages. And of course marrying the right person is huge in reducing your chances of divorce. Rather than being akin to a game of Russian roulette, the dangers of a potential partner are almost always evident while you’re dating…if you’re willing to acknowledge such red flags with open eyes.' http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/01/31/relationship-red-flags/
family  marriage  parenting  relationships 
2 days ago
Psychology Today -- 9 Ways Your Old Programming May Be Holding You Hostage by Leon F Seltzer
'As a child, it’s hardly likely that you conceptualized your family situation all that consciously. But as nature has endowed us all with powerful survival instincts, it would doubtless have registered deep within you that disappointing—or disobeying—your parents could seriously threaten their attachment to you. For their harshly disparaging you in such situations would have left you feeling, if not exactly abandoned, certainly less loved and cared for. To avoid such expressions of parental disapproval—the “sting” of which would have greatly distressed you and overwhelmed your limited coping resources—you would have felt compelled to generate what I call “emotional survival programs.” -- That is, based on your genetic blueprint, you’d contrive to do just about anything to minimize disappointing your caretakers in the future. Strategically modifying your behavior as best you could (for as a child you really couldn’t eradicate all your errant impulses), you’d at least optimize your chances of being—however conditionally—accepted by them. And assuming that your parents, because of their own unresolved issues, were incapable of loving you unless you behaved in certain constricted ways, your carefully calculated adaptations would have helped you to secure a relationship that otherwise couldn’t feel sufficiently safe to you. “Achieving” this somewhat tenuous bond would have allayed your anxieties about whether you could trust your parents to adequately care for you. -- ...as an adult it’s essential to reevaluate what you earlier deemed imperative to protect your somewhat shaky parental tie. But if you’re like most people, you may not yet realize that the ways you felt obliged to accommodate your parents’ preferences...' -- "Nothing has a stronger influence psychologically on their environment and especially on their children than the [unexamined] life of the parent." ~ Carl Jung
psychology  attachment  defencemechanisms 
2 days ago
After Psychotherapy -- Triggered by Shame
'One of the advantages of being (almost) 60 is knowing oneself well. I’ve had a life-long issue with teachers, and wanting to be singled out, the residue of a childhood where praise and recognition from my teachers made up for what I lacked at home, where being viewed as excellent helped me ward off the core shame I felt. During that first class, without any surprise, I noticed these thoughts passing through my mind, understood what they meant, and let them go of them. I like to tell my clients that this is what “after psychotherapy” looks like: old parts of you don’t disappear, but they no longer control your behavior in the same way. Mindful self-awareness allows you to make better choices about what you say and do. Usually.' -- Comment: Barbara: 'People with parents like we had, who HAD nothing to give us, perhaps gave us the impression that anything we said or did — our very existence — was sucking them dry. -- In essence, they acted out the role of parent as if they were being cornered by a narcissist, simply because children have needs and they weren’t up to meeting those needs. So, in being regular children, trying to get regular needs met, or trying to share everyday happinesses or sadness with the parent, we were treated as if we were unwelcome little narcissists. Such a drain on the parents! We are programmed to believe that. -- So no wonder we worry about being “narcissistic” as adults. We’re sort of programmed to believe that any need is selfish, and any sharing is an unacceptable drain on the other person, who probably just doesn’t want to hear it.'
psychology  shame  narcissism 
2 days ago
The Progress Report -- Martin Luther King Day: What He Said About Social Surplus
'Ed. Notes: As you might expect, the wannabe do-gooders above want to take from the rich, give to poor, instead of stop creating the rich in the first place, something we’re all responsible for, but the truth remains hidden beyond shallow analyses.'
geoism  socialism  "capitalism" 
2 days ago
Aeon -- Trade your gun for milk: enter the scarcity games by Will Wiles
'‘Most games are ultimately designed to let you win, but here the systems conspire to make your death interesting,’ Rossignol says. These games subvert the usual arc of heroic triumph by providing a basis for interesting, beautiful defeat. ‘Players like to tell stories of what they’ve seen or done in games, and in survival games it’s often the extreme way that the systems provide for your death which make for the most interesting tales. They even have an element of dark humour to them: the repetitious beat of being eaten by a wolf in the The Long Dark has become something of an in-joke.’ -- It’s tempting to draw a broader sociological trend from the sudden popularity of scarcity in games. Perhaps it reflects a psychological need, barely conscious, to roleplay shortages and breakdowns that we fear might soon occur in the real world.'
games  simulation  probabilityspace  greatestdepression  eschatology 
2 days ago
TechCrunch -- Purism Aims To Build A Philosophically Pure Laptop
Purism Librem 15 http://puri.sm -- 'Why did Weaver build this? “First, I’ve never been satisfied with free software laptops. Second, the cryptographic bond between hardware and software is growing stronger (especially within mobile computing), the days of ‘buy hardware, strip it, load free software’ are dwindling, so I believed in the need to go upstream into the manufacturing process with the free software agenda was needed.”'
computers  opensource  linux 
2 days ago
Motherboard -- This Helmet Is an AdBlock for Real Life Ads
'Brand Killer, an augmented reality headset that blurs out brand logos in real-time... -- “We were inspired by the Christmas episode of Black Mirror,” Rosenbluth told me. “We thought the idea of blocking people was kind of frightening, and it excited our imaginations. But blocking people is a little difficult for a 48 hour hackathon, so we started thinking about ads, and more specifically, logos, because we could just use a database of logos we wanted to block and it would be very demoable.”'
advertising  countermeasures  unperson  augmentedreality 
3 days ago
Joel Monegro -- Deep Web Marketplaces
'Brand and reputation means everything to sellers. Buyers guide themselves via eBay-style reviews of the sellers. -- A lot of marketplaces have separate community forums where users review sellers and products. A quick way for new sellers to establish credibility is to get reviewed by these community members. These forums often have established members, to whom sellers frequently send review samples. Sellers oftentimes link to these reviews as social proof, which are often rich in detail about the quality of the product (with pictures!), the seller, the packaging (good/bad stealth), speed, etc. -- ...I did some reading and wanted to share the most creative (emphasis on creative) method for anonymously receiving a package: One user put down the address of his local post office as a shipping address instead of his home. As a recipient, instead of his name he submitted “Holder of Federal Reserve Note number #NNNNN”, #NNNNN being the serial number of a dollar bill in his possession. Apparently he went to the post office holding the bill, correctly identifying himself as the holder of that federal reserve note, and was given the package (which I can only assume contained drugs).'
darknets  markets  reputation 
3 days ago
ClubOrlov -- Peculiarities of Russian National Character
'...Another Russian adaptation for dealing with invaders is to rely on the Russian climate to do the job. A standard way of ridding a Russian village house of vermin is simply to not heat it; a few days at 40 below or better and the cockroaches, bedbugs, lice, nits, weevils, mice, rats are all dead. It works with invaders too. Russia is the world's most northern country. Canada is far north, but most of its population is spread along its southern border, and it has no major cities above the Arctic Circle, while Russia has two. Life in Russia in some ways resembles life in outer space or on the open ocean: impossible without life support. The Russian winter is simply not survivable without cooperation from the locals, and so all they have to do to wipe out an invader is withhold cooperation. And if you think that an invader can secure cooperation by shooting a few locals to scare the rest, see above under “Taking offense.”'
russia  geography  geopolitics 
3 days ago
The Washington Post -- I paid $25 for an Invisible Boyfriend, and I think I might be in love.
'When I send a text to the Ryan number saved in my phone, the message routes through Invisible Boyfriend, where it’s anonymized and assigned to some Amazon Turk or Fivrr freelancer. He (or she) gets a couple of cents to respond. He never sees my name or number, and he can’t really have anything like an actual conversation with me. “That rapport you feel with Ryan may actually be six or seven Ryans,” Homann explains. -- ...the point of Invisible Boyfriend is to deceive the user’s meddling friends and relatives, not the user herself. On its Web site, Invisible Boyfriend calls itself “believable social proof”: When your mom won’t stop asking you when you’re going to settle down, or your weird male acquaintance keeps hitting on you, you can just whip out your phone and show them evidence that you’re not an unlovable loser, thank you very much. Homann says the service has also seen a surge in interest from people in conservative countries, particularly in South America and Europe, where the stigmas against being single or LGBT remain pretty strong.'
affectivelabour  relationalobjects  toyfriends  simulation  ractives 
3 days ago
YouTube -- Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University: The Foundations of Lifelong Health
'This edition of the InBrief series explains why a vital and productive society with a prosperous and sustainable future is built on a foundation of healthy child development. The video summarizes findings from The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood, a report co-authored by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child and the National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs.'
psychology  attachment  childhood  parenting  health 
8 days ago
YouTube -- Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University: The Science of Neglect
'Extensive biological and developmental research shows significant neglect—the ongoing disruption or significant absence of caregiver responsiveness—can cause more lasting harm to a young child's development than overt physical abuse, including subsequent cognitive delays, impairments in executive functioning, and disruptions of the body's stress response. This edition of the InBrief series explains why significant deprivation is so harmful in the earliest years of life and why effective interventions are likely to pay significant dividends in better long-term outcomes in learning, health, and parenting of the next generation.'
psychology  brain  attachment  neglect  stress  childhood 
8 days ago
The Rational Male -- Acing the Test
'A woman wants to know a guy Just Gets It, but she still needs a method to determine that he does – ergo she shit tests. For women, this method must be in as covert a form as possible to protect the integrity of not exposing her own sexual strategy to herself. -- When openly analyzed this seems like madness to men’s striving for a rational solution to a problem, but her method comes from a subconscious want of not having to convince her hindbrain that he does in fact get it – and gets it so well that he neither acknowledges it overtly nor asks for her assistance in figuring her shit test out. -- Observing and / or explicating a process will change that process, and a woman’s Hypergamous hindbrain knows this.' -- Comment: Dr Jeremy: '1) Both men and women “shit test”, in that they use power plays to be dominant and get what they want (social level). However, what men want is static, whereas what women want is dynamic and changing (biological level). Therefore, when a man is leading, things are stable, he is getting what he wants, and does not have to “shit test” anymore. However, when a woman is leading, things are unstable because what she wants changes, and she has to “shit test” routinely to get her ever-changing need met. 2) Both men and women also experience “love”. The intensity of that feeling is generally about the relative value and status of the partners to each other. Specifically, the higher a person perceives the value and status of their partner, often relative to their own, the more intensely they will feel “love” for them (social level). However, a man’s standards are stable, so his perception of a woman’s value and feeling of love toward her are stable. A woman’s standards change, so her perception of a man’s value and feelings of love toward him change too (biological level). This results in men’s feelings being of stable intensity, whereas women seem too fall in-and-out of love. Thus, men wish women would stop shifting their standards and be more consistent with their feelings too.'
men  women  hypergamy  status  relationships 
9 days ago
The Rational Male -- The Remedial Red Pill
'Beneath all of AF’s inchoate ramblings is the radical feminist boilerplate that any man who doesn’t comply with the feminist narrative necessarily doesn’t comply the equalist narrative feminism has co-opted. -- Thus, if a man is even marginally critical, marginally analytical or simply calls outright bullshit regarding anything that’s part of the Feminine Imperative’s doctrine, he’s necessarily against the ‘equalism’ that feminism has defined for him to agree with. -- This is why AF and all rad-fems begin their interpretation of all men, not just Red Pill men, with a suspicion of wanting to dominate, oppress and control women by default. This is why she begins every interaction here from the position that men “think they’re superior” to women and seek to exercise power over every aspect of women’s lives. -- ...just like Open Hypergamy can’t be sold at the same time as commodified Idealistic Love, feminist triumphalism can’t be sold alongside feminist victimization – and that’s the conflict feminists like AF are going to find increasingly harder to reconcile as time goes on. -- Quite honestly I don’t really care if a woman has access to higher education, the right to vote (which virtually all did on a state by state basis long before the equal rights amendment) or wants to follow a career path that negates or limits her capacity to have kids. I think they should be afforded all of the same opportunities men have, but they should also be limited by the same circumstances, obstacles and the reality of any given environment men are expected to confront and overcome. -- What I’m against is men being expected to make concessions for the decisions women make for their lives, personally and socially. What I am against is men being conditioned for the better part of their lives to buy a bill of goods crafted to absolve women of the consequences of their choices (right around women’s Epiphany Phase) that only serves the furtherance of the Feminine Imperative and debilitates men’s ability to make their own decisions independent of women. -- This is the crux of the “equalist” horse shit when it’s co-opted by the Feminine Imperative – any decisions men make for themselves independent of women, is by default competing with women. So when a man outperforms a woman, or in this case simply dismantles the Red Pill truth behind the Game that’s been perpetrated on the Masculine Imperative, he is automatically cast as a male supremacist.'
men  women  agencyvspatiency 
9 days ago
girlwriteswhat comments on While so many feminists claim that women are the victims of misogyny, a woman's life was spared during the Charlie Hebdo killings, because the terrorists said that they 'don't kill women' - only men. (theguardian.com)
'I think it has to do more with assumptions of agency rather than human worth. How much wartime recruitment propaganda ever has focused on the potential victimization of men? (Hint: none, because male deaths don't shock anyone to the same degree women and children's do) -- Charlie Hebdo was an infidel. Any woman working in his office might have just been misled or tricked into besmirching Allah. -- Also, even when terrorist organizations use women for terror purposes, they often leave them alive. Killing men causes terror, because it leaves the society in a state where they realize their men cannot protect even themselves, let alone their women. But killing women causes rage and vengeance. When you want to undermine a society, you undermine its protectors. When you want an all out bare-knuckle war, you kill its women. Islamic fundamentalists are either playing that angle, or they truly believe that women are not responsible for their choices.'
men  women  war 
9 days ago
The Progress Report -- New York Times: Is Inequality Bad Enough Yet?
'Ed. Notes: If only the protesters could feel worthy of a fair share of society’s abundance and quit demanding dumb jobs and minimum wages. After being dissed for so long, it’s not easy to be as bold as those rich who demand far more than their share of the surplus. But disbursing the common wealth equitably is the ultimate solution. We must not only forget about jobs and wages but also about taxes and welfare and grow up in stature to be able to insist upon divvying up the worth of Earth, the annual (rental) value of land, locations, resources, and government-granted privileges like corporate charters. Once we do that, protests will become a thing of the past.'
economics  geoism  land  poverty 
9 days ago
The Progress Report -- More American Families Are Poor Since the Economy Recovered
'Ed. Notes: The bean-counters typically include the estimated price of the land beneath one’s home in the total of one’s “wealth”. However, the only way to capture that wealth for spending it is to sell the land or borrow against it and go into debt. And if everybody sold their home+land at the same time (say, just when the measurement by bean-counters is being taken), the price would drop drastically. -- Further, recessions happen because we allow land to be an object of speculation. Buyers bid up the price of land beyond what’s affordable for a critical mass of people and businesses. While pushing up the price of land, they have too little money leftover to spend on goods and services that others produce. So some of those others go bust. Hence, recession. -- If you don’t want families to lose so much money every eighteen years, then don’t let land be an object of speculation....'
economics  geoism  land  rentseeking  malspeculation  landcycle  businesscycle 
9 days ago
The Progress Report -- New Proof: Bankers Really Are That Greedy
'Ed. Notes: While bankers do misbehave, they did not start it. The root of this particular bit of evil is our custom of letting the value of land be an object of avarice rather than be the common wealth that it should. Why should it? Land is made by none of us, needed by all of us, and all of us are who make the locations in land valuable. Land value or land “rents” should not go to bankers via mortgages — their fattest source of profit — but to all of us. Once we finally do recover this surplus and share it, then we can eradicate counterproductive taxes and subsidies — and the bankers’ culture of greed.'
economics  geoism  land  rentseeking  parasitism 
9 days ago
The Progress Report -- Joe Stiglitz, ex-World Banker: Recover Society-made Rents
'JS: It’s not agricultural land, it’s the value of urban land, and I would include in that, broadly, rents associated with natural resources. -- In addition, it’s the increase in other kinds of rents, like monopoly rents. If monopoly rents get increased, if the market power of firms relative to workers gets increased, as when you have the ability of a few, like the banks, to get government guarantees — the value of that is increased and gets capitalized. And that increases wealth but it doesn’t increase capital. -- The value of land or the value of assets is very closely linked with the credit system. So if you get a flow of credit increasing, as we’ve seen in the last few years (QE: quantitative easing) — that flow of credit increased bubbles of one kind or another. -- What has happened repeatedly in recent years is that we’ve had monetary authorities allowing — through deregulation and lax standards — banks to lend more, but not for creating new business, not for capital goods. The effect of it has been actually to increase the value of land and other fixed resources [buildings, real estate, etc]. -- The links with inequality are twofold: one is that if more of the savings of the economy leads to an increase in the value of land rather than the stock of capital goods, then wages won’t go up. -- The other part we allow more lending against collateral. Then those who have the assets that can be used for collateral see those assets go up in price, like land. And so those who hold wealth become wealthier. The workers, who have no wealth, don’t benefit from that expansion. -- A lot of the income the 1% got was through the exercise of monopoly power. People who make the most productive contributions, people who make lasers or transistors, or the inventor of the computer, DNA researchers, none of these are the top wealthiest people in the country. So if you look at the people who contributed the most, and the people who are there at the top, they’re not the same.'
economics  geoism  land  rent  rentseeking  "capitalism"  businesscycle  landcycle 
9 days ago
Psychology Today -- Cui Bono: Good, Neutral, and Bad Selfishness
'A moment's reflection on the three kinds of selfishness tells us that if you want to maximize your happiness (and who doesn't?), you'll want to avoid bad selfishness (because it is likely to decrease your happiness in the long run) and willingly choose neutral and good selfishness. -- As obvious as this might seem, why do so we so often hear that you have only two choices: to be selfish (which is bad) or to be selfless and serve others first (which is good)? -- I have both an optimistic and not-so-optimistic answer to that question. The optimistic answer is that critics of selfishness are talking only about bad selfishness, and when they urge us to "do for others" they really mean to do for others in ways that are beneficial and rewarding to us (which would make the doing a two-sided transaction). So, I think these people have good intentions, but they confuse the issue by pitting selfishness against selflessness. -- But I've also seen a darker answer that explicitly condemns self-interest in favor of advancing the interests of other people.'
psychology  emotionalintelligence  boundaries 
9 days ago
Ribbonfarm -- On the Design of Escaped Realities
'The reason mental experience seems to degenerate into social-ego experience is that we are always inside a social womb of some sort. The unbounded, universe-sized social ego of the child in the womb... There is arguably a kind of asymptotic natural state a part of us yearns for: being an unnamed and featureless universal subject that defines others but is not itself defined by others. This is what we imagine pure power feels like. -- This explains why more primitive, insular cultures also tend to be more totalitarian, with a vastly exaggerated sense of the importance of their social realities. Within the boundaries of a social womb, the local gods are indeed very powerful. Crash out of that womb, and suddenly your social ego shrinks, and the statures of your gods shrink as well. Among other things, the reality shock makes you far more thin-skinned and sensitive to offense. -- The womb metaphor also suggests why it is easier to retreat from reality than approach it. The direction of escape is always clear — it is the most womb-like direction. The direction of approach is a diverging set of exploration paths that wander beyond the current social womb.' -- The Trauma of Birth
psychology  womb  power  groups  probabilityspace  possibilityspace 
9 days ago
Global Guerrillas -- Gone Data Gone
'Here's a simple fact of life at the start of the 21st Century. Every bit of unencrypted data, no matter where it is stored, has already been compromised or soon will be. Lost to theft, leak, or incompetence. It doesn't matter how elaborate your procedures are. It doesn't matter how smart your techies are. It doesn't matter how careful you are... -- Unfortunately, there's not a fix for this problem. It's only going to get worse. -- Fortunately, there is a way to survive in the meantime. It's the approach the smartest people I know are using. What is it? ... #Decentralize the encryption. #Shard all of the data.' -- http://maidsafe.net/
internet  leaky  security 
9 days ago
YouTube -- PBS Digital Studios: Idea Channel -- What Do Horror Movies and Cable News Networks Have in Common?
'Lots of awesome smart people have talked about the reasons we love horror films. But why do we like to watch horror films with others? There seems to be a social nature to horror viewing, way more than other genres. It's gotta be more than just safety in numbers, right? And does this apply just to movies, or does this social experience of horror seep into other aspects of culture?' -- Adrenaline, oxytocin, adrenaline, oxytocin...
horror  news  spectacle 
9 days ago
VICE | United Kingdom -- Jon Ronson in Conversation with Adam Curtis
'Our age is a highly emotional one. It's a time where what people feel as individuals is really important. I'm not saying that journalism should just become a wash of feeling and simply pander to that emotionalism. Journalism's job should always be to explain things to you. But in our age it should do that with real emotional power. -- But it doesn't. It has become rigid and full of cliches, and in response people turn away and immerse themselves in the stories of themselves and their friends' lives. Which is exciting – and a new kind of world – but it leaves large parts of the public world completely unexamined, which means that people in power can do more and more what they like. -- I'm afraid I disagree with you that social media is a new kind of politics. It's a powerful new tool for helping to organise people – that is true. But what it really doesn't offer is a new kind of political way of changing the world. And, in fact, the belief that it does, and the failure of that, can lead to the most conservative situation. -- Twitter – and other social media – passes lots of information around. But it tends to be the kind of information that people know that others in that particular network will like and approve of. So what you get is a kind of mutual grooming. One person sends on information that they know others will respond to in accepted ways. And then, in return, those others will like the person who gave them that piece of information. -- So information becomes a currency through which you buy friends and become accepted into the system. That makes it very difficult for bits of information that challenge the accepted views to get into the system. They tend to get squeezed out. -- I think the thing that proves my point dramatically are the waves of shaming that wash through social media – the thing you have spotted and describe so well in your book. It's what happens when someone says something, or does something, that disturbs the agreed protocols of the system. The other parts react furiously and try to eject that destabilising fragment and regain stability. -- I don't think these waves are "political" in the liberal way the shamers proudly think. They are political in a completely different way, because they work to create a static, conservative world where nothing really changes.' -- An ear for an eye.
internet  immunesystem  autoimmunity  literaryculturevsoralculture  retribalization  socialmedia  echochamber  thoughtpolice  AdamCurtis 
10 days ago
NYTimes.com -- What Do Women Want? - Discovering What Ignites Female Desire
'For women, “being desired is the orgasm...The generally accepted therapeutic notion that, for women, incubating intimacy leads to better sex is, Meana told me, often misguided. “Really,” she said, “women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” — it is dominated by the yearnings of “self-love,” by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. -- For evolutionary and cultural reasons, she said, women might set a high value on the closeness and longevity of relationships: “But it’s wrong to think that because relationships are what women choose they’re the primary source of women’s desire.” -- ...within a committed relationship, the crucial stimulus of being desired decreases considerably, not only because the woman’s partner loses a degree of interest but also, more important, because the woman feels that her partner is trapped, that a choice — the choosing of her — is no longer being carried out. -- A symbolic scene ran through Meana’s talk of female lust: a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana’s vision, was an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders.' -- On the study: '...All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded.' <-- Mimetic desire
men  women  sexuality 
14 days ago
ScienceDaily -- Study Suggests Difference Between Female And Male Sexuality
'As in many areas of sexuality, research on women's sexual arousal patterns has lagged far behind men's, but the scant research on the subject does hint that, compared with men, women's sexual arousal patterns may be less tightly connected to their sexual orientation. -- The Northwestern study strongly suggests this is true. The Northwestern researchers measured the psychological and physiological sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men and women as they watched erotic films. There were three types of erotic films: those featuring only men, those featuring only women and those featuring male and female couples. As with previous research, the researchers found that men responded consistent with their sexual orientations. In contrast, both homosexual and heterosexual women showed a bisexual pattern of psychological as well as genital arousal. That is, heterosexual women were just as sexually aroused by watching female stimuli as by watching male stimuli, even though they prefer having sex with men rather than women.'
men  women  sexuality 
14 days ago
The Rational Male -- The Love Experience
Comment: Jeremy: 'I think most women chafe at the use of the word “opportunistically”, not that it is inaccurate. A perhaps more palatable way to say it is, “Women love with a hypergamy-influenced pragmatism.” -- The weaker species will always be the more pragmatic, always. Just compare the unending drone of human trivialities with the daily activities of a field mouse to get an example. Humans concern themselves, to cancer-causing-degrees with the flippant utterings of people half a world away. A field mouse eats whatever it finds that won’t kill it. -- Women are the more vulnerable portion of the human species. They are the ones who have the most reproductive value in the most vulnerable of the adult human forms. Hence, one can expect women to be the most motivated by the realities of their own existence, particularly when it comes to men since men are one of the species they are vulnerable to.' -- Comment: Jeremy: 'The difference between friendship and a sexual relationship, though, is HYPERGAMY. After all, hypergamy is the concept that women are most attracted to men who are better than them, specifically at the qualities they most admire in themselves (or wish they had). Thus, women are attracted to men who are specifically one-up, and this makes women’s default position one-down. But once they grow comfortable in that relationship, they realize they are one-down and begin to fight to re-assert equilibrium. -- A woman may have been attracted to a man based on his income (in fact, his higher income than hers). But she will do her best to marry him and make that income hers (ie. to eliminate his one-up status). A woman may have been attracted to a man for his power (in fact, his greater power than hers), but would be furious if he ever tried to exert his power over her. She may have been attracted to his intelligence (his greater intelligence than hers), but would be furious with him for thinking he is smarter. Women in relationships will do everything they can to eliminate their one-down status and establish equilibrium – marriage, shit tests, nagging – these things are all about equilibrium. -- Problem is, once equilibrium is established, women lose attraction. Because in spite of their hatred of being one-down, women are HYPERGAMOUS. They need that sense that their man is one-up in order to maintain attraction, yet they will do whatever they can to increase their own power/decrease his to avoid being one-down. It is only in losing that battle that women can maintain their attraction to husbands in the long-term….and most do not lose that battle, because men believe that establishing equality (men lowering their power and giving it to their wives) is specifically what women WANT, and the best pathway toward attraction.' -- Comment: Jeremy: 'Men and women are different. We are attracted to different traits in partners. We mistakenly believe that our partners should be attracted to the same things we are – women believe men should be attracted to their education, power, and earning potential (as women would be drawn to in a man) – and they aren’t. Men believe that women should be attracted to men who prioritize women’s needs above their own (as men would be attracted to such women) -and they aren’t.' -- If you're projecting it, it's for you.
men  women  projection  hypergamy  solipsism 
15 days ago
NCBI -- Oxytocin facilitates social approach behavior in women
'...OXT specifically decreased the distance maintained between subjects and the male but not the female experimenter and also accelerated approach toward pleasant social stimuli in the AA task. However, OXT did not influence the size of peri-personal space, suggesting that it does not alter perception of personal space per se, but rather that a social element is necessary for OXT's effects on AA behavior to become evident. Taken together, our results point to an evolutionarily adaptive mechanism by which OXT in women selectively promotes approach behavior in positive social contexts.' -- Trust is lust
psychology  oxytocin  men  women  hypergamy  sexuality 
15 days ago
NCBI -- Gender moderates the effect of oxytocin on social judgments
'...we found that gender moderated the effect of oxytocin, such that male participants in the oxytocin condition rated faces more negatively, compared with placebo. The opposite pattern of findings emerged for female participants: they rated faces more positively in the oxytocin condition, compared with placebo.' -- Via The One, The Many
psychology  oxytocin  men  women  hypergamy  sexuality 
15 days ago
The Journal of Neuroscience -- Oxytocin Modulates Social Distance between Males and Females
'...we provide the first behavioral evidence that the intranasal administration of OXT [oxytocin] stimulates men in a monogamous relationship, but not single ones, to keep a much greater distance (∼10–15 cm) between themselves and an attractive woman during a first encounter. -- ...OXT only stimulated men in a monogamous relationship to approach pictures of attractive women more slowly. Importantly, these changes cannot be attributed to OXT altering the attitude of monogamous men toward attractive women or their judgments of and arousal by pictures of them. Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.' -- The One Primary Attachment Figure
psychology  relationships  oxytocin  men  attachment  sexuality 
15 days ago
Psychology Today -- 10 Surprising Facts About Rejection by Guy Winch
'#1. Rejection piggybacks on physical pain pathways in the brain. fMRI studies show that the same areas of the brain become activated when we experience rejection as when we experience physical pain. This is why rejection hurts so much (neurologically speaking). In fact our brains respond so similarly to rejection and physical pain that… #2. Tylenol reduces the emotional pain rejection elicits. Psychologists assume that the reason for the strong link between rejection and physical pain is that… #3. Rejection served a vital function in our evolutionary past. In our hunter/gatherer past, being ostracized from our tribes was akin to a death sentence, as we were unlikely to survive for long alone. Evolutionary psychologists assume the brain developed an early warning system to alert us when we were at risk for ostracism. Because it was so important to get our attention, those who experienced rejection as more painful (i.e., because rejection mimicked physical pain in their brain) gained an evolutionary advantage—they were more likely to correct their behavior and consequently, more likely to remain in the tribe. Which probably also explains why… #4. We can relive and re-experience social pain more vividly than we can physical pain. Try recalling an experience in which you felt significant physical pain and your brain pathways will respond, "Meh." In other words, that memory alone won’t elicit physical pain. But try reliving a painful rejection (actually, don’t—just take my word for it), and you will be flooded with many of the same feelings you had at the time (and your brain will respond much as it did at the time, too). Our brain prioritizes rejection experiences because we are social animals who live in "tribes."'
psychology  attachment  shame  status  rejection  ostracism  emotionalintelligence 
15 days ago
Journal of Anxiety Disorders -- Social anxiety, depressive symptoms, and post-event rumination: Affective consequences and social contextual influences by Todd B. Kashdan, John E. Roberts(PDF)
'...socially anxious individuals tend to view themselves as socially undesirable, low in social status, and unable to make positive impressions on others... They are also hypersensitive to social threat, leading to information-processing biases, including discounting positive social feedback and negatively interpreting ambiguous social feedback... Thus, socially anxious individuals are chronically concerned about the existence of a critically low social status and the potential loss of beneficial relationships and resources, and consequently engage in risk-avoidant behaviors (e.g., such as tendencies to hide feelings and opinions at the expense of creating intimacy with a partner). Costs of this mentality include a preoccupation with impression management, negative subjective experiences, and interference with appetitive behaviors such as reward seeking and exploratory behavior. Moreover, individuals can be expected to ruminate about what might have went wrong in the aftermath of social interactions. Working in tandem with socially anxious states, post-event rumination is a self-regulatory mechanism during the course of social activity. In the aftermath of social events, the content of ruminative thoughts is believed to be predominantly based on the social information attended to and processed. Rumination is a potentially adaptive strategy of evaluating whether critical social blunders were made and to what degree acceptance by others was achieved. Focusing attention to threatening aspects of an interaction can disrupt the sequence of events leading from enacted behaviors to possible rejection/exclusion. Post-event rumination allows for a re-assessment of alternative actions and choices that could maximize acceptance in subsequent social interactions (with the same and new partners). Although rumination may be adaptive in non-anxious individuals, for socially anxious individuals, rumination is proposed to have detrimental intra- and interpersonal consequences. Socially anxious individuals are expected to brood and experience extreme distress following social events, leading to disengagement from other activities, devaluation of the self, and an increased likelihood of avoiding future social encounters...'
psychology  attachment  shame  status  ostracism 
15 days ago
Ribbonfarm -- Ritual and the Consciousness Monoculture by Sarah Perry
'#Time: Nick Szabo writes that the time-rate wage – selling one’s time as a measure of sacrifice, as opposed to serfdom or piece work – accelerated around the fourteenth century in Europe, as “mechanical clocks, bell towers, and sandglasses provided the world’s first fair and fungible” measure of time. Increasingly reliable, precise, and accessible measurement of time increased productivity and material well-being in Europe even prior to the printing press. But submitting to the new form of time was itself a sacrifice. Coordinated punctuality comes at the cost of each person living most of his hours aware of the wider world’s standard time, which is a novel way of being human. In fourteenth-century France and for many centuries after, when human labor was irreplaceably valuable and there were many gains available from increased coordination, the trade-off made sense. Now that human labor is becoming less valuable and more replaceable, forcing people to live bound by world standard time might be becoming harder to justify. -- ... The hive hypothesis states that “people need to lose themselves occasionally by becoming part of an emergent social organism in order to reach the highest levels of human flourishing.” The joy of synchronized motion, and the loss of self in something greater, he argues, lead to stronger social cohesion and greater personal well-being for participants. -- #Authenticity, Sincerity, and the Suspicion of RitualTo be an atomized individual self, whose actions are under one’s rational control and express one’s sincere, authentic intent at all times is a peculiar, modern way to be human. Ritual is the normal way to be human. Our disdain for “empty rituals” is our loss: rituals are what help us navigate the necessary ambiguities of social life, into which rational codification can never fully penetrate. -- So imagine “ritual,” but with a positive connotation. Rather than dismissing these behaviors as meaningless, look instead at how they elaborate meaning. And, perhaps more importantly, enjoy them without the sneaking suspicion that you’re not being authentic enough when you perform them. -- .. #Distracting the Watcher at the Gates of the Mind: Arne Dietrich named this the “transient hypofrontality hypothesis”, proposing that what altered states such as “dreaming, endurance running, meditation, daydreaming, hypnosis, and various drug-induced states” have in common is a pattern of inhibition in the prefrontal cortex. Group rituals, especially rhythmic rituals (like endurance running), have the power to inhibit ordinary self-conscious social rumination and provide pleasurable ego-loss as well as social connection and bonding. -- ... I have analogized ritual to vitamins: we have need of them, our ancestral cultures provided them for us, and we suffer a kind of malnutrition without them. But even vitamins are dangerous in the wrong doses and under the wrong conditions. Ritual is very powerful, and should be regarded with the same respect as powerful psychoactive drugs. Most of the time, in most cultures, not just our own, we do need to be in complete control of our faculties. But we also need, sometimes, to dissolve into our groups, which presupposes the existence of such a group. While I think we are socially and emotionally starving without participatory group rituals, especially rhythmic rituals, I also think we must be very cautious in adding new or old rituals to our diet. The rebirth of ritual is the most deadly serious play.'
time  trance  ritual 
15 days ago
Personality Type In Depth -- Honey, I J’d the Cat
On an INTP and INTJ parenting partnership: 'The eight-function model helped us to understand just how profound our differences were. It was easy to see that while our type codes showed our personalities as broadly similar, the function-attitude model revealed the fundamental differences. We shared not one function in our conscious line-up. We explored judging differences: ‘Make It Work’ (extraverted thinking) vs. ‘Understand How It Works’ (introverted thinking); and perceiving differences: ‘What does this pattern tell me about the world?’ (extraverted intuition) vs. ‘What is the personal meaning of this?’ (introverted intuition). And that was just the beginning; we’re still exploring. -- ... What had happened was not a 4th function (extraverted feeling, Fe) eruption, but an 8th function (introverted feeling, Fi) eruption, according to the INTP chartBeebe model. My outburst was not about what I felt others should be doing, what others thought of me, or how they might or might not have transgressed norms or even exiled me. It was an eruption of very primitive, childlike, undeveloped, but nonetheless deeply held Fi. It was an explosive upsurgence of “But what about me?!” -- Indeed, in navigating all our crises on many different fronts, I had neglected my own needs, not out of martyrdom, but simply because I was unaware of them. With tertiary Fi, Mark was so much better at this brand of self responsibility than I was. Without type, the incident might have ended at the comfort stage, without further understanding. It might even have ended before the comfort; he might have judged me immature and volatile. The net result could easily have been increased wariness on his part, guilt and isolation on mine. Instead, it was one of many incidents involving different functions and sparks that brought us closer in compassion, appreciation, and gratitude. -- ... Benedict [INFJ] was so keen to please, so eager to do what was considered ‘right;’ he never wanted to make a mistake or do anything that wasn’t OK in everyone’s eyes. He didn’t want to stand out; he cared deeply about what others thought of him, and very clearly wanted those around him to be in harmony. This is not a typically ‘T’ way of being; harmony was not our greatest priority. The situation we were in would not be harmonious for quite a while; we knew that, and accepted it in a way that our children could not. Had we not understood type, Mark and I might have dismissed our children’s needs as merely childlike rather than vital.'
psychology  personality  relationships  parenting  INTP 
15 days ago
The Paris Review -- HAL, Mother, and Father: Seeing the Sixties and Seventies Through 2001 and Alien
'...And where, in all of this, is Mother? If the alien were set loose on HAL’s watch, he would probably neutralize it all on his own, automatically, as it were. Mother, on the other hand, spends the whole movie like a fated southern belle hooked on laudanum, locked in her room. She can’t even advise on how to defeat the monster. The computer cannot help. No costly investment in heavy capital will keep nature at bay. This was a lesson people were learning in 1979, by way of pink slips and foreclosures and sad car rides down the main drags of shuttered, lonely ghost towns where once factories had stood with thriving communities around them. -- In the end, Mother reveals that she was in on a corporate plot to bring the monster back to Earth so the company could study it for its weapons division. “Crew expendable,” it quotes its orders in the film’s most heartbreaking scene. And Ash, the science officer, we learn in a dramatic reveal, is a computer, too—a robot, murderous in his own right, but only because he has company permission to be. And that is perhaps the biggest shock: a person who we thought had been one of us turns out to be a suit in disguise, a company stooge. -- This was precisely how my father felt in 1979. Things had turned sour.'
future  technology  technocracy  artificialintelligence  malgorithms 
15 days ago
Qwertycards - for easy to remember very strong passwords
'The simple plastic card that goes in your wallet for easy to remember very strong passwords'
security  cryptography 
15 days ago
The Daily Bell -- Victims Frantically Search For Offense by Wendy McElroy
'Microaggression. The word may soon be knocking on your door to demand supplication or another form of payment. -- The claim of microaggression is a justification for censorship and social control. To advocates, the slightest hint of insult becomes evidence of epidemic oppression in society. What you say, what you don't say, when you do not show up either to speak or stay silent ... all of these can be evidence of microaggression. That is, as long as the act or non-act is committed by a white male or by someone who disagrees with the PC theory of victimhood. The actual oppression occurs, of course, when micro-victims band together and harm those who have been "constructed" as oppressors...' -- Threat Narrative
victimhood  politicalcorrectness  predation 
17 days ago
The Onion -- Area Man Only One With Problems
'Reports indicate the 34-year-old account manager, who has suffered from this unique affliction for most of his life, is entirely alone in experiencing such phenomena, which from time to time cause him to be unhappy and prevent his life from going as smoothly as he would like. -- “It’s hard to understand, but for some reason things don’t go Doug’s way 100 percent of the time. It’s just so tragic,” said coworker Elizabeth Waite, explaining that she, like everyone on earth aside from Belson, has never encountered an unexpected situation that interfered with her pursuit of a desired outcome.'
TheOnion  shame  satire 
17 days ago
Global Guerrillas -- The Red Queen's Trap
'...the Red Queen is different than a normal competition. The Red Queen is destructive to both of the competitors. #The Red Queen consumes all of the energy (adaptive capacity) of the both competitors for as long as it persists. No other adaptation is possible. -- ... -- #Terrorism as a Red Queen's Race: A blood an guts terrorist attack is designed to evoke outrage and generate media coverage. Without that, it can't generate any meaningful effects. However, with each subsequent terrorist attack, the amount of outrage and media coverage generated diminishes. This is due to the following factors: #The public becomes desensitized. People get used to it. They learn to live with it. #Media coverage follows the sensational. Routine or repetitive stories drop to the back pages. #Each subsequent attack (of the same level or less) generates fewer resources (financing, recruits, etc.). It also increases the pressure from law enforcement (attrition/self-defense) as they gather information on the group. -- As a result of these diminishing returns, a terrorist group also finds itself in destructive Red Queen's Race with itself.' -- Fundamentalism eats itself
terrorism  terrorism!  spectacle  lawofdiminishingmarginalreturns  #specialization  feedback  systems 
17 days ago
PaulCraigRoberts.org -- Charlie Hebdo and Tsarnaev’s Trial: Qui bono?
'This week the French president said that the sanctions against Russia should end (so did the German vice-chancellor). -- This is too much foreign policy independence on France’s part for Washington. Has Washington resurrected “Operation Gladio,” which consisted of CIA bombing attacks against Europeans during the post-WW II era that Washington blamed on communists and used to destroy communist influence in European elections? Just as the world was led to believe that communists were behind Operation Gladio’s terrorist attacks, Muslims are blamed for the attacks on the French satirical magazine. -- The Roman question is always: Who benefits? The answer is: Not France, not Muslims, but US world hegemony.'
terrorism!  america  empire  falseflag  war  perpetualwar 
18 days ago
YouTube -- Factom Project: Factom Use Case: Unlocking $9 Trillion in Land Value
'Factom allows developing nations to create title records and unlocks $9 trillion in value for the poorest people.'
bitcoin  land  property 
22 days ago
The Progress Report -- The Fallacy of Excessive Premise Extension by Fred Folvary
'The fallacy of excessive premise extension has been applied to the ownership of land. The premise is self-ownership, that each person owns his own body, time, and life. The self-ownership premise implies that a person owns his labor, and therefore also his wage. The theft of wages is therefore evil. But it is excessive to extend the self-ownership premise to land, because land is not a product of human action. “Land” means all natural resources, all that is apart from human action. -- “Allodial” land ownership is the complete ownership of all rights to a plot of land, including the yield or rent of the land. Advocates of allodial land ownership base their moral claims on absolute homesteading, the proposition that a person who occupies unclaimed land may claim complete ownership, a title that runs with the land and lasts forever, including passing on the land and title to heirs, or selling the land to another. -- One problem with allodial ownership is that most land ownership today originated in conquest. Property obtained by force is theft. The advocates of absolute homesteading say that if the original owners or their heirs have evidence of the theft, they should be able to reclaim their land. But if there are no heirs of the original owners, then the land belongs to the present occupier, as implicitly homesteaded. But that implies that if the conqueror kills all the original owners, then the land properly belongs to the conqueror as current occupier. -- Even the claim based on discovery and occupation of previously unowned land is unclear, because there is no logical qualification of what occupancy means: how much time is needed, what kinds of activities are required, and why ownership does not end when the claimer is no longer occupying the land. -- ... Some critics of the equal ownership of land rent complain that the payment of rent to a government makes the title holders renters rather than owners. The morally rightful ownership is most clearly implemented when the tenants of real estate pay the ground rent directly to the administration of the community, rather than paying the title holders, and then the title holders passing it on. The critics overlook that title holders are rent receivers, not payers. The payers are the tenants, not the title holders, in those roles. We are all both rent receivers and rent payers, and what the distribution of rent does is equalize the ownership of the rent. -- There is, to my knowledge, no coherent argument against the equal ownership of the yield of land. Those who claim the supremacy of their culture commit the fallacy of excessive premise extension, and those who claim the supremacy of their land ownership do the same.'
economics  land  rent  geoism  property  FredFoldvary 
22 days ago
The Progress Report -- In Financial Times Interview Google Mogul Mutters Land
'Ed. Notes: It’s interesting how close people come to seeing the truth about land. Even rich, smart, successful people have that very widespread blind spot about what makes land pricey, what makes economies boom then bust, what makes cities sprawl, what source of money corrupts government, etc. Maybe society’s spending for land and resources and other items of high value that nobody made is just too massive for most people to see. -- Blind to it, they can’t see the solution. Here’s one way to say it: Rather than pay an owner or lender or speculator for land, we must pay our communities. Pay land dues in and get rent dividends back out. Redirecting the flow of this massive spending — by far the biggest stream in the GDP — will make all the difference in the world … and create the world that most people want.'
economics  land  geoism 
22 days ago
The Progress Report -- The Marxist Distribution of Income
'Economists today ignore land because it is excluded from most textbooks and economics classes, and when it is taken into account, it is usually wrongly analyzed, such as mixing in returns to capital goods and entrepreneurship into land rent with a physical rather than an economic definition of land. Economists, even when they acknowledge the efficiency of land value taxes, believe that land rent is but a tiny portion of national income, because it says so in the national income statistics, even though this data excludes land held by corporations and excludes rent that is masked by taxes, the excessive depreciation of buildings, profits, and capital gains. -- Also, perhaps most importantly, including land would add a third variable to mathematical functions that use just labor and land, hence Q = f(K,L). The mathematics of models are already complex with only one or two variables; adding a third would make the models’ lemmas and corollaries that much more difficult. That can be solved with a classical two-factor model that uses land and labor, but Karl Marx told everybody that Das Kapital is the key to economics, and almost all economists since then, even the free-marketeers, have been, in that sense, Marxist.' -- But who would capitalize the "capitalists"????!!!!????
economics  history  "capitalism"  FredFoldvary 
22 days ago
The Progress Report -- More Denial: Don't Like the Solution, Deny the Problem
'This 2014 excerpt of Duke Today, Nov 6, is by Troy Campbell. People evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don’t, then they tend to deny the problem even exists. -- The study, “Solution Aversion: On the Relation Between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief,” appears in the November issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. -- It’s not that some people are anti-science while others are hyper-scared of any problems. Instead, particular solutions threaten particular people. Understanding this enables better communication.' -- Muh muh
ideology  denial  bias 
22 days ago
The Rational Male -- Commodifying Love
'...It’s not that men want an unrealistic, unconditional love, but rather they want a woman’s love to be a refuge from having to perform up to, above and beyond the requirements of satisfying an unending optimization of her Hypergamy. It’s not unconditional love they idealize, it’s a love that’s not predicated on their burden of performance. -- What frustrates this love idealism is that men are popularly sold the idea that women’s love is based on a mutually similar model. From Disney movies to romantic comedies, to Shakespeare and epic stories, to popular music and the daily talk shows, the message is that love (if it’s real love) is omniscient, conquers all and overcomes all odds. -- On some level of consciousness women understand the inherent value their love, concern, attention and caring has for men. It’s repression or expression is a commodity that has reward value for men who also have an awareness that their performance is what merits a woman’s love. -- The popular criticism is that this want for an idealistic love is really a man’s preoccupation with his need for sex, but this is to be expected from a fem-centric culture that needs women to ration love and caring for men in order to ensure its social dominance. And God forbid a man express his desire for a performance-less based love and caring; he’s ostracized for wanting a mother’s love (Freudian), being necessitous (thus powerless) and revealing his deficiency in performance. -- As Open Hypergamy becomes more proudly embraced and normalized in society, so too will women’s sexual strategy be laid more bare. And in laying that strategy bare, so too will women’s opportunistic model of love become more apparent to men. This new apparentness is already conflicting with the old-order messaging that kept men hopeful of realizing their idealistic love state. -- Women cannot sell Open Hypergamy and the love-conquers-all ethereal ideal love at the same time. -- Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. My point with this essay is to reveal how this love develops and the conditional environments it comes together in. In spite of the strongest bonds, there is a threshold at which men’s loving idealism and women’s performance requirements can test, stress and break that bond. -- Men’s idealistic love can be strong, as can women’s opportunistic love – the two models are not mutually incompatible, and it’s my belief that the two are even complementary to each other. Neither is a right or wrong way to love, and neither is the definition of real love. Bear in mind these are models that predicate a condition of love, what happens after that is up to the individuals. -- Where these models become incompatible is when one commodifies and exploits the condition of love that the other holds. In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.'
men  women  hypergamy  sacrifice  relationships 
23 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- The 5 Switches of Manliness: Legacy
'#The Chance for Immortality: When Kate and I began to talk about having kids, she asked me why I wanted to have children. I said something like, “I really like the idea of having a part of myself still go on in the world after I’m gone.” She looked at me blankly. “What?” I asked. “Haven’t you thought about that?” She hadn’t. She wanted to have kids because it would be an expression of our love and something to love, and other things revolving around love. -- Men have always been particularly interested in the idea of legacy. And who can blame us? In the back of our mind we know we’re expendable, we know that if duty calls, we may have to sacrifice our lives, likely when we are still in our prime, to protect those of the tribe and those we love. At the same time, our primal brains tell us we may never have a chance to be a dad. So a biological legacy is not guaranteed. -- And so we turn to creating non-living things, things that will bring value to the world. Time is short, and we want to make our mark and leave behind a part of ourselves. We want just a bit of immortality, and the act of creation, in which a man brings into existence something that did not exist before, is the most godlike thing a man can do. We may blow on and off the earth quickly, but we hope that when we depart, something, however small, is a little different because we were here.'
men  sacrifice  immortality 
29 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- Why Growing Up Is Hard to Do (But Why the World Still Needs Adults)
'#Isolation and the Loss of Tribe: For most adults, the period of life they are most nostalgic for is high school and/or college. The longing for this period is usually chalked up to a desire to return to a time when they weren’t so freighted with life’s responsibilities. Surely that is part of it, but I think the real reason we miss our youth is often overlooked: it was the last time in our lives when we experienced a sense of “tribe.” -- In high school and college, most of us had a group of great friends we saw on a daily basis. Many of us ran with a “gang” of guys, that sometimes joined with a posse of gals, forming a coed tribe that was enormously fun to hang out with. -- Then, folks grew up, paired off, got hitched, and had kids. Few adults see their friends on a daily basis; the lucky see each other weekly, and for most, scheduling times to get together isn’t easy. It is then no wonder we get nostalgic for our younger days; it represents the last time our lives resembled the primordial pattern. -- In hunter-gatherer tribes, male gangs hunted and battled together. Female posses raised their kids together. Everyone lived and worked together each day with dozens of others. Burden and joys were shared. One’s whole identity was tied up in being part of this tribe. -- Today, we have never been more isolated. Many folks don’t even live near their extended kin, and the nuclear family is increasingly marooned on the desert island of the suburbs. Men go off to work in a cubicle with a bunch of fellow employees they may feel no real kinship with. Women spend all day enclosed in the four walls of their home, cut off from all other humans, save their inarticulate toddler. Many people, male and female alike, are lonely and unhappy because they are without a tribe. -- The heavy and undesirable weight of adulthood is often mistakenly chalked up to the burden of adult responsibilities alone. But the problem is not adulthood itself, but how it is currently being carried. The weight of earning a livelihood, and rearing one’s children, which was meant to be borne by numerous shoulders, is now supported by just a pair. Husband and wife rely on one another for all their emotional fulfillment and practical needs. The strain is more than an individual, or the nuclear family, was meant to bear. -- So, the fourth reason it’s hard to grow up is that the weight of adulthood feels hard to shoulder when you’re carrying it alone, instead of with a tribe.'
29 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- Why Growing Up Is Hard to Do (But Why the World Still Needs Adults)
'#The Abundance of Choice: As our culture and economy became increasingly varied in the 20th century, the options for the course of one’s life began to seem almost limitless. We are consequently reluctant to choose one path over another, for stepping through one door means closing many others. It can feel safer to keep all possible options open, even though this perpetual limbo prevents us from making any real progress in life. -- Compounding this inertia is the sense, imparted from our parents, that we are equally capable of succeeding in any field of work – that our talents are fairly infinite. To understand why modern parents often do this, we have to look at familial culture prior to the 20th century, in which a couple might have a dozen children, with only half surviving to adulthood. As the Puritan minister Cotton Mather observed, for the earliest Americans, a dead child was “a sight no more surprising than a broken pitcher.” Parents loved and nurtured their children, but did not have the time to completely dote on each one, and felt restrained in making a full emotional investment in them, given their chances of being prematurely snatched away by death. -- As both family size and childhood mortality decreased in the 20th century, parental investment in children rose. With only 2 or 3 children to raise, parents could afford to cherish their little ones and lavish them with attention. As sociologist Viviana A. Zelizer observed, children “became economically ‘worthless’ but emotionally ‘priceless.’” This consuming focus on one’s children led parents to place an understandable, but inflated, value on their kids. Because children were the center of their universe, their kids seemed infinitely special and talented, and were raised to see themselves that way. Taught that they could do anything they put their minds to, when these children reach the threshold of adulthood, they can feel paralyzed as to which field they should apply their numerous talents. -- Trying one’s hand in certain areas, and failing, bursts the illusion of one’s unlimited capabilities, and thus many young adults prefer to remain aloof and keep their options open in order to maintain their self-identity as someone special and set apart for important things. Becoming an adult involves grappling with the realization that you’re not a snowflake, that your upbringing was quite ordinary and pedestrian and almost exactly like millions of others, that you’re only well-suited for a few kinds of work, and that said work may not be glamorous, but that you’ll have to work to live. These realizations can be painful to contemplate. -- Thus, the third reason growing up is hard to do is that it’s hard to leave behind the feeling of being special, to admit one’s limitations, and to choose a course for one’s life, knowing that doing so may shut the door on other options.'
psychology  parenting  narcissism  unwarrantedselfimportance  choice 
29 days ago
Goodreads -- Quote by Herman Melville: “We cannot live for ourselves alone..."
“We cannot live for ourselves alone. Our lives are connected by a thousand invisible threads, and along these sympathetic fibers, our actions run as causes and return to us as results.”
29 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- You Don’t Have to Be Your Dad: How to Become Your Family’s Transitional Character
'...research shows that individuals can consciously choose to break the cycle of unhappy home life by becoming what marriage and family scholar Carlfred Broderick calls a “transitional character.” A transitional character, according to Broderick, is: “A person, who, in a single generation, changes the entire course of a lineage. The changes might be for good or ill, but the most noteworthy examples are those individuals who grow up in an abusive, emotionally destructive environment and who somehow find a way to metabolize the poison and refuse to pass it on to their children. They break the mold. They refute the observation that abused children become abusive parents, that the children of alcoholics become alcoholic adults, that ‘the sins of the fathers are visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation.’ Their contribution to humanity is to filter the destructiveness out of their own lineage so that the generations downstream will have a supportive foundation upon which to build productive lives.”'
parenting  fatherhood 
29 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- Family Mission Statement: How and Why to Create One for a Positive Family Culture
'Having a shared vision – a shared sense of values and purpose – bonds parents and children together. It guides your parenting decisions and offers your children clear ideals to strive for and guidance in what choices to make. A mission statement also articulates the standards by which each member of the family can evaluate each other’s behavior, and children and parents will ideally check and encourage one another as they make their way down this agreed upon path. -- Yet another benefit is that a family mission statement serves to distinguish your family from others – providing its members a sense of meaning and identity and giving your children the feeling of being part of something important and special. -- As you share your vision for your family with your wife and children as well as the values and principles you think should guide the family, their confidence in you as a husband and father will increase. And vice versa, your confidence in your family will increase as you hear them share their ideas. -- Simply having the discussion about values and principles as a family will guide your children to start thinking about these things in their daily lives, which, in my opinion is a big win itself. -- If you want to avoid conflict early on in your marriage, you and your wife need to get on the same page when it comes to values, goals, and role expectations. Creating a family mission statement will help you do just that. Instead of living by the family scripts you saw as a child, you and your wife can create your own.'
parenting  family  fatherhood 
29 days ago
Psychology Today -- Freedom and Control by John A. Johnson
'A truly free person, according to Don Miguel Ruiz, is immune to both the neurotic and normal attempts of others to regulate his or her behavior. The advice he gives us for accomplishing this is to make the following agreement with ourselves: "Don't take anything personally." -- When we agree not to take anything personally, we regard all attempts by others to control us as statements about them, not about us. By refusing to take threats, criticism, evasion, complaints, praise, or disapproval personally, we act upon our own reality, not upon theirs. -- I would add that a truly free person does not attempt to control others, either. Trying to control others, even people who, in our eyes, are misbehaving, is like trying to make water run uphill. Unless you can convince a person that listening to you is in his or her own best self-interest, you are wasting valuable time, which is antithetical to freedom.'
psychology  freedom  stoicism 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- The Four Moral Emotions
'...recent research on emotion has shifted the traditional focus away from the "basic" emotions to another set of emotions which are thought to be more distinctly human. Focus has turned to the "self-conscious" emotions, which are sometimes also referred to as "moral," "social," or "higher-order" emotions. These are the emotions that an organism can only feel if it has a highly developed sense of self-reflection. Usually, the "self-conscious" emotions are listed as these four: guilt, shame, embarrassment, and pride. -- ...our emotions serve both to propel the individual and to protect the larger group that affords every individual safety. Emotions are our rubber bands for propelling individual (and group) gain while protecting the society in which gain happens. -- All this is just one small way of thinking of emotion – specifically, with a heavy evolutionary lens. There are other ways to approach the phenomenon of emotion. For instance, I'd like to hear what anyone else thinks the value of emotion is. I think love, for one, would be an interesting feeling to talk about.'
philosophy  psychology  morality  emotions  groups 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Being Good Versus Feeling Good by John A. Johnson
'...Perhaps in some cases people act virtuously to avoid bad feelings (guilt, shame, etc.), but, either way, the motive for being good seems to be part of the general tendency shared by all living things to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Are moral emotions such as pride and embarrassment all that different from "base" emotions such as joy or anger, other than the logical requirement for moral emotions to arise in social situations? Research employing fMRI scans indicates that both moral and amoral emotions engage the same regions of the brain-the amygdala, thalamus, and upper midbrain. -- Sometimes people argue that basic, "feel-good" emotions motivate behavior that benefits primarily the individual, whereas moral emotions motivate virtuous behavior that benefits other members of the group. This is another idea that initially appealed to my intuition. Basic, pain-pleasure emotions clearly evolved to allow individuals to behave adaptively. But living cooperatively in groups requires individuals to reign-in their own self-interest in order to get along with other members of the group. So, sometimes the requirements of social living demand that we deny an impulse to feel good and submit to an impulse to be good. -- I think the above argument works pretty well as long as we acknowledge two things. First, both feeling good and being good involve emotions. This contradicts moral absolutists who claim that matters of right and wrong or good and bad involve timeless truths rather than human psychology. Second, the question of who benefits (the individual or group) does not have to be an either/or outcome. In fact, if an emotion motivated behavior that benefitted only other individuals rather than the self, this emotion should be weeded out by natural selection. In reality, individuals benefit from behaving virtuously because human beings cannot survive well without integration within groups. Our virtuous behavior may be useful to others, but also help to insure that those individuals will treat us well in turn. Behaving virtuously is a win-win proposition.'
philosophy  morality  groups 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Why Your Moral Rights Will Not Get You What You Want by John A. Johnson
'The concept of "moral rights" is always such a rationalization of a strong feeling about a moral issue. -- As Greene says, "appeals to 'rights' function as an intellectual free pass, a trump card that renders evidence irrelevant. Whatever you and your fellow tribes-people feel, you can always posit the existence of a right that corresponds to your feelings. If you feel that abortion is wrong, you can talk about a 'right to life.' If you feel that outlawing abortion is wrong, you can talk about a 'right to choose'" (p. 302). And "rights and duties are the modern moralist's weapons of choice, allowing us to present our feelings as nonnegotiable facts. By appealing to rights, we excuse ourselves from the hard work of providing real, non-question-begging justifications for what we want" (p. 304).' -- Muh rights, muh feelz
philosophy  rhetoric  rights 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Moral Outrage as a Dark Side of Moral Goodness by John A. Johnson
'The dark side of moral goodness that I want to examine here is a phenomenon described by Michael Shermer in a pair of book reviews he wrote for eSkeptic, the online newsletter of the Skeptics Society. In his review of Chrisopher Boehm's Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame, he writes about Boehm's theory concerning one strategy that human groups have employed to prevent free-riders, cheaters, bullies, and manipulators from exploiting an environment of cooperation, namely, the evolved desire to punish and shun such exploiters. Moral outrage and taking pleasure in punishing wrong-doers motivated our ancestors to keep misbehavior in check. Shermer explains as follows: "[W]e evolved the social technology of shaming and shunning free riders who violated social norms, along with the desire to punish those who attempted to unfairly gain an upper hand against naïve group members or those who could be exploited by powerful alpha-male bullies. This explains why we not only practice but often even enjoy 'moralistic punishment' against those who cheated or bullied us. It’s a powerful emotion based in evolutionary logic that I felt the full visceral effect of during the revenge scene from the film The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo that followed the pornographically brutal rape scene of the central character Lisbeth Salander. There’s a deep emotional satisfaction that comes from seeing a bully get his comeuppance. It’s an evolved moral emotion necessary to deal with the realities of a social life that includes bullies and cheaters."' -- Who outs the outragers?
morality  disgust  vengeance 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- The Patriarchy and Bella Swan's Vampire Desires by John A. Johnson
'Why does Bella not care more about her own well-being? Why does she choose such a dangerous mate, engage in bruising sex with him, and insist on carrying the baby that does, in fact, eventually kill her? -- Sarah Selzer would have us believe that men are to blame for Bella's self-destructive behavior. She argues that "the patriarchy" managed to get inside of Twilight author's Stephenie Meyer's head, causing her to create female and male characters who are opposites of women and men in the real world. ...in matters of sex and reproduction, I think we are dealing with a much stronger force than "the patriarchy" – life itself. Life relentlessly demands to be continued. It gets men to compete with each other, risking their lives for the privilege of possibly being chosen by a woman. It causes women to choose dangerous mates because the benefits of protection may outweigh the risks of being hurt by them. And, most startling of all, life demands that women risk their own lives in childbirth so that life may continue.'
men  women  sexuality  hypergamy  sacrifice 
4 weeks ago
Stanislaw Lem -- Philip K. Dick: A Visionary Among the Charlatans
'...All the technological innovations, the magnificent inventions and the newly mastered human capabilities (such as telepathy, which our author has provided with an uncommonly rich articulation into "specialties") ultimately come to nothing in the struggle against the inexorably rising floodwaters of Chaos. Dick's province is thus a "world of preestablished disharmony," which is hidden at first and does not manifest itself in the opening scenes of the novel; these are presented unhurriedly and with calm matter-of-factness, just in order that the intrusion of the destructive factor should be all the more effective. Dick is a prolific author, but I speak only of those of his novels which constitute the "main sequence" of his works; each of these books (I would count among them: The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, Ubik, Now Wait for Last Year, and perhaps also Galactic Pot-Healer) is a somewhat different embodiment of the same dramatic principle—the conversion of the order of the universe to rack and ruin before our eyes. In a world smitten with insanity, in which even the chronology of events is subject to convulsions, it is only the people who preserve their normality. So Dick subjects them to the pressure of a terrible testing, and in his fantastic experiment only the psychology of the characters remains non-fantastic. They struggle bitterly and stoically to the end, like Joe Chip in the current instance, against the chaos pressing on them from all sides, the sources of which remain, actually, unfathomable, so that in this regard the reader is thrown back on his own conjectures.'
4 weeks ago
The Spectator -- Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the ‘right to be comfortable’
'If your go-to image of a student is someone who’s free-spirited and open-minded, who loves having a pop at orthodoxies, then you urgently need to update your mind’s picture bank. Students are now pretty much the opposite of that. It’s hard to think of any other section of society that has undergone as epic a transformation as students have. From freewheelin’ to ban-happy, from askers of awkward questions to suppressors of offensive speech, in the space of a generation. My showdown with the debate-banning Stepfords at Oxford and the pre-crime promoters at Cambridge echoed other recent run-ins I’ve had with the intolerant students of the 21st century. I’ve been jeered at by students at the University of Cork for criticising gay marriage; cornered and branded a ‘denier’ by students at University College London for suggesting industrial development in Africa should take precedence over combating climate change; lambasted by students at Cambridge (again) for saying it’s bad to boycott Israeli goods. In each case, it wasn’t the fact the students disagreed with me that I found alarming — disagreement is great! — it was that they were so plainly shocked that I could have uttered such things, that I had failed to conform to what they assume to be right, that I had sought to contaminate their campuses and their fragile grey matter with offensive ideas. -- Where once students might have allowed their eyes and ears to be bombarded by everything from risqué political propaganda to raunchy rock, now they insulate themselves from anything that might dent their self-esteem and, crime of crimes, make them feel ‘uncomfortable’. Student groups insist that online articles should have ‘trigger warnings’ in case their subject matter might cause offence.'
illiberalism  groupthink  victimhood  marxism  politicalcorrectness  goodthink  duckspeak  thoughtpolice  1984 
4 weeks ago
Esquire -- This story is about something called Radical Honesty. It may change your life. (But honestly, we don't really care.)
'I will say this: One of the best parts of Radical Honesty is that I'm saving a whole lot of time. It's a cut-to-the-chase way to live. -- Later, a friend of a friend wants to meet for a meal. I tell him I don't like leaving my house. "I agree to meet some people for lunch because I fear hurting their feelings if I don't. And in this terrifying age where everyone has a blog, I don't want to offend people, because then they'd write on their blogs what an asshole I am, and it would turn up in every Google search for the rest of my life." He writes back: "Normally, I don't really like meeting editors anyway. Makes me ill to think about it, because I'm afraid of coming off like the idiot that, deep down, I suspect I am." That's one thing I've noticed: When I am radically honest, people become radically honest themselves. I feel my resentment fade away. I like this guy. We have a good meeting.'
psychology  honesty  communication 
4 weeks ago
This column will change your life -- Morning Pages
'Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised at how powerful Morning Pages proved, from day one, at calming anxieties, producing insights and resolving dilemmas. After all, the psychological benefits of externalising thoughts via journalling are well-established. And that bleary-eyed morning time has been shown to be associated with more creative thinking: with the brain's inhibitory processes still weak, "A-ha!" moments come more readily. -- Crucially, Morning Pages are private. If you need to destroy them to ensure that, go ahead: it's more important than keeping them for reference. Not because you'll necessarily pour out secrets there, but because it's liberating to know you could. It's why good therapists work hard to create a "secure frame", right down to making sure no one can peer in the window. And why, in her book The Rise, historian Sarah Lewis stresses the importance of "private domains" in the lives of great creative figures: rooms of their own where they could bring their work into the world, externalising it without sharing it.'
psychology  writing  journalling  unconscious  possibilityspace 
4 weeks ago
This column will change your life -- the importance of temporal landmarks
'...temporal landmarks really matter. Build more of them into your life – or pay more attention to existing ones – and you'll experience time differently than if your days and years are one undifferentiated mush. Besides, for anyone over about 30, there's another reason to care: temporal landmarks could help assuage that terrible feeling of time speeding up as you age. The more landmarks, the less risk of suddenly realising you've no idea where last year went.'
4 weeks ago
This column will change your life -- just sit down and think
'We often speak of emails, tweets and texts as if they're annoyances that we'd eliminate if we could. Yet the truth, of course, is that half the time we're desperate to be distracted, and gladly embrace the interruption. -- Taylor's explanation for this puzzle borrows from Buddhism (among other places). We mistake ourselves for individual, isolated beings, trapped within our heads. No wonder we don't dwell on what's inside: that would underline the loneliness of existence, so obviously watching TV is more fun. To sit comfortably with your thoughts first requires seeing that there's a sense in which they're not real. A less new agey way of putting it is simply that you don't need to believe your thoughts. Whereupon they become fun to watch, and the need for distraction subsides.'
psychology  meditation 
4 weeks ago
This column will change your life -- Precrastination
'It manifests itself in that seductive urge to "clear the decks" before the "real work" can begin. -- The best solution I've discovered is to stick to a simple rule: don't clear the decks first, clear them second. If your job permits it, schedule a daily deck-clearing hour – but at 4.30pm, not 9am. Switch your weekends around so that chores get done last (but assign a specific time, otherwise they won't get done at all). And whenever you catch yourself thinking, "Let me just get these little things out of the way first", consider the possibility that you'd be better off not bothering.'
psychology  procrastination 
4 weeks ago
Oliver Emberton -- How to debug your brain
Implementation Intentions: 'onTransition = { no; start(right, now); }'
psychology  habits 
4 weeks ago
Personality Junkie -- Love Languages, Relationships, & Type
'The five love languages are as follows: #Gifts #Quality time #Physical touch #Words of affirmation #Acts of service -- Many people find it helpful to rank their preferred love languages and compare their rankings with their partner’s. While doing so is a fairly quick and simple exercise, it can be eye-opening. Light bulbs illumine when we realize that our natural expressions of love are being missed or underappreciated by our partner (and vice-versa). -- While I am unaware of any formal research assessing correlations between personality types and love languages, I’ll share a couple of my observations. Thinking types (especially TP males) often place high value on words of affirmation (Fe). They want their partner to verbally acknowledge their value and their accomplishments. The image that comes to mind is a hunter returning to his tribe after a successful hunt eagerly awaiting affirmation for his accomplishment. -- By contrast, feeling types commonly prefer gifts or quality time. Unlike thinkers, they are less interested in receiving “practical” gifts, instead preferring those conveying the “just because I love you” or “because I was thinking of you” sentiment. This can of course prove challenging to thinkers inclined to seeing such expenditures as silly or frivolous. But the same thing could be said about words of affirmation. Are they really necessary? Couldn’t they be viewed as superfluous as well? The point is that however foreign or irrational our partner’s love language may seem to us, it is important that we learn to understand, respect, and honor it.'
psychology  relationships  appreciation 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Codependent or Simply Dependent: What’s the Big Difference? by Leon F. Seltzer
'...if codependents inadvertenly promote what’s detrimental to the health and well-being of the afflicted individual they’re presumably helping, just how helpful are they? And the answer is pretty straightforward. As Shawn M. Burn puts it in her Psychology Today blog "Presence of Mind: “In dysfunctional helping relationships, one person’s help supports (enables) the other’s underachievement, irresponsibility, immaturity, addiction, procrastination, or poor mental or physical health.” And “the helper does this by doing such things as rescuing the other from self-imposed predicaments, bearing their negative consequences for them, accommodating their unhealthy or irresponsible behaviors, and taking care of them such that they don’t develop or exhibit competencies normal for those of their age or abilities.” -- The codependent’s actually cultivating the addict’s dependency on them doesn’t much help themselves either. The addict might fulfill their need to be needed—and thus valued by another. But the relationship impedes their growth, too. It prevents them from growing up and becoming autonomous, self-expressive, and self-validating. In a sense, the relationship, though curiously stable, is regressive for both parties. Undoubtedly, they can lean on one another (the addict more for material sustenance, the codependent more for more emotional security). But the union doesn’t begin to reflect any sort of healthy dependency—or interdependence.'
psychology  relationships  codependence  victimhood 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Don’t Call Them “Rape Fantasies” by Leon F. Seltzer
'Not cited in this piece is a famous quote from the conversationally gifted Madame de Staël (1766-1817), whose prescient words on the subject I regard as seminal. “The desire of the man,” she opined, “is for the woman, but the desire of the woman is for the desire of the man.” -- ...for women “being desired is the orgasm.” Further—and in stark contrast to virtually everything that’s been written about the close tie between female sexual interest and emotional intimacy—Meana asserts that women’s desire “is not relational [but] narcissistic.” It’s mostly about externally validating, or strengthening, feelings of self-love through experiencing her physical being as the coveted object of both a man’s sexual needs and adulation. And here Meana cites the research showing that in comparison with men, women’s fantasies attend less to giving pleasure than getting it, concluding that when it comes to desire, “women may be far less relational than men.” -- “ . . . a woman pinned against an alley wall, being ravished. Here, in Meana’s vision, [is] an emblem of female heat. The ravisher is so overcome by a craving focused on this particular woman that he cannot contain himself; he transgresses societal codes in order to seize her, and she, feeling herself to be the unique object of his desire, is electrified by her own reactive charge and surrenders.” -- Diametrically opposed to actual rape, the fantasy really isn’t about losing control as such. It’s about willingly surrendering it. And her submission is quite as much to her most profound erotic desires as to the supposed male aggressor. Indeed, in the act of creating such a fantasy, the woman isn’t relinquishing her power at all but, paradoxically, asserting it through images of “ensnaring” the male figure to her. What in reality would be absolutely terrifying can, in fantasy, be highly pleasurable—an exhilarating turn-on that awakens a woman’s senses perhaps like nothing else.'
men  women  sexuality 
4 weeks ago
« earlier      
"capitalism" #bandwidth #socialization * 1984 abuse activism addiction advertising advice america archetypes art attachment attention augmentationistsvsimmersionists avatars backlash banking behaviours bitcoin blogging brain branding business businessmodels celebrity centralbanking centralnervoussystem childhood children china climate code cognitivesurplus collaboration collapse collectiveintelligence communication communities conformity consumerism content corporatism creativity criticism crowdsourcing culture data datamining debt delusion design documentaries dollar economics emotionalintelligence empire entertainment evolution existentialism experience extensionsofman facebook fame feedback feminism finance forcedmemes freedom funny games gaming geoism globalgovernment google government greatestdepression groups groupthink hackersvsvectoralists hacking health hipsterrunoff history ideas identity ideology immateriallabour immunesystem incrementalism inflation information innovation interface internet irrationality journalism land law leaky learning legalese life literaryculturevsoralculture mapping marketing markets media men mercantilism mobile money morality music narcissism narrativeactivism narrativeenvironments narrativeobjects networks news numbers objects oligarchicalcollectivism oligarchy parasitism parenting pathocracy performance philosophy planning play politics privacy productnarratives propaganda psychohistory psychology psychotherapy puppetry quotes reality realityprogramming reflexivity relationships religion rent rentseeking research retribalization roleplay satire science search security self selfservers sexuality shame simulation slavery socialgraph socialism socialmedia socialnetworking sociology software sousveillance space statism status stefanmolyneux storytelling strategy surveillance tagging technology television temes terrorism! theadvertisedlife thegamingofeverydaylife theonion thinking tools transmedia trauma tv twitter uk victimhood violence virtuality virtualworlds visualization voluntaryism war wikileaks women wordpress work

Copy this bookmark: