Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock (PDF)
'As humans, we are constantly assessing how social encounters either enhance or diminish our status. Research published by Hidehiko Takahashi et al. in 2009 shows that when people realize that they might compare unfavorably to someone else, the threat response kicks in, releasing cortisol and other stress-related hormones. (Cortisol is an accurate biological marker of the threat response; within the brain, feelings of low status provoke the kind of cortisol elevation associated with sleep deprivation and chronic anxiety.)' -- 'Uncertainty registers (in a part of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex) as an error, gap, or tension: something that must be corrected before one can feel comfortable again. That is why people crave certainty. Not knowing what will happen next can be profoundly debilitating because it requires extra neural energy. This diminishes memory, undermines performance, and disengages people from the present. Of course, uncertainty is not necessarily debilitating. Mild uncertainty attracts interest and attention: New and challenging situations create a mild threat response, increasing levels of adrenalin and dopamine just enough to spark curiosity and energize people to solve problems. Moreover, different people respond to uncertainty in the world around them in different ways, depending in part on their existing patterns of thought...All of life is uncertain; it is the perception of too much uncertainty that undercuts focus and performance. When perceived uncertainty gets out of hand, people panic and make bad decisions.' -- '...One critical thread of research on the social brain starts with the “threat and reward” response, a neurological mechanism that governs a great deal of human behavior. When you encounter something unexpected — a shadow seen from the corner of your eye or a new colleague moving into the office next door — the limbic system (a relatively primitive part of the brain, common to many animals) is aroused. Neuroscientist Evian Gordon refers to this as the “minimize danger, maximize reward” response; he calls it “the fundamental organizing principle of the brain.” Neurons are activated and hormones are released as you seek to learn whether this new entity represents a chance for reward or a potential danger. If the perception is danger, then the response becomes a pure threat response — also known as the fight or flight response, the avoid response, and, in its extreme form, the amygdala hijack, named for a part of the limbic system that can be aroused rapidly and in an emotionally overwhelming way. -- Recently, researchers have documented that the threat response is often triggered in social situations, and it tends to be more intense and longer-lasting than the reward response. Data gathered through measures of brain activity — by using fMRI and electroencephalograph (EEG) machines or by gauging hormonal secretions — suggests that the same neural responses that drive us toward food or away from predators are triggered by our perception of the way we are treated by other people. These findings are reframing the prevailing view of the role that social drivers play in influencing how humans behave. Matthew Lieberman notes that Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” theory may have been wrong in this respect. Maslow proposed that humans tend to satisfy their needs in sequence, starting with physical survival and moving up the ladder toward self-actualization at the top. In this hierarchy, social needs sit in the middle. But many studies now show that the brain equates social needs with survival; for example, being hungry and being ostracized activate similar neural responses. -- The threat response is both mentally taxing and deadly to the productivity of a person — or of an organization. Because this response uses up oxygen and glucose from the blood, they are diverted from other parts of the brain, including the working memory function, which processes new information and ideas. This impairs analytic thinking, creative insight, and problem solving; in other words, just when people most need their sophisticated mental capabilities, the brain’s internal resources are taken away from them. -- Studies by Steven Maier at the University of Boulder show that the degree of control available to an animal confronted by stressful situations determines whether or not that stressor undermines the ability to function. Similarly, in an organization, as long as people feel they can execute their own decisions without much oversight, stress remains under control. Because human brains evolved in response to stressors over thousands of years, they are constantly attuned, usually at a subconscious level, to the ways in which social encounters threaten or support the capacity for choice. -- A perception of reduced autonomy — for example, because of being micromanaged — can easily generate a threat response. When an employee experiences a lack of control, or agency, his or her perception of uncertainty is also aroused, further raising stress levels. By contrast, the perception of greater autonomy increases the feeling of certainty and reduces stress. -- If you are a leader, every action you take and every decision you make either supports or undermines the perceived levels of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness in your enterprise. In fact, this is why leading is so difficult. Your every word and glance is freighted with social meaning. Your sentences and gestures are noticed and interpreted, magnified and combed for meanings you may never have intended. -- When a leader is self-aware, it gives others a feeling of safety even in uncertain environments. It makes it easier for employees to focus on their work, which leads to improved performance. The same principle is evident in other groups of mammals, where a skilled pack leader keeps members at peace so they can perform their functions. A self-aware leader modulates his or her behavior to alleviate organizational stress and creates an environment in which motivation and creativity flourish. One great advantage of neuroscience is that it provides hard data to vouch for the efficacy and value of so-called soft skills. It also shows the danger of being a hard-charging leader whose best efforts to move people along also set up a threat response that puts others on guard. Similarly, many leaders try to repress their emotions in order to enhance their leadership presence, but this only confuses people and undermines morale. Experiments by Kevin Ochsner and James Gross show that when someone tries not to let other people see what he or she is feeling, the other party tends to experience a threat response. That’s why being spontaneous is key to creating an authentic leadership presence. This approach is likely to minimize status threats, increase certainty, and create a sense of relatedness and fairness.'
psychology  brain  stress  control  cortisol  serotonin  creativity  flow  managment  leadership  work  status  ADHD  maslow 
Psychology Today -- Status: A More Accurate Way of Understanding Self-Esteem by David Rock
'...Status explains why people feel good meeting someone worse off than themselves, the German concept of "Schadenfreude", with a study showing that reward circuits activate in this situation. Status even explains why people love to win arguments, even pointless ones. Status explains a tremendous number of strange occurances in life. -- Status is relative, and a sense of reward from an increase in status can come anytime you feel "better than" another person. Your brain maintains complex maps for the "pecking order" of the people surrounding you. These maps have a similar structure to how you think about numbers (link is external). Studies show that you create a representation of your own and someone else's status in the brain when you communicate, which influences how you interact with others. -- When you meet someone new and size up your relative importance, you might do so based on who is older, richer, stronger, smarter, or funnier. (Or if you live in some Pacific Islands, based on who weighs more.) Whatever framework you think is important, when your perceived sense of status goes up, or down, an intense emotional response results. As a result, people go to tremendous extremes to increase or protect their status. It operates at an individual and group level, and even at the level of countries. The desire to increase status is behind many of society's greatest achievements and some our darker hours of destruction. -- Status is rewarding not just when you have achieved high status, but also anytime you feel like your status has increased, even in a small way. One study showed that saying to kids "good job" in a monotonous recorded voice activated the reward circuitry in kids as much as a financial windfall. Even little status increases, like beating someone at a card game, feel great. We're wired to feel rewarded by just about any incremental increase in status. Many of the world's great narratives (and some of our not so great television franchises) have status at their core, based on two recurring themes. These stories involve either ordinary people doing extraordinary things (giving you hope you could have higher status one day) or extraordinary people doing ordinary things (giving you hope that even though may be ordinary, you are basically the same as people with high status.) Even an increase in hope that your status might go up one day seems to pack a reward. -- You can elevate your status by finding a way to feel smarter / funnier / healthier / richer / more righteous / more organized / fitter / stronger or by beating other people at just about anything at all. The key is to find a "niche" where you feel you are "above" others. -- #Getting a status-rush without harming others' status: There's only one good (non-pharmaceutical) answer that I can find so far. It involves the idea of "playing against yourself." Why does improving your golf handicap feel so good? Because you raise your status against someone else, someone you know well. That someone is your former self. "Your sense of self comes online around the same time in life when you have sense of others. They are two sides of same coin," Marco Iacoboni explains. Thinking about yourself and thinking about others use the same circuits (link is external). You can harness the power of the thrill of "beating the other guy" by making that other guy (or girl) you, without hurting anyone in the process. To play against yourself gives you the chance to feel ever-increasing status, without threatening others. I have a hunch that many successful people have worked all this out and play against themselves a lot.'
psychology  serotonin  status  selfesteem  infinitegame  schadenfreude  * 
Revisiting "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" by Alfred G. Cuzán (PDF)
'Natural anarchy is absence of government, i.e., a stateless society, whereas political anarchy denotes absence of a governing person or body of persons within government. The former describes what Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all took to be “the state of nature.” To demonstrate that the latter is a feature of all polities, and to explore its implications, is the purpose of this essay. -- ...a moment’s thought makes it clear that those who share in the exercise of political authority are themselves lacking in precisely that feature. In making, interpreting, adjudicating and enforcing, i.e., in the practice of politics, office holders have no one to appeal to who at once legislates, judges, and compels obedience on them. To the ancient question, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” the answer is, “no one but themselves.” Lacking a third party to control them, those who constitute the government are self-regulating. In other words, they operate in what I have called a political anarchy. -- ... In sum, government does not abolish anarchy; it only reduces its domain, at the limit to a single man, the autocrat. Under a legitimate government, everyone in his private capacity, including those who staff the government, is subject to the civil and criminal law. However, those occupying positions of authority, which in a democracy includes the electorate, as it is they who decide who the legislators will be, engage in politics without reference to a third party, i.e., a governing man or body with the authority and the power to enforce judgments on them all. Regardless of whether sovereignty is divided, as in a separation of powers framework, or monopolized by an autocrat, those who exercise it remain in anarchy among themselves and relative to the people whom they govern, who in turn remain in anarchy vis-à-vis their governors.' -- Gods of the gapes
philosophy  statism  anarchism 
2 days ago
YouTube -- HoneyBadgerRadio: Banned for not Damselling
"A philosopher only has to make friends with the truth." ~ Aristotle
agencyvspatiency  thoughtcrime  thoughtpolice 
9 days ago
YouTube -- HoneyBadgerRadio: Tropes vs Gamers pt 1: Microtransactrions and the Damsel
"Men will pay a lot of money to feel like their actions have consequence – for example, hitting a patron donate button in order to save a damsel from 'mean' tweets." -- You're hurting me! Because... a man's natural protective instinct.
men  women  feminism  victimhood  predation  agencyvspatiency 
9 days ago
Evolution Counseling -- Groups
'...The group is a natural choice for the immortality project because it can survive indefinitely. The hope is that having made an important contribution to it or at least having been a part of it will mean that they will live on within its cultural fabric long after they are gone. -- This is probably why people resist with uncommon intensity the disbanding of any group with which they identify. It’s not just the group’s survival on the line. At the unconscious level it’s their own survival on the line. The death of the group is their death too, the stamping out of their symbolic existence. -- This is probably also why people are so blind to the detrimental aspects of the groups to which they belong. The fact that membership combats existential isolation and mortality blots out awareness of the negatives, causing members to gloss over, rationalize, or flat out deny problems that are blatantly obvious to outside observers. For most people too much is at stake to risk becoming aware of information that could cause the group’s demise and with it their own demise, so they continue to give their full and unquestioning support.'
psychology  existentialism  groups  cults  ideology  immortality  OttoRank 
10 days ago
The Progress Report -- Deflation (When Prices Fall) is What You Must Fear ... They Say
'Ed. Notes: The conventional wisdom is to fear deflation. But if a falling cost of living does no harm — indeed, does your pocketbook some good — then why must we hear that constant beating of the deflation drum? My guess is that if deflation = bad then inflation must = good. They want you comfortable with inflation, since rising prices makes the few richer and the many poorer. Also (since owners use debt to swell their investments), because inflation masks how massive debt becomes. -- While the authors still say the fudgey “property” instead of the precise “land” (manmade buildings mostly depreciate, nature-made locations mostly appreciate), at least they do see the crucial role that immovable, non-exandable land plays. -- Anyone who pays closer attention to land — and tracks the 18-yr land-price cycle — can do quite well investing, whether the economy is booming or busting. Any society that shares the value of land can feast, too; it can quit taxing and subsidizing and thoroughly enjoy widespread and enduring prosperity. -- If society were to recover the value of locations (something the presence of society generates), then speculators would quit buying and driving up the prices of land and resources. Prices would fall. People would not have to borrow to own land. Debt would shrivel. Deflation would become the full-time norm. -- And shrinkage of the workweek would follow. Economies would serve us instead of us them. So don’t let the inflationists strike fear in you!'
economics  geoism  land  rentseeking  malspeculation  businesscycle  landcycle  inflation  deflation  biflation 
10 days ago
The Progress Report -- Austrian Economics Explained by Fred Foldvary
'Austrian economics recognizes land as a factor distinct from labor and capital goods, as land is a non-produced factor of infinite duration. Austrian analyses of land have been collected in the book, The Spatial Market Process, volume 16 (2012) in the book series, Advances in Austrian Economics. My chapter, “An Austrian Theory of Spatial Land,” analyzes the role of land in the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Just as an artificial reduction in interest rates by governmental intervention generates unsustainable investments in buildings, which Austrians call “malinvestments,” cheap credit also induces “malspeculation” in land value. Economic growth gets choked by both interest rates that have risen back up and by unsustainable high prices for land. The Georgist theory of the business cycle, which emphasizes land, and the Austrian theory that emphasizes money, interest, and capital goods, are complimentary, and their integration provides a more complete Austrian theory of economic cycles. -- The complementarity of Austrian and Georgist thought has been recognized by some Austrian economists such as Leland Yeager, and by some Georgist economists such as Mason Gaffney, but some Austrian economists have let their anarchist ideology dominate their economic thinking, and so they mistakenly reject the public collection of land rent as statist intervention. In evaluating Austrian theory, as with any theory, we need to separate the pure economic logic of the school of thought from the individual doctrines of some individuals who identify with a school of thought.'
economics  austrianschool  land  geoism  FredFoldvary 
10 days ago
The Onion -- Lovestruck Arabian Princess Begs Father To Spare John Kerry’s Life
'“He is a good man, a kind man, and he is the one I have chosen. He wants only to love me, Father. If you kill him then you will kill me too, for our hearts are forever entwined.”'
TheOnion  america  empire  petrodollar  satire 
10 days ago
Evolution Counseling -- Neurosis And Death Anxiety
'“Neurosis is the way of avoiding nonbeing by avoiding being.” ~ Paul Tillich -- Unconsciously, neurotics set up their lives to protect that wavering, flickering candle deep down inside that represents who they really are, a Self that was subject to a hostile and threatening environment in childhood. By avoiding being in the world as they are they avoid having this being obliterated, in the symbolic and in the real sense of the word. -- But of course the tragic truth is that the plan backfires. If you don’t have the courage to become who you really are then that lack of courage becomes your choice, your destiny, a destiny even worse than death because that person, the person who is potentially and really you, never gets the chance to live at all.' -- Avoidance of a void.
psychology  childhood  attachment  schizoid 
15 days ago
Evolution Counseling -- Less Than You Are Capable Of Being
'“If you plan on being anything less than you are capable of being, you will probably be unhappy all the days of your life.” ~ Abraham Maslow -- If you’re walking a path that seems to be helping you become what you’re capable of being, this path is going to be difficult, there’s going to be more stress and tension than if you were selling yourself short. But you’ll accept the stressors and tension as necessary evils, even embrace them, since they’re proof that you’re on the right track, they’re side-effects of your forward progress. -- Anything less than you are capable of being is not good enough, even if no one else sees it, even if your path is one of fame and acclaim. When it comes to your self-actualization you are the only one who can judge whether or not it has occurred. If it hasn’t there is no reason to expect any other outcome than unhappiness.' -- "I think you unhappy because you never have been unhappy: you have passed through your life without meeting an antagonist: no one will know your powers, not even you yourself. For a man cannot know himself without a trial: no one ever learnt what he could do without putting himself to the test..." ~ Seneca
psychology  authenticity  individuation  optimalfrustration  stoicism 
15 days ago
The Rational Male -- Admiration & Respect
Comment: Sun Wukong: Patrice O'Neal - How would you keep your man? https://youtu.be/0jnUU2c_i0w
men  women  appreciation 
15 days ago
The Washington Post -- I’m a single mother by choice. One parent can be better than two.
'My preparation for single motherhood began when I was a child. I started saving money for a baby when I was 14. I stowed away children’s books, sentimental toys and baby clothes I once wore or bought on clearance or from thrift stores. My magazine subscriptions were to Seventeen and Babytalk. While my friends yearned to find the right man to marry someday, I fantasized about finding lost babies in the woods or adopting a child as soon as I turned 18 (the youngest age allowed in Massachusetts).' -- My precious. / The One Good Parent. / Wounded people wound people; some wounded people create people to wound. / Isolation is the precursor to abuse.
women  predation  power  trauma  repetitioncompulsion 
15 days ago
typhonblue comments on Why are misandric articles so popular among women?
'Empathy is a positive trait people develop by recognizing that they don't necessarily have it innately. We think that women have it innately... the result is that women as a group don't develop their empathy.'
men  women  empathy  bellyfeel  delusion 
15 days ago
Thought Catalogue -- 5 Reasons Every Woman Should Marry And 1 Reason She Might Not Janet Bloomfield
'My recent article on why men should not marry attracted a lot of female commenters who scoffed at the idea that women would ever abuse the powers legal marriage gives them over men. I thought I would flip the genders just to demonstrate to the skeptical exactly how women might, can, and do approach marriage. If this doesn’t convince you of how vulnerable men are, I don’t know what will. -- #1. He’ll be considered your personal property; #2. You can control him via sex; #3. Take away his space; #4. Divorce will set you up financially; #5. You’ll keep your family -- All things considered, marriage is a sweet deal for women. A grown adult woman can never work a day in her life if she knows how to use her uterus, and the law, to her advantage. Get a man to marry you. His shit is yours. Have kids with another man and grab both for support. 70% of young American men are unmarried? Gee, I wonder why? This is why women need feminism. Men fighting back against draconian marital laws by refusing to marry at all? That’s misogyny.' -- Woman up!
men  women  marriage  predation 
16 days ago
Ribbonfarm -- The Essence of Peopling by Sarah Perry
'...Rochat, in contrast, models human cognition as fundamentally social in nature. Each person learns to be aware of himself – is constrained toward self-consciousness – by other people being aware of him. He learns to manage his image in the minds of others, and finds himself reflected, as in a mirror, through the interface of language and non-verbal communication. -- This structure hints at infinite recursion, but cognitive resources are limited, and in practice only the first couple of levels of mutual simulation are salient. Thomas Nagel finds this structure at the heart of “non-perverse” sexual desire in his 1969 paper on sexual perversion: "Sexual desire involves a kind of perception, but not merely a single perception of its object, for in the paradigm case of mutual desire there is a complex system of superimposed mutual perceptions – not only perceptions of the sexual object, but perceptions of oneself. Moreover, sexual awareness of another involves considerable self-awareness to begin with – more than is involved in ordinary sensory perception." -- The self is not unitary and separate from others; peopling occurs in the context of mutual-mental-modeling relationships, which continue to affect each person when he is alone.'
psychology  self  mentalizing 
17 days ago
Dr. Jonice Webb -- Childhood Emotional Neglect: For Therapists
'Childhood Emotional Neglect: A parent’s failure to respond enough to a child’s emotional needs. -- Childhood Emotional Neglect is invisible, intangible, and unmemorable. It’s not something that a parent does to a child. Instead, it’s something that a parent fails to do for a child. Since it’s not an act, but a parent’s failure to act, it’s not noted or remembered by parent, child or onlooker. Yet it has a profound effect upon how that child will feel and function as an adult. -- How do we help our clients become aware of the full impact of what didn’t happen for them?'
psychology  attachment  neglect 
21 days ago
Dr. Jonice Webb -- What Didn’t Happen
'As a psychologist, I have seen time and time again that these subtle parental failures in childhood leave the adult with a feeling of being incomplete, empty, unfulfilled, or even questioning the purpose and value of his own life. -- This becomes even more difficult when the emotionally neglected adult looks back to her childhood for an explanation for why she feels this way. I have heard many emotionally neglected people say, “I had a lovely childhood. I wasn’t mistreated or abused. My parents loved me, and provided me with a nice home, clothing and food. If I’m not happy, it’s my own fault. I have no excuse.” -- These people can’t remember what didn’t happen in their childhoods. So as adults, they blame themselves for whatever is wrong in their lives. They have no memory of what went wrong for them, so they have no way of seeing it or overcoming it, to make their lives happier. -- In addition to self-blame, another unfortunate aspect of Emotional Neglect is that it’s self-propagating. Emotionally neglected children grow up with a blind spot about emotions, their own as well as those of others. When they become parents themselves, they’re unaware of the emotions of their own children, and they raise their children to have the same blind spot. And so on and so on and so on, through generation after generation. -- My goal is to make people aware of this subtle but powerful factor. To give everyone the ability to look back and see the invisible; have the words to talk about it, and an opportunity to correct it and stop blaming themselves.'
psychology  attachment  childhood  neglect  abuse  parenting 
21 days ago
Dr. Jonice Webb -- What Do You Wish Your Parents had Said to You?
'Why did I ask this particular question? Because in my experience as a psychologist, I have found that people are naturally far more able to describe what they wish their parents hadn’t done or said to them than what they wish their parents had done or said to them. This distinction is also a fair description of the difference between abuse and neglect. Abuse is an action, whereas neglect is a lack of action. Our brains record and remember things that happened (like abuse), whereas our brains do not notice things that don’t happen (neglect). -- Which seems worse: a parent who screams and yells at a child and calls him names? Or a parent who simply does not talk to or engage the child at all? -- I have seen that failure to engage, notice and affirm a child does just as much damage to him or her as abuse, but the effects are different. An abused child will feel “hit,” verbally, physically or emotionally; whereas a neglected child will feel simply “at sea,” invalid and alone. I see Childhood Emotional Neglect (CEN) as one of the greatest potential threats to future generations. It is difficult to stop something that is invisible, intangible, unnoticeable and unmemorable. -- The subtlety of CEN gives it extra power. Many adults who grew up with an absence of emotionally attentive observations and questions like those listed above do not recognize the damage that this absence has done them. And even when they recognize it, they can’t quite believe or grasp it. People with CEN vastly underestimate its effects upon them. CEN is, by definition, nothing. How can nothing be something? How can nothing be a source of enduring pain and struggle?'
psychology  attachment  childhood  neglect  abuse  parenting 
21 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Censorship
Hannah on the 'Ban Bossy' campaign: "Well, they don't understand the difference between leadership and being bossy. That's the problem. That's why they complain about getting called bossy because they don't see what's wrong with it. They don't see that's not leadership, that's just throwing your weight around." -- Karen/GirlWritesWhat: "What gets me is they have no capacity to even examine the parallel male experience because boys didn't get called 'bossy,' they got called 'bullies' when they behaved that way." -- Hannah: "They don't want to examine the male experience, they don't want to admit that what happens that they're complaining about is not unique to them because then they can't play the victim. You're not a victim if everybody else had the same thing happen that happened to you. That's why you see feminists working so hard to shut out discussion about male experiences and to censor that."
feminism  victimhood  ideology  thoughtpolice  censorship 
22 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- How to Manage Depression
'So you’ve developed greater strength and self-understanding…for what purpose? If it’s just an effort to make yourself feel better, happiness — in the form of flourishing — will elude you. -- At the end of the day, the greatest antidote to depression is having a greater purpose — a reason to get out of bed when you don’t feel like it, a reason to get better and become stronger, a reason to live. Men who have not only suffered from depression, but used it to drive their life’s work, understood this.'
psychology  depression  purpose 
23 days ago
Stan Tatkin -- Our Automatic Brain: Everything New Will Soon Be Old
'...The automatic brain is made up of old memories, some of which are explicit, but most of which are implicit, or outside our awareness. This is called procedural memory. We know it because everything we have learned—riding a bicycle, driving a car, dancing a routine—has become something our body knows. -- Imagine you and I are on our first date. We are both excited by this new creature before us (assuming we are interested in each other, of course). Our aliveness is apparent, and our attention is focused intensely on each other’s face, body, smell, touch, and maybe even taste. You and I want to know everything about the other. We are fully present, and wonderful neurochemicals are coursing through our blood, brain, and body, much like cocaine. That is nature’s love potion working on us. Delicious, isn’t it? Would you like to have a bit more? -- But I have good and bad news for you. First the bad first. The beautiful, fascinating, mysterious new thing that you are will be automated by my brain very soon. And your brain will automate me soon, too. When that happens, we will become familiar, and our novelty-seeking brains will no longer pay each other so much attention. Instead, we will draw from our vast reservoir of memories and experiences to do our daily business. -- What is potentially bad news about this is that we think we know each other, but we don’t really. So we will make mistakes. We’ll operate from memory, which does not require presence, attention, error correction, and the other fancy things our brain does when faced with newness. For example, my brain will automatically see you as if you were my ex-wife or my mother or my father, and base its reactions on those memories. -- Oh! I almost forgot: the good news. Due to the automatic brain, our relationship will seem easier, more comfortable, and more familiar. Probably the best news is that automation does not have to become a problem. This is because the antidote to automation is presence and attention to detail. By that I mean that you become habituated to attending to the details of your partner’s face, voice, body, movements, and words and phrases. When you are together, stay present in your body and don’t wander off into your own thoughts, your cell phone, and or other potential partners across the room. Keep your eyes on the ball—and that ball is your partner. Pay attention as if you’ve never seen or heard him or her before.'
psychology  relationships  securityvsnovelty  control  StanTatkin 
23 days ago
Personality Type in Depth -- The Animus and Transformative Grief
'...Stone seems reluctant to engage in this conversation. Perhaps this is because, as an INTP, she finds “small talk” stressful (McAlpine et al., 2009). Finally, after some cajoling, she reports that her evening routine back home involved tuning in to the radio and driving. When asked what kind of radio, Stone replies that it doesn’t matter as long as “they don’t talk and I don’t have to think.” -- This response is both typical of dominant introverted thinking types, who tend to dislike “talk,” while also surprising, since Ti types normally like to think. Upon further prodding, Stone reveals the story of her daughter’s death. She received the news of her death while driving, “and ever since, that’s what I do. I wake up, I go to work and then I just drive.” One possible theory for this reaction is that Stone’s Ti is “worn out” (von Franz, 1971/2013, p. 21) due to its inability to make sense of what happened. There is no logic to this tragedy, no fairness, and no solution. Thus she relies increasingly on her Ne (through her research) and her Si (in third, Puella Aeterna position) to keep her going. Si in this position “finds tremendous difficulty in ‘letting go’ of people, places, and things” and “may hold on to traditions like a security blanket” (McAlpine et al., 2009). Sadly, it appears that just as a Puella wants to remain an eternal child, Stone wants to remain frozen in this early phase of grief. Or, perhaps it is not that she wants to remain here, but rather she does not know of a way forward. Another reason for this lack of development may be that introverted feeling (Fi) falls in the eighth position of Beebe’s INTP model. The Demon/Daimon archetype associated with this position makes it especially difficult for INTPs to connect with intense emotion, such as grief. However, it appears that by confessing her reality to Kowalsky, something is stirred within Stone and we see deep feeling begin to awaken within her. -- ... -- Von Franz states that “touching the inferior function resembles an inner breakdown at a certain crucial point in one’s life.” However, “if someone has really gone through this transformation,” she can Earth during translunar injection-300xthen access the appropriate functions for each situation, no longer possessed by the dominant function (1971/2013, p. 73-74). Introverted thinking, as the dominant function, was not capable of coping with Stone’s grief. She fell into a deteriorated introverted sensate position in order to stay alive, but she became stuck there. “One has to suffer defeat in order to develop further (p. 68),” however, and indeed it was a series of defeats that brought Stone into contact with her saving grace, her inferior extraverted feeling. -- James Hillman asserted that, “Self-realization is a process of feeling-realization, realizing what we feel, feeling what we are” (1971/2013, p. 102). In this case, Stone’s Animus extraverted feeling, the “divine fool” (p. 10) acts as an inner guide that helps her feel out her shadow functions and feel anew her conscious ones. By martyring himself so that Stone could live, Kowalsky as Animus image proved to be the “ever-bleeding wound of the conscious personality” (Von Franz, 1971/2013, p. 68). And yet, by re-emerging through the unconscious, he allowed for an enlargement of Stone’s consciousness. Through this inner (and outer) process of death and rebirth, a new attitude was born. Paralyzing grief became transformative grief.'
psychology  personality  INTP 
23 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Feminist Mad Science
Karen/GirlWritesWhat @ 02:18:00: "...a lot of these authors who chose to almost entirely write male-on-male erotica – these are women authors – they said that male-on-male erotica gave them the ability to explore female sexual agency through male characters. This always blew me away. It just blew me away. Like, how can you explore female sexual agency through a male character? Because a man is not a woman, and a man's experience is not a woman's experience – and the perceptions of a man are not going to be the perceptions of a woman. And a man's sexual power is nothing like a woman's sexual power. So how the fuck are you going to tell me you're exploring female sexual agency through two male characters? That's completely fucking fucked up. But a lot of these women have been convinced that they have no sexual agency, when in reality, they have way more sexual agency than men. Absolutely way more because part of having agency is have the wherewithal to act and to get what you want, aAnd when it comes to getting sex – in any context other than maybe Mick Jagger vs that chick who works in 7-Eleven – a woman is going to have more agency, sexually, more wherewithal to get the sex that she wants when she wants it, than any man. What we have here is an obstruction in women's perception of themselves. It has nothing to do with reality; it has absolutely nothing to do with women's ability to get the sex that they want when they want it – to take responsibility for their own sexual experience, good or bad, to embrace their sexuality – it has nothing to do with that, it's a learned helplessness...Women have way more sexual agency than men do – way more – and they just don't fucking know it, and they're not willing to accept it, and they're not willing to embrace it, and they're not willing to use it responsibly. Which means that they are not willing to take the position of a moral agent in their own sex lives..."
men  women  sexuality  agencyvspatiency 
23 days ago
YouTube -- Badgerpod Nerdcast 30: Chick Flick Schtick
Alison/TyphonBlue @ 01:32:00: "If you basically learn that your only worth is in what you can compel men to do in the context of holding your sexuality and companionship out as a carrot then of course you're going to create these elaborate and ridiculous obstacle courses that men have to jump through because that's how you feel a sense of self-worth; you can't manufacture it in any other way because you're told over and over and over again that you have no agency and that you're a victim of 'patriarchy' of 'rape culture' of 'male privilege' – you're a victim, you're a victim, you're a victim – you have nothing personal that you can contribute to the world or develop in and of yourself because it's all completely subordinate to the great power of men (and that's basically feminism in a nutshell) – and you're told that your whole life, and, again, the only thing that you get [to have] a personal sense of efficacy or sense of having a mark on the world is what you can compel men to do in the context of winning you as a companion. So when women put up these ridiculous and emotional and completely self-contradictory obstacle courses, they're really just saying: 'My God, I'm totally worthless; I have absolutely nothing of myself and thus I have to pour all of my sense of worth into forcing you to do shit." -- Hannah: "It goes back to the thing I keep saying about how we teach our kids to value themselves, where we teach girls their value is in how other people respond to them, and boys that their value is in what they do for other people. And it sounds to me that this movie is just designed to reinforce that belief that to earn a relationship with a woman, a man should shape everything about himself around her interests..."
men  women  agencyvspatiency  sacrifice  culture 
23 days ago
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci (2015) -- Intranasal administration of oxytocin increases compassion toward women
'It has been suggested that the degree of compassion—the feeling of warmth, understanding and kindness that motivates the desire to help others, is modulated by observers’ views regarding the target’s vulnerability and suffering. This study tested the hypothesis that as compassion developed to protect vulnerable kinships, hormones such as oxytocin, which have been suggested as playing a key role in ‘tend-and-befriend’ behaviors among women, will enhance compassion toward women but not toward men. ... -- The results showed that in women and men participants oxytocin enhanced compassion toward women, but did not affect compassion toward men. These findings indicate that the oxytocinergic system differentially mediates compassion toward women and toward men, emphasizing an evolutionary perspective that views compassion as a caregiving behavior designed to help vulnerable individuals.'
men  women  psychology  oxytocin  agencyvspatiency 
23 days ago
Buzzfeed -- 5 Things Women Do Better Than Men by Janet Bloomfield
'#1. Beat up children. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, women are more likely to abuse children than men. In Australia, “mothers carried out almost 68 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed by parents, about 53 per cent of physical abuse and more than 94 per cent of neglect cases.” If you ever find yourself asking why there are so many violent people out there, you might want to start by looking at all those women beating up little children.'
women  violence  childhood  abuse  psychohistory 
23 days ago
Buzzfeed -- Five Stupid Clichés About Women That Are Mostly True by Janet Bloomfield
'#We can be childish, and biology is a part of it. Dudes can be childish too, no question, but remember that part about how we cry easier? Well that’s not the end of it. There’s this phenomenon in biology called “neoteny,” wherein some members of a species retain infant or adolescent traits into full adulthood. This has been found in a lot of species, and humans are no exception. Human females are more neotenous than males. That means we tend to be smaller, we’re less hairy, our skin is softer, we cry more easily, our voices are higher, and so on. So yes, we just said it: we’re more childlike in appearance. But here’s the trick: we’re still full on adults and on average we’re just as smart as you. Humans tend to have protective instincts towards women that are similar to their protective instincts toward children. This can cause sexism, but it’s a sexism that cuts both ways: sometimes it causes guys to be condescending to us when that’s totally uncalled for. On the other hand, it can work to our advantage, and if we’re being assholes we’ll manipulate your protective instincts to get you to do our bidding. This instinct to protect women who don’t deserve it or need it can trigger what some call the “white knight” impulse, and it can result in you acting stupid over a female who doesn’t deserve your protection or even your sympathy. There’s nothing much you can do about this except be aware of it, because manipulative and selfish women will use it to their advantage against you, or to get you to do their dirty work for them. Learning how not to fall for it is a good way to have healthier relationships with women, and it’ll probably stop you from enabling psychotic, dysfunctional women to get away with shit they shouldn’t.'
men  women  neoteny 
23 days ago
r/bitcoin -- The truth about the Bitcoin Foundation
'The lesson for all of us in Bitcoin is to never put any trust in a centralized org again that wanted to represent Bitcoin or the Core Development of Bitcoin.' -- New money templars same as the old money templars.
bitcoin  opensource  commons 
23 days ago
Coding Horror -- Given Enough Money, All Bugs Are Shallow
'#Money turns security into a "me" goal instead of an "us" goal. I first noticed this trend when one or two people reported minor security bugs in Discourse, and then seemed to hold out their hand, expectantly. (At least, as much as you can do something like that in email.) It felt really odd, and it made me uncomfortable. -- Am I now obligated, on top of providing a completely free open source project to the world, to pay people for contributing information about security bugs that make this open source project better? Believe me, I was very appreciative of the security bug reporting, and I sent them whatever I could, stickers, t-shirts, effusive thank you emails, callouts in the code and checkins. But open source isn't supposed to be about the money… is it?'
economics  commons  opensource 
23 days ago
The Progress Report -- Home is a Garage in Silicon Valley Unless You Got Bucks
'Ed. Notes: As noted above, tech-progress pumps up the cost of housing, more precisely, the value of the land underneath the housing. The smart policy that Silicon Valley — and everywhere — needs to employ is to recover those locations values (via land taxes or land dues) and then disburse the revenue to residents as a dividend, sort of like what Aspen CO does. When owners have to pay an ongoing charge, they put their sites to good use and build housing. Greater supply means lower prices. And when residents get dividends, then they have more funds for affording to stay in a desirable region. How much longer before people as smart as computer geeks discover what works for affordable housing?'
economics  land  rent 
24 days ago
The Progress Report -- 8 Pundits from the Guardian to Forbes on How Economies Work
'Almost all of the increase in the value of capital over Piketty’s timeline comes from land. -- People choose to work and live near each other; so the value of central locations — of land — goes up. Landlords, who are producing no more than they used to, but who were sitting on advantageous locations, reap huge benefits. -- In San Francisco, the soaring price of land, and the accompanying surge in rent, has absorbed much of the wealth created by the new tech boom. -- What we really need to do isn’t to redistribute income from corporations, but to redistribute income from land. The real weapon here is the Henry George tax, or land value tax (LVT). -- See source [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-27/piketty-s-three-big-mistakes-in-inequality-analysis] -- Ed. Notes: Naturally, conventional commentators give one of their own credit for this insight but readers of this site could have read this correction to Piketty’s analysis, the day after his book came out.'
economics  geoism  land  rent  "capitalism" 
24 days ago
The Economist -- Land-value tax: Why Henry George had a point
'Land prices mainly reflect location: farmers may till the soil, or drain it, but most increases in land’s value comes from the activity of other people. Nobody builds skyscrapers or shopping malls in the wilderness. Landowners, in other words, enjoy unearned income from the benefits bestowed by good transport links, and proximity to customers, suppliers and other businesses. -- Winston Churchill said scornfully that a landlord “contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.”'
economics  geoism  land  rent 
24 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Jihadist Brides
Karen/GirlWritesWhat @ 00:13:42: "What feminism did for the LGBT community was it [gave them] a really, really easy to swallow explanation for why they were hated. With feminism, all roads lead to misogyny. So, with lesbian women it's: You're women who don't behave like women, therefore that's misogynist and misogyny. And with gay men it's: You're men who behave like women, therefore that's misogyny because people hate you because you behave like women. So they essentially define the entire problem with acceptance of people within the gay community as misogyny – and you even see this with transgender people. Trans- men don't get acceptance because they're actually women pretending to be men and that's misogyny. And trans- women don't get acceptance because they're men not acting like men...they're hated [for acting like women] and that's misogyny..."
men  women  feminism  victimhood  predation 
26 days ago
The Art of Manliness -- How Delaying Intimacy Can Benefit Your Relationship
'Oxytocin does indeed greatly increase during sex and peaks during climax. At the same time, another important hormone – dopamine – is surging too. But after climax, both oxytocin and dopamine quickly drop off. This drop in dopamine provides a feeling of satiety, and the two hormones affect each other; as the dopamine falls, so does your level of oxytocin. Dopamine is what drives you to do the deed, and oxytocin is what draws you to a particular person, so that when these motivators decrease post-climax, your overall desire for that person dissipates. Thus, instead of making lovers feel closer to each other, sex can actually make partners feel further apart and even discouraged and restless. -- The rise and fall of dopamine and oxytocin during and after sex can potentially make a relationship feel, if not like a roller coaster, then a little dramatic and bumpy. If, that is, a non-sexually-sourced oxytocin safety net isn’t in place first. Robertson again: “Frequent, comforting feelings are important in maintaining strong pair bonds. We only deepen our bonds when we feel safe. What keeps us feeling safe is bonding behaviors (attachment cues). The oxytocin they release relaxes our natural defensiveness (by soothing the brain’s sentry, the amygdala, and stimulating good feelings in our reward circuitry). The more dependable the flow of oxytocin via daily bonding behaviors, the easier it is to sustain a relationship. In contrast, a passionate one-night stand allows lovers’ innate defensiveness to snap back into place pretty much as soon as oxytocin drops after climax. The next day, when she doesn’t text and he doesn’t call, defensiveness naturally increases. -- Perhaps the drop-off is why pair bonders (including humans) rely on more than just climax to keep bonds strong. Pair-bonding species spend most of their “us time” engaged in non-copulatory, oxytocin-releasing (bonding) behaviors: Grooming, huddling together, tail-twining, or, in humans, comforting, soothing touch, kissing, skin-to-skin contact, eye gazing and so forth. Interestingly, pair-bonding monkey mates who engage in the most bonding behaviors have the highest oxytocin levels.” -- All of this is to say that when you have sex early on in a relationship, before you’re seeing each other every day and spending most of your time together and engaging in a whole lot of other bonding behaviors, you won’t have a strong non-sexual stream of oxytocin flowing to compensate for the hormone drop-off post-climax, which may make your relationship feel more bumpy, tense, and volatile. If, on the other hand, you wait to have sex until your non-sexual oxytocin stream is running full blast, this flow will smooth over the neurochemical ups and downs that accompany sex, so that intimacy enriches your relationship and draws you together instead of apart. -- Building a stream of oxytocin before initiating sex also provides fertile ground for creating an all-important foundation of friendship for your relationship. As Robertson mentions above, non-sexual bonding behaviors relax the defensiveness of the amygdala, creating a feeling of trust and safety with your significant other. This security provides time and space to work on the communicative and emotional side of your relationship without those aspects becoming underplayed and overwhelmed by a focus on physical intimacy. -- On a final note, whatever your personal beliefs are, I think one of the most compelling arguments to be made for delaying intimacy is the power of delayed gratification. Deciding to wait for something not only builds your discipline, self-mastery, and character, it can exponentially increase the pleasure of its eventual consummation and make it a far more deep and memorable experience. Everything is so cheap these days – in-your-face, mass-produced, common, and banal. Yet within his own sphere, each man has the power to sacralize something — to take it back from being trampled under foot and make it something more meaningful – to turn it into something that will add a richness and texture to his life rather than just another run-of-the-mill experience in a tirelessly ordinary and worn out world.'
psychology  sexuality  oxytocin  relationships  attachment  affectregulation  * 
29 days ago
YouTube -- Honey Badger Radio: Mailbag, news and open lines!
Karen/GirlWritesWhat: 01:35:24: "They did an experiment with little kids, kids that have not developed a sense of empathy yet, they're like three years old...And they essentially said to this kid: 'I got all these cookies, and you have two choices: First choice is, you can have two cookies and everybody else also has two cookies. Or, you can have one cookie, and nobody else gets any cookies.' And guess which one these kids picked? They chose one cookie and everybody else got no cookies. Almost overwhelmingly. And it's because getting more than the next guy means more to an underdeveloped psyche with an underdeveloped sense of empathy – an immature person – than everybody benefiting and I get to profit twice as much by being generous to everybody else...'I would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.'"
psychology  serotonin  status 
29 days ago
YouTube -- HoneyBadgerRadio: BadgerPod GamerGate #7: Gamey Dickwolves Collusion
01:23:00: Alison/Typhonblue: "I would argue that we are at the precipice of a revolution in how we organize. And I think that what you're seeing in this repetition of this particular [weaponized victimhood] behaviour is that, people, in the past, had to organize based on a Threat Narrative about some exterior group. The Threat Narrative, essentially, is about who belongs to the group and who doesn't belong to the group, and the relationship to the group. And usually that's centred around morality or a set of belief systems. And throughout human history, we've organized ourselves around belief systems, we've organized ourselves around familial bonds – tribalism. But all it is is just an explanation of who belongs to the group and who doesn't. And when a group becomes big enough, it can start to allow for this toxic outrage of 'You don't belong to the group! You don't conform to the norms!' And why that happens is because when a group becomes big enough and unchallenged and has no external pressure, the internal pressure builds up, and the sense of external threat is gone so people stop cooperating according to their belief system of belonging. And they start attacking each other because that pressure of outrage can't go outward, so it goes inward. And then everything blows up. But, what we're seeing now is, with the rise of these new technologies, we're seeing a way of organizing people that totally transcends Threat Narratives. Because Threat Narratives establish intra-group altruism and ability to work together: as long as you have an enemy, you work together. But as soon as that enemy goes away, you stop working together because the in-group conflicts become too great and it explodes the group. So what we're seeing is that this Threat Narrative has become big enough and mainstream enough, that it's starting to explode the group. What I think is going to happen is that we're going to see a revolution in how we organize; we'll no longer need a Threat Narrative to organize people and get them working together – because now we have games, or the medium that games are within. And games provide a way of organizing people that requires no Threat Narrative. The game itself provides the sense of consequence, the sense of potential danger or failure that will cause altruistic behaviour within the group... We're going to move past Threat Narratives as a way of organizing people into organizing people via the structures that underlie games, game mechanics..."
psychohistory  poisoncontainer  victimhood  ideology  groups  commonenemy  thegamingofeverydaylife  infinitegame  sociology  * 
4 weeks ago
Reader Supported News -- A Family Business of Perpetual War
'Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia – and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. -- This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.' -- The best protection racket taxpayer money can buy.
america  empire  statism  mercantilism  war  perpetualwar  minipax 
4 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Chicago Mayor Emanuel Proposes to Ax Taxes for the Poor
'Ed. Notes: Coincidentally, Chicago was the home of Homer Hoyt who did such eye-opening research on land values, how they determine the business cycle — if only his discoveries were put to good use by today’s leaders. Alas. -- It’s great that a public official recognizes the destructive power of taxes. But it stinks that he did not cite the constructive power of rent recovery. Indeed, the reason all the previous tax breaks failed to eradicate poverty is because they left out the most vital part — charging owners a rent for their locations. When they have to pay these land dues, then owners get busy and develop their lots, which generates prosperity for all. -- Hey, if the notion of paying rent to government worries you (often for good reason), then earmark all the revenue raised for a dividend to residents, similar to what Aspen CO and Singapore do. Getting the dividend while basking in prosperity will always keep the land dues affordable — and it sure would win an election for any politician!'
economics  geoism  land  rent  poverty 
4 weeks ago
The Daily Bell -- Bloomberg: More Flaws in Piketty's Book; Why Henry George's Tax May Be Best
From the Bloomberg article: 'Rognlie's third point is perhaps the most interesting. Economists combine a lot of different things into "capital," such as machines, buildings and land. Rognlie points out that almost all of the increase in the value of capital over Piketty's timeline comes from land, instead of from other forms of capital. In other words, it's landlords, not corporate overlords, who are sucking up the wealth in the economy. It's a dramatic, startling insight that was somehow overlooked before Rognlie came along.'
economics  geoism  "capitalism" 
4 weeks ago
Washington's Blog -- That Moron Who Spews Garbage and Doesn't Listen to Reason May Be a Bot
'...intentionally sowing discord and posting junk comments to push down insightful comments are common propaganda techniques.'
internet  bots  propaganda  disinformation  flood  discourse 
4 weeks ago
Evolution Counseling -- Do Not Lose Sight Of How Far You Have Come
'...Earlier on in your journey you would have been tickled pink to be in the position you are now, to have the skills and experience you have now. “I have nothing to show for it” is wrong thinking when the ‘nothing’ or ‘something’ doesn’t take into account the internal self-actualization that is hard to see but still very real. -- If you keep building on that self-actualization those external results that you have been hoping for just might fall into place. But you’ll never know if you quit. We will leave you with some motivational inspiration from Frederick Nietzsche. “In science it occurs every day and every hour that a man, immediately before the solution, remains stuck, being convinced that his efforts have been entirely in vain- like one who, in untying a noose, hesitates at the moment when it is nearest to coming loose, because at that very moment it looks most like a knot.”'
psychology  perseverance 
4 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Unnaturally Good: The Plight of the Goody Two-Shoes by Leon F Seltzer
'...Child development research has shown that young children define themselves as good or bad on the basis of how they see themselves reflected in the eyes of their parents. Until they reach the age of 8 or so, they’re simply incapable of formulating a self-image independent of how they imagine their parents view them. Obviously, the problem with requiring such external validation is that in needing— sometimes desperately—to think positively of themselves, they feel obliged to adopt particular ways of behaving that they believe are essential to satisfy their parents’ quite possibly lofty, or unrealistic, standards for them. -- Such a deeply felt necessity can lead the child to adopt a certain inauthentic, or “fabricated,” self-portrayal—to project, or simulate, a “virtue” that inevitably twists them into a shape disharmonious with who they really are. That is, they turn themselves into badly distorted versions of what, otherwise, they’d naturally become (i.e., had they not been so "indoctrinated" by their caretakers). -- To put it a little differently, to feel they’re good enough to receive as much approbation from their caretakers as possible, they’re compelled to “handicap” both their thought processes and behavior. And the outcome? As they age, they can’t really allow themselves the freedom to evolve into their true adult self. Instead, they grow into an abnormally cultivated, outwardly virtuous, false self, while yet being plagued by nagging doubts about how good they really are—or, ultimately, who they are.'
psychology  attachment  childhood  repression  shadow  falseself 
4 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- Betas In Waiting
Comment: Rollo Tomassi: 'Women will break the rules for men who turn them on and create rules for men they don’t respect. -- http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/302rxv/women_will_break_the_rules_for_men_who_turn_them/ -- Comment: Rollo Tomassi: 'In an age when an unrestricted Hypergamy is the highest social priority for women, and made obligatory for men, sampling as many Alphas as her looks will afford before settling on a Beta makes pragmatic sense. -- I explained this in The Myth of the Good Guy, the man who somehow magically embodies the best of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks isn’t believable to women, and in fact women don’t want those qualities in the same man at the same time – they want different men for different purposes. -- As such they don’t expect (or really even want) to find Mr. Perfect (perfect is boring). Solution: sample as many Alpha cocks as possible and/or as needed for as long as she’s able to outcompete her sexual rivals for that attention, settle on Mr. Good Enough for long term security and parental investment, and rely on social conventions that absolve you of any duplicity by excusing those Alpha cocks as learning experiences that led her to Mr. Good Enough. -- It’s pragmatic and brilliant when you think about it. It’s an exquisite solution to the problem of a dual mating strategy.' -- Comment: Jeremy: '@Stingray "I don’t think reality ever hits most women, because most would find the idea that we don’t love idealistically shameful. It would mean that we are not capable of the same thing as men and that our love is less." You wouldn’t shame a hen for not loving the rooster would you? I’m sure that sounds absurd, since roosters generally impregnate on their own whim rather than the hens. The situation human females are in and have been in over eons of evolution precludes energy wasted on loving a male idealistically. It cannot serve a females sexual strategy to get hung up on a man, when impregnation is not a sure thing and may require multiple encounters with multiple men to ensure pregnancy. In fact it would have probably negatively impacted human evolution if women fixated on one man.'
men  women  solipsism  sacrifice  hypergamy 
4 weeks ago
judgybitch -- How to Pick a Wife – 2.0
'...When you find one willing to consider why these are of vital importance to men, a woman who understands she has a loaded gun and is willing to give you the bullets, that is a woman worth considering.'
men  women  marriage 
4 weeks ago
YouTube -- Emmy van Deurzen: Parental Death
'Emmy van Deurzen speaks about her mother's and father's deaths. She meditates on the way in which we can say goodbye to our parents when they die and considers the importance of making up your mind about what you want to inherit and what to discard in terms of their intellectual and emotional testament.'
psychology  death  individuation 
4 weeks ago
YouTube -- Mike Maloney: The Day The Internet Died
"It is titled net neutrality, and that's what you're going to get, the internet has been put into neutral."
internet  regulation  chokepoints 
4 weeks ago
BBC Radio 4 -- Promises, Promises: A History of Debt
'Anthropologist David Graeber explores the ways debt has shaped society over 5,000 years.'
history  economics  markets  credit  debt  money  statism  empire  documentaries 
5 weeks ago
Hipster INTJ -- The Great Big INTJ/INTP Post
'The easiest way to describe the difference between these two types would be to say that INTJs like to put things together and INTPs like to pull them apart. -- ...logical correctness is paramount for them. They fixate on tiny details because they can see how many problems could have easily been avoided if certain details had been accounted for. -- The INTJ may feel as though the INTP is constantly doubting them when the INTP keeps probing and debating after the INTJ considers a matter settled. The INTP may start to feel that the INTJ doesn’t respect their ideas when the INTJ ends a conversation before the INTP feels every aspect has been adequately considered. -- ...with the INTPs need for detail, the INTJ may feel like their INTP is nitpicking how they’re saying something and completely ignoring what they’re trying to say. On the other hand, with INTJs being big-picture thinkers, the INTP might feel like their INTJ is never being specific enough for them to ever understand what’s actually going on.' -- The map is not the territory.
psychology  personality  INTP 
5 weeks ago
YouTube -- [Fred Harrison]: Can We REALLY Scrap Taxes?
'Nations lose fortunes because of the taxes that penalise people who work and invest. Those taxes should be scrapped, argues Fred Harrison, with public services funded out of rent. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman explains why tax-dodging corporations cannot evade public charges on land rents. Winston Churchill also voices his support, but the Battle of the Budget was the one war he lost.'
history  economics  geoism  land  landlordism  documentaries  FredHarrison 
5 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Foundations of Earth Sharing
'“There are two kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us from the Creator of the universe – such as the earth, air, water. Secondly, artificial or acquired property – the invention of men. In the natural property all individuals have legitimate birthrights. Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property…Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made.” ~ Thomas Paine'
geoism  economics  land  landlordism  "capitalism" 
5 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Seattle Restaurants Close - Linked to Higher Minimum Wage?
'Ed. Notes: Many business people like a law that forces all their competitors to comply at the same time (especially when they can pass on the cost), so nobody gets a competitive advantage. Of course, some businesses already operating at the margin can not keep their customers if they raise prices so they’ll go out of business. But as usual, the little people get overlooked when their reality gets in the way of others’ ideology. -- More crucial, bear in mind that most important factor, as always, is location, location, location. And ask yourself, who should benefit from the value of location? A lone owner or all of society — who are those creating site value in the first place. -- All the hullabaloo about minimum wage is another issue that’d disappear in a geonomy. In a gooney, owners would be paying land dues. To afford them, owners put and keep their land at best use — which means hiring people. The greater the number of jobs, the greater the wages — and without state interference. -- Plus, your wages would not be taxed, which is like a wage boost right there. -- Finally, most importantly, you’d be getting a rent dividend, a share of the revenue raised by land dues. Enjoying that cushion, you’d be able to refuse low-pay work, so those bosses would have to up what they offer. -- It’s way cool how geonomics works, and always has, whenever and wherever used. -- To win it, people need enough self-esteem to stop begging for minimum wages and start demanding an income apart from their labor — a share of the common wealth — just like right now the rich demand and get nearly the whole hog. No self-esteem issues on their part!'
economics  geoism  land 
5 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- 3 Major Papers Reveal the Truth About MONOPOLY
'Ed. Notes: I guess it’s finally gotten safe for the mainstream media to tell the truth. Now, if they’d only tell the truth about economics! About surplus! About natural values! About common wealth! And who gets it …'
economics  geoism  land  landlordism  "capitalism" 
5 weeks ago
The Progress Report -- Land and Labor in a World of Robots by Fred E. Foldvary
'As the technology of computing, robots, and drones advances, there have been discussions on the economic effects. Will robots displace human labor? Who will end up with the wealth? -- ...suppose that most of the work is replaced by machines, and only a few activities remain done by live labor. Robots would build and service other robots. With minimal labor costs, the wealth would first go to the owners of the robot firms. But competition would drive down profits to a normal return on asset values. In the long run, when patents have expired, the surplus income would not go to the owners of the robots and other capital goods. -- Economists call the surplus value, after paying all expenses including normal returns on investments, the “producer surplus.” But since labor would not get this surplus, and it is not going to the owners of firms and capital goods, it flows down to the non-labor factor, land. -- With lower labor costs, the producer surplus would be that much greater, and so the rent of land would soak up the gains from economic expansion and more productive technology. The beneficiaries of the displacement of labor would be either those who have title to land, or to the people in general if the rent is distributed to them.'
economics  geoism  land  rent  automation  "capitalism"  FredFoldvary 
5 weeks ago
typhonblue comments on Why have Gamers been so much better at repelling SJW's than Comics have?
'Ironically I would posit it's because of the larger female gamer base and the nature of gamers being more interested in personal consequences than victim politics. -- When you throw down a threat narrative you need a minimum number of damsels to populate it or it doesn't work. Which may be why SJW, feminists and media are trying their damnedest to keep women out of games by painting games and the gamer community as dangerous. -- They won't have enough female chattel to use as damsels in the future. And they don't like their property being stolen.'
women  feminism  ideology  victimhood  agencyvspatiency 
5 weeks ago
Evolution Counseling -- Desperate For A Solution
'When you are desperate for a solution you might think you are desperate for some variable in your external environment to change but what you are actually desperate for is to find relief from painful feelings of anxiety. -- That existential anxiety is cued off by uncertainty. The antidote seems to be certainty in the form of a firm plan. Whether it’s someone else providing you with this plan or you coming up with it yourself is of secondary importance when you’re in that state of high anxiety. -- But this puts you in a vulnerable place where you’re as likely to make a bad decision as a good one, which is why often the ‘solution’ is actually just becoming more comfortable with your discomfort, learning how to bear your painful feelings of anxiety so that you can expand your field of vision to eventually make the best choice for yourself rather than seizing right away upon whatever is presented to you. -- When you’re desperate for a solution you’re easy prey for charlatans of all kinds...'
psychology  anxiety  control  falseself 
5 weeks ago
Evolution Counseling -- How To Cure Boredom
'People who get bored all the time are likely to have what Erich Fromm called a receptive orientation towards life. They are like babies with their mouths open, waiting to be fed. They expect the external environment to satisfy all their emotional, psychological, and physical needs for them. -- At a deeper level they don’t believe that they’re capable of producing, they don’t believe they can get these important existential needs met themselves, and this makes them wholly dependent on and often resentful of the world. -- When you hear people complain about being bored you’ll notice they pretty much always blame external variables, that there’s nothing fun to do, nothing good on t.v., etc. They center their boredom ‘out there’ and expect a solution ‘out there’. -- How to cure boredom is not to change variables in the environment but to change that internal orientation, to cease with the receptive mentality and start to cultivate a productive orientation towards life where the goal is to actively create in order to get needs met rather than sit back and wait.'
psychology  boredom 
5 weeks ago
Evolution Counseling -- Masochism Versus Emotional Detachment
'...We can see that in both cases these rationalizations are effective because they’re true up to a point. The problem is not detachment or connection per se, but rather the compulsive drive to inhabit one attitude and the overwhelming, irrational fear of inhabiting the other. -- Those who are detached are fearful of human connection and those who are masochistic are fearful of being alone. In this sense neither attitude is growth oriented but is deficit oriented. They’re both taken on in order to combat feeling of helplessness in a world perceived as hostile, not in order to self-actualize. -- That’s the real difference between healthy drives and neurotic drives from the psychoanalytic point of view. Neurotic drives are compulsive and so they necessarily exclude other sets of behaviors. Those who are masochists need to subsume themselves in relationships, they need the feeling of security that comes from sheltering under a perceived stronger presence. Those who are detached need to avoid close human connections, they need the feeling of security that comes from not being dependent on anyone or anything except themselves. -- Neither has any choice in the matter, they don’t seek out human connections or solitude because it’s what’s best for them at a given time but because they are combating basic anxiety, and this is what makes their opinions about why they’re doing it rationalizations.'
psychology  attachment  affectregulation  defencemechanisms 
5 weeks ago
Oliver Burkeman -- Why ambivalence has good and bad points
'...Another thing we ambivalent types eventually figure out: life’s big dilemmas – the ones that trigger most ambivalence – rarely get solved by acting “decisively” and plumping for one option over others. “The greatest and most important problems of life are all in a certain sense insoluble,” wrote Carl Jung. They can’t be solved, only outgrown: “Some higher or wider interest arose on the person’s horizon, and through this widening of his view, the insoluble problem lost its urgency. [It] now seemed like a storm in the valley seen from a high mountain-top. This does not mean that the thunderstorm is robbed of its reality, but instead of being in it, one is now above it.”'
psychology  ambivalence  quotes 
5 weeks ago
Stan Tatkin -- King and Queen: Protecting the Couple Relationship
'One of the characteristics of secure functioning a PACT therapist communicates is that romantic couples are the King and Queen of their domain who protect their relationship and each other in public and in private. -- I had been working with Peter and Jane for four sessions. They came to therapy for help with intimacy, and our initial work focussed on therapeutic alliance and social contracting. Both were outsourcing their arousal regulation away from the relationship to substances. -- From the Partner Attachment Inventory (PAI), I knew both Peter and Jane experienced emotional neglect in childhood and had parents and caregivers who were either unavailable and didn’t protect them sufficiently or behaved in ways that were frightening. More importantly, the couple now had this information about each other and a better understanding about how each operated. They were beginning to understand how they had internalized an insecure model of one-person psychology and auto-regulation that kept them safe up to a point as children. As adults in a romantic partnership, the strategy of tolerating distress alone was leaving their couple bubble open and vulnerable...'
psychology  attachment  affectregulation  relationships  neglect  StanTatkin 
5 weeks ago
The Rational Male -- Idealism
'...Under the old set of books, when men’s attractiveness (if not arousal) was based on his primary provisioning role his love-idealism defined the intergender relationship. Thus, we still have notions of chivalry, traditional romance, conventional models of a love hierarchy, etc. These are old books ideals, and the main reason I’ve always asserted that men are the True Romantics is due exactly to this love-idealism. -- There was a time when men’s idealistic love concept pushed him to achievements that had social merit and were appreciated. Ovid, Shakespeare and the Beatles would not be the human icons they are if that idealism weren’t a driving force in men and society. Likewise, women’s opportunistic, hypergamy-based concept of love, while cruel in its extreme, has nonetheless been a driving motivation for men’s idealistic love as well as a filter for sexual selection. -- Under the new set of books, in a feminine-centric social order, the strengths of that male idealism, love honor and integrity are made to serve the purpose of the Feminine Imperative. Men’s idealistic love becomes a liability when he’s conditioned to believe that women share that same idealism, rather than hold to an opportunistic standard. This is what we have today with generations of men conditioned and feminized for identifying with the feminine. These are the generations of men who were conditioned to internalize the equalist lie that men and women are the same and all is relative. From that perspective it should follow that both sexes would share a mutual concept of love – this is the misunderstanding that leads men to expect their idealism to be reciprocated and thus leads to their exploitation and self-abuse.'
men  women  hypergamy  sacrifice  sociology 
5 weeks ago
Thought Catalog -- 6 Truths About Dads Feminists Don’t Want You to Know by Janet Bloomfield
'#6. The best predictor of a child’s success is whether they live in a house with a Dad -- Feminist commentators lost their minds when George Will, writing for the Washington Post, pointed out that women and children who live in a home with a man to whom the children are biologically related are much less likely to suffer any kind of physical assault in their lifetimes. Yes, it is apparently offensive news that men tend to protect women and children from violence, and tend not to hurt or injure them. This news directly contradicts the feminist narrative of men as dangerous monsters who are out to oppress and enslave women and children, so the witches mounted their brooms and demanded Will be fired. -- But Will wasn’t reporting anything new. In 2006, the US Department of Health and Human Services partnered with the Children’s Bureau to examine the role of fathers in the maltreatment of children and discovered that not only were fathers less likely to engage in child maltreatment, their presence in the home protected the children from their mother’s abuse. -- Children who grow up with fathers have better educational outcomes and experience social benefits that last well into adulthood. Fathers have a positive influence on children’s cognitive abilities, on their psychological well-being and on their social skills. -- But no matter what the evidence, feminists continue to sing the praises of single mothers. -- What they always manage to forget is that if a “single mother” is receiving support from the father of the child, and most of them are, then she is not a “single mother”. She is a “single woman”. He rejected her, not the child. He is still a Dad.'
men  women  childhood  abuse  parenting  fatherhood 
5 weeks ago
girlwriteswhat comments on I was wrong to talk of 'feminisation' (of males) - it's worse than that
'Male feminism is a means to gain the approval of women without having to earn the respect of other men.'
men  feminism  predation 
5 weeks ago
Honey Badger Brigade -- Submissive behaviors, being “taken seriously” and wanting to have it both ways
'One of the most puzzling and annoying things about our gender system is the paradoxical way femininity is constructed as both deserving of special protection from society (read men) as if they were children and yet simultaneously so morally superior to masculinity that it entitles women to judge men on their performance of masculinity and their manners and behavior in general. I came across an article that illustrates this double-bind nicely. -- ... Seitz-Brown is a pretty sloppy observer of speech behavior. No one is mistaking this [uptalk] intonation as signaling a question, it is taken to be a request for agreement or confirmation. Again, this is how subordinates act in conversations. -- Social neoteny as a feature of the female gender role - Neoteny is the retention of juvenile traits into adulthood. Here I am using it is a social sense. Here I am using it to mean the expectation on women and the permission they have to act in childlike ways and thereby also to be able to call for the prerogatives of a child – provision and protection to the point of putting the child’s interests and physical safety before one’s own. It is an appeal to privilege. -- This is already enough of an appeal to privilege, but it goes further, because on top of demanding permanent protection of the sort that only children are entitled to, Seitz-Brown almost assuredly does not think women should be subject to the limitations children normally are. -- There are a couple of things going on here. The first one is what I call a cult of daintiness. Some people define their femininity in terms of weakness, fragility and the duty of care and protection that enjoins on other people. It’s really just a dishonest control mechanism – actually, no – it’s a firmly entrenched cultural norm. -- This cult of daintiness comes out in all kinds of ways. we see it in the Princess and the Pea hair-trigger sense of permanent outrage and the demand for trigger warnings on everything, and the priggish policing of terminology. We see it in the drama around “street harassment, most racistly expressed recently in the Hollaback fiasco. -- And we see it in submissive speech behaviors like uptalk, but not just uptalk. A similar behavior that is relatively recent is rather privileged young white women speaking in a high -pitched staccato fashion, almost to the point of incomprehensibility. The incomprehensibility probably serves as an in-group signifier and has value just in that, but it also signals smallness and subservient status to everyone else, on an instinctual level.'
psychology  status  men  women  neoteny  agencyvspatiency  victimhood  entitlement 
5 weeks ago
Inner Mammal Institute -- Mammal at the Movies
'#Pride and Prejudice -- Elizabeth Bennett hates the pressure to “marry well.” She especially hates the alpha male next door. She blames British high society for her frustrations, without realizing that every female chimpanzee faces the same dilemma. Should a gal choose the alpha as the father of her child, or should she lean toward the guy she finds strong and clever regardless of his position in the eyes of her troop? -- Female chimpanzees are often attracted to outsiders who have no status in their troop. A lady sometimes prefers a gentleman for reasons unrelated to the public esteem he commands. Yet there are distinct advantages to mating with the alpha, and most female chimps end up preferring him too. A baby can only have one father, alas, so these choices have consequences. -- Mating decisions are fraught with uncertainty because you cannot really judge the quality of a partner until long after your mating decision. Whether you’re male or female, human or chimp, this conundrum is real no matter how carefully you choose. Mammals have always struggled to maximize their mating choices; it did not begin with “our society.” -- Every society develops ways of sorting out this mess. Every female decodes the signs of male potential according to her particular life experience. If all ladies used Jane Austen as their guide we would not be here today, because she was so picky that she never mated. Romantic fantasies are nice, but if every lady over-analyzed the matter as Ms. Austen did, a species would not reproduce itself. -- Of course, modern women are not consciously shopping for father material most of the time. They are shopping for “attraction.” But the mammalian drive to keep your DNA alive is at the core of neurochemical attraction. -- Our mammalian inheritance perplexes modern males as much as modern females. Low-ranking males may find themselves shut out by pushy high-ranking males and status-conscious females. And even alpha males have mating problems. Consider Mr. Darcy, the hero of the book behind this movie. He is rich, good-looking, and socially prominent. So many ladies want an alpha male’s attention that he could not protect all the babies that would result. He must choose between the quantity strategy (having lots of babies and hoping some of them turn out well without his involvement) and the quality strategy (concentrating his attention on the best mother, however that can be determined). Mammals with small brains opt for the quantity strategy. Mammals with larger cortexes tend to create fewer children and invest more time in each. -- Mr. Darcy’s large brain ends up setting its sights on Elizabeth Bennett, the girl who hates him for being rich. He displays his protective skills to her over and over until she falls for him, despite the blemish of his wealth. In fiction, girls who hate rich guys always seem to land a rich guy in the end, despite the abundance of available poor guys. This construct seems unrealistic to me, and Ms. Austen’s real-life failure at romance reinforces my suspicion. Even a female baboon knows better than to antagonize an alpha male and expect him to respond by becoming ever-more devoted. -- Yet rich-boy meets poor-girl remains a staple of fiction. The theme is recast in a modern setting in the TV sitcom, Ugly Betty. Betty is out of step with the herd, but every season another rich, handsome guy falls for her. We like the idea of attraction that’s not based on social status. But what really gets our attention is attraction that raises someone’s status. We want to think status doesn’t matter, but what we really want is for status to come anyway as a reward for virtue. -- Elizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy share an abhorrence of the status-driven mating game, and they think they’re unique in this! Of course, almost everyone hates the status-driven mating game. Yet it continues because mating choices have huge consequences. A primate does not risk letting another primate get close until they have reason to expect unthreatening behavior. But unique life experience makes primates hard to predict, so we take all available information into account – including status.'
men  women  hypergamy  sacrifice  status 
6 weeks ago
Inner Mammal Institute -- I, Mammal: Why Your Brain Links Status and Happiness (PDF)
'...Alas, bursts of happy chemicals are brief. They evolved to respond to changing circumstances, not to be a steady state. You can get more neurochemical happiness if you advance your status again. Even small advances will do – a momentary reminder of past achievements or future hopes can trigger them. But each new tide subsides, and your brain is soon seeking opportunity again. -- Sometimes you fail to win respect, recognition, or status, despite a big investment of effort. Sometimes the status you already have is threatened. Unhappy chemicals flood your system. You may tell yourself it shouldn’t matter, but the unhappy chemicals are a real experience. Your mammal brain will look for ways to protect your status to stop the unpleasant feeling. -- “Nice” people may say they don’t care about status, but they cannot undo millions of years of evolution. Status thoughts enter the mind in spite of ourselves. The mammal brain keeps looking for ways to stimulate happy chemicals and avoid unhappy chemicals. What’s a nice person to do? -- People often resolve this conflict by telling themselves they care about other people’s status. You can focus your attention on the status threats confronted by another being or institution to explain your unhappy chemicals. You can strive for an improvement in their status. You can stimulate your happy chemicals by dominating on behalf of others, and winning admiration for it. In this way, you can feel good without acknowledging your own appetite for status. -- “I don’t think this way,” you might react. “And I would know it if I did.” But your mammal brain doesn’t report its survival strategies to your cortex in words. It just releases the chemicals relevant to promoting your prospects as it sees them. It struggles to balance your many different needs. Your need for social alliances often conflicts with your other needs. This problem has no ultimate solution. Your mammal brain simply weighs the options in each moment. It emits happy and sad chemicals as you might use an accelerator pedal and a brake, to steer you toward things that advance your prospects and away from things that threaten you. -- You may think others care too much about status. Other people’s status seeking is easy to see, while one’s own status seeking is easy to ignore. Other people’s interest in social dominance gets your attention because your unhappy chemicals alert you to potential threats to your status. -- ... Status improves prospects for your legacy, however you define it. That is why status stimulates your happy chemicals. In nature, status brings more and better mating opportunities. This does not sound like a worthy goal to modern humans, so we find loftier ways to explain our lust for status. Many people say they want money so they can give it to a worthy cause. What they really want is the happy chemicals that are stimulated by all forms of “scoring.” -- ... The mammal brain is a sophisticated instrument for making those constant little choices between staking one’s claim and bowing to the preferences of others. We are descended from individuals who did what it took to meet their own needs and their children’s needs. That meant deferring to others some of the time, and seizing opportunity for one’s self at other times. Knowing how an animal makes social decisions gives us a window into our own neural operating system. A monkey does not use words when it decides between asserting and deferring. An ape does not analyze pros and cons the way you do when faced with a complex social dilemma. Our primate cousins do not theorize about the common good or the struggle for individuality. They simply assert themselves when they think they will win and restrain themselves when they think they would lose. This sounds awful to human ears, and we are constantly told not to think this way. But the issue keeps resurfacing because underneath each cortex is a mammal brain that thinks this way. -- The mammal brain never stops seeking reproductive success. As soon as a mammal meets its immediate survival needs, it invests its effort into raising its status. An animal cannot put reserves into a bank account or a warehouse to help meet tomorrow’s needs. When it has extra energy, it puts it into raising its status instead. In an uncertain world, achieving status today can help meet survival needs tomorrow. Survival and status are the same thing to the mammal brain because status improves chances of having surviving descendants. -- Modern birth control has given us the freedom to define success in different ways. We can have sex without investing energy in children. We are free to invest our energy into other personal legacies. But whatever your yardstick of success, you care about it with the intensity of the neurochemicals that drive animals to reproduce. All the survival energy of nature gets invested into your status goals because the same neurochemicals motivate it. If you want more happy chemicals and fewer unhappy ones, you have to please your mammal brain.'
psychology  serotonin  status  competition  maslow 
6 weeks ago
Inner Mammal Institute -- Meet Your Happy Chemicals (PDF)
'Chapter 7 addresses the burden of choice. We all have free will because we can use our pre-frontal cortex to inhibit our neurochemical impulses. You can make choices that increase your happiness, but it doesn’t happen automatically. It requires a constant weighing of trade-offs between the potential rewards of one course of action and another. We can never predict the outcome of our actions with certainty. This exposes us to uncertainty, disappointment, frustration, and cortisol. Choice brings a huge potential for unhappy chemicals. Since the brain strives to avoid unhappy chemicals, people find ways to avoid choice. One way of doing that is to imagine “a better world” that supplies happiness constantly and eliminates unhappiness. It feels good to imagine your happiness guaranteed, without the pressure of difficult trade-offs. It feels bad to see how the real world falls short of your ideal world. But if you seek happiness by living in an imagined world, you leave your real-world choices to others. The result is disappointment and another vicious cycle. Chapter 7 shows how to break it by accepting the trade- offs and uncertainties inherent in free choice. -- ... Nice people don’t talk about the competition for resources in nature. In polite society, it’s forbidden to acknowledge that social dominance feels good. But everyone has a brain that longs for the good feeling of serotonin. Everyone can see this motivation in others. The point is not that you should push your way to the best teat. The point is that your brain constantly monitors your access to the resources you need to survive. When the access seems secure, you feel good. And then you look for ways to make things more secure. You may get annoyed when you see others trying to secure their position. But when you do it, you think, “I’m just trying to survive.” ... Young mammals quickly learn to avoid injury by submitting to stronger individuals. Being dominated hurts, and the cortisol it triggers wires a youth to avoid conflict. That may look like “cooperation” to the casual observer, but the animal still wants its chance to eat and reproduce. So it seizes opportunities where it’s likely to win without getting injured. I am not saying we should dominate the weak. I am saying each brain is focused on meeting its needs. -- Animals can’t save money for a rainy day. The only way they can put something aside for the future is to invest today’s extra energy into social power that can help them survive tomorrow. That’s why each mammalian herd or pack or troop has its status hierarchy. The organization is not conscious, of course. Each individual simply remembers whom they fear and whom they trust, and a hierarchy emerges organically. Cortisol motivates each individual to hunch down in self-defense in the face of a stronger group-mate. And serotonin motivates it to relax and swell its chest swell with pride (or air, depending on how you look at it) when it is strong enough to get respect and meet its needs.'
psychology  existentialism  serotonin  status  cortisol  hierarchy  will 
6 weeks ago
Inner Mammal Institute -- FAQ
'#Can social support make us happy?: Social bonds make us happy and unhappy. Oxytocin causes the good feeling of social trust. Serotonin causes the good feeling of social dominance. Alas, these spurts are soon metabolized and your brain looks for more. You don’t always get them where you expect to, and disappointment triggers cortisol. You might interpret that as an external threat even though you created the threat yourself with your expectations. You can relieve your own cortisol by relaxing your expectations about what others should do. -- The mammal brain seeks dependence and independence. When you have one, your brain worries about the other. When you enjoy the safety of a social group, your inner mammal fears intrusion on your independence. But when you escape social constraints, your inner mammal fears the danger of isolation. -- We humans are born helpless and vulnerable. The first experience in each brain— the experience all your later circuits are layered on— is urgent distress that you cannot relieve on your own. Social support is the only way to relieve your early distress. We are all deeply wired to fear the loss of social support. Yet we all lose support because every mammal transitions from dependence to independence. A species can only survive if its young learn to meet their own needs before their parents die. That takes about seven years for a young ape, two years for a monkey, and two months for a mouse. This is infinitely longer than a lizard, who runs away from home as soon as it cracks out of its shell. The bigger a creature’s cortex, the longer its period of early dependence, because it takes time to connect neurons in ways that tell you how to meet your needs. Reptiles know it all when they’re born because they are pre-wired with the knowledge of their ancestors. Humans are born without knowledge but with the ability to construct knowledge from experience. The price we pay for this potential is an early vulnerability that stays with us to some degree.'
psychology  attachment  securityvsnovelty  individuation  anxiety  existentialism  OttoRank 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- When Love Brings Pain - #1 by Loretta G Breuning
'Your brain seeks the good feeling of letting down your guard. -- Love feels good because it’s a physical letting down of your guard. So why does this lead to pain so often? Because your brain is touchy when your guard is down. The slightest hint of threat triggers cortisol, the chemical messenger of pain and potential pain. -- While you're enjoying the nice oxytocin feeling, you want to feel that way forever. But all too soon, you are hit by the reality that your partner is a separate person with needs of their own. Your oxytocin drops, and your cortisol is triggered. -- How do you react to this cortisol? Most people react in the way they learned when they were young, because that’s when the brain myelinates its pathways. The behaviors you observed when you were young activated your mirror neurons, preparing you to react that way yourself. You may accuse your loved one of throwing you to the wolves. They may accuse you back. Love hurts.'
psychology  brain  affectregulation  attachment  oxytocin  trust  cortisol  relationships  conflict 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Stop Traumatizing Yourself by Watching the News by Loretta G Breuning
'#Oxytocin: The mammal brain is always seeking safety in a world of potential threats. Oxytocin creates the safe feeling you have in the company of those you trust. Animals stimulate oxytocin by sticking with a herd, and the news stimulates it by creating a virtual herd. It's tempting to rely on a virtual herd to meet your oxytocin needs because other people often frustrate you in person. -- In the animal world, herds promote survival because because there are more eyes and ears to notice predators and sound the alarm. Animals find safety in numbers by listening for the alarm calls of their herd mates. News is a steady stream of alarm calls. They may not help you navigate the threats in your individual life because they are designed to appeal to a wide audience. But they stimulate the nice oxytocin feeling that you are protected by the herd. This feeling comes at a high price. The herd you run with expects you to share their vigilance. You may lose this sense of belonging if you ignore the news. And your herd may actually shun you if you stop focusing on the perceived common threat. Your oxytocin will fall, triggering a sense of urgent survival threat that a sheep has when separated from the flock. It's tempting to go back to the fold and direct your attention in the same way as the rest of the herd. Reporters make this easy by constantly suggesting that you trust your safety to them. -- #Serotonin: News is a reliable serotonin stimulater because it always puts you in the one-up position. Journalists are always finding fault with the powerful, which elevates you in contrast. The mammal brain releases serotonin when you raise your social dominance. Seeing yourself as more ethical and more intelligent stimulates that nice feeling, and raising yourself above the high and mighty gives you an extra boost. "The news" will constantly do that for you. -- Journalists suggest that hostility toward leaders is a sign of your higher intelligence. Apes have the same hostility, however. Apes live with alphas who dominate their food and mating opportunity. Anger at the man is a primal impulse, not an intellectual triumph.'
psychology  brain  news  twominuteshate  herd  oxytocin  serotonin  status 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Why People Confuse “Fairness” With Self-Interest by Loretta G Breuning
'Does everything seem unfair? Your brain creates that feeling. -- Watching another get the advantage feels like a survival threat because in the state of nature, it is. -- You may insist that you don’t think this way, but you easily see this in others. We don't see it in ourselves because the mammal brain never tells you in words why it is releasing neurochemicals. It just propels you toward behavior that stimulate serotonin and avoids behaviors that stimulate cortisol. And each time these chemicals flow, they pave neural pathways that tell you how to feel good in the future. -- But when you get the red cup you desired, the serotonin will be metabolized in a short time. Your brain will look around for ways to get more. You can end up with a lot of cortisol in your quest for serotonin. Maybe you don't see this in yourself. Maybe you hate people who are always questing after something and feel ethically superior to them. See! You did it! Your brain keeps finding a way to put you in the one-up position.'
psychology  brain  serotonin  status  envy 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Why You Can't Stop by Loretta G Breuning
'Do you look for flaws as if your life depended on it? -- There's a good reason: our brains are designed to seek. In the state of nature, you seek food and safety constantly to survive. You feel a momentary thrill when you find what you seek because your brain releases a bit of dopamine. Then it goes back to seeking. If you want more of that great dopamine feeling, you have to meet a need again. Finding threats and obstacles is one way to do that. Your brain scans the world for information relevant to your survival, and when it finds something, dopamine! But the good feeling passes in a moment and there you are seeking survival-relevant information again. -- The brain doesn’t waste dopamine on the same-old, same-old, but saves it for new information about rewards. -- This is why life is complicated: New things fail to make you happy after a short time, but they can make you unhappy when you risk losing them. -- We are designed to get excited about something new. Our brains invest effort in the pursuit of the new because good feelings start to flow in anticipation. It would be nice to have that feeling all the time, but dopamine is quickly metabolized. It not meant for constant highs. It is meant to reward you for seeking. -- Your quest for flaws may not meet any real needs, of course. But real needs are hard to meet, and you risk being disappointed when you try. The world gives us rewards in ways we can’t necessarily predict or control. Finding flaws is just one way to help you avoid the disappointment of the real world. It helps you create an artificial world in which you have a better chance of getting the dopamine, again and again. -- The solution is to tolerate disappointment. This is not the solution you might be hoping for, perhaps. But tolerance for disappointment helps us leave our artificial worlds and come to live with the uncontrollable reward structure of daily life.'
psychology  dopamine  cortisol  control  pessimism  optimalfrustration  stoicism  * 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Do You Feel Like the Clock Is Always Ticking? by Loretta G Breuning
'Humans have the unique ability to perceive abstractions. Death is an abstraction. The future is an abstraction. Being human means knowing your own death lies in the future, even if nothing threatens your life in this moment. The knowledge that our time is limited is so disconcerting that we try to distract ourselves from it. Some people use work and others use play. Either way, the constant quest for distraction starts to wear you out. -- Animals fear threats when the threat is near. Humans fear threats that are far away. This helps us succeed at avoiding threats, but as soon as we do, our attention shifts to the next potential threat. Thinking about threats triggers cortisol, the same chemicals animals release when they smell a predator. Just thinking about the smell of a predator can get your cortisol started, which tells your cortex to look for evidence of a predator. A bad loop results. You can end up focused on every possible threat to every human alive and those yet unborn. -- To escape this loop by, we have three popular strategies: #1. control: try to every detail related to threats #2. distraction: use work or play to distract yourself from threatening thoughts #3. legacy: build something that may live on when you’re gone. -- The mammalian brain rewards you with a good feeling when you do things that promote the survival of your unique individual essense. Animals strive to spread their genes because it feels good, not because they have a conscious intent to reproduce. Natural selection built a brain that rewards you with happy chemicals when you build your legacy, whether you consciously intend this or not. A two-edged sword results, however. Any threat to your grandchildren, your artwork, or your better way feels like an urgent survival threat. The more you invest in legacy-building, the more threats you're alert to.'
psychology  death  anxiety  cortisol  control  conservatism  existentialism 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- The Primate Brain Likes to Win, But Can't Always Have It by Loretta G Breuning
'Dopamine is the good feeling of getting a reward the meets your needs. Serotonin is the good feeling of getting respect from your fellow primates. Oxytocin is the good feeling of belonging to a protective group. -- You might deny or mask such feelings with your verbal cortex, but you have inherited a brain that needs these chemicals to feel good. No one can stimulate your chemicals for you. Your brain evolved to stimulate them by takig action to meet your needs. -- #Serotonin: A different kind of motivation comes from serotonin. Let's say our monkey's fruit is snatched by a bigger, stronger monkey when he finally gets to the top of the tree. Experience has taught him that bigger monkeys cause pain, and falling from a tree causes pain. His cortisol surges and he relinquishes the fruit to avoid pain. Now imagine that our monkey checks out the rival fruit-snatcher and decides that he is indeed the bigger, stronger one. He will not let go of that fruit now. He will get the resources he needs to spread his genes. A surge of serotonin causes this feeling. Experience teaches a monkey to determine when he is in the superior position and when he is in the inferior position. These words horrify us in today's culture, but a monkey would starve to death if it always saw itself as inferior. It has to feel confident to go for it some of the time. Serotonin creates that confidence. This is not what "everybody says" about serotonin because social comparison makes people uncomfortable. But our brains go there anyway, and rejecting your natural urge to get the banana can leave you bitter and resentful. You are better off undertsanding it. -- You may say that monkeys should cooperate, share the bananas, or leave the bananas for the needy. By saying these things, you mark yourself as a superior person in today's society. You are just seeking serotonin in the modern way. You stimulate oxytocin when your self-restraint helps you belong, and dopamine when it helps you reach your goals. Modern society is more successful at reducing conflict that we realize. Modern primates cooperate often because we have learned that it helps us get rewards, respect and acceptance. We get into trouble if we snatch another monkey's banana so we develop other ways to win. -- #Oxytocin: Belonging to a group promotes survival in the state of nature. An isolated primate is quickly killed, and natural selection built a brain that seeks safety in numbers. Oxytocin causes the good feeling of social solidarity, and low oxytocin warns your inner mammal that you're in immediate danger. Our brains are constantly aware of potential threats to our social bonds. Competition can threaten your bonds, but it can also strengthen them. Superior skills can bring recognition that reassures you of social acceptance and belonging. Secure social bonds feel good because they stimulate oxytocin. You may disdain herd behavior in others, but anything that stimuates your oxytocin feels good.'
psychology  brain  attachment  oxytocin  serotonin  status 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Three Little Words You Long to Hear: “It’s their fault.” by Loretta G Breuning
'...you pay a high price for the good feeling of avoiding blame. In the long run, it makes you feel like a powerless victim. It cripples your ability to grow from experience. Blame obscures the power of your own actions. Once it becomes a habit, it's hard to take responsibility. Just thinking something is your fault triggers your cortisol, and you surge with rage, panic, fear, or anxiety. This cortisol is caused by a neural pathway you built long ago. If you got hurt by taking responsbility long ago, and shifting blame relieved the hurt, your brain built connections that spew cortisol in similar situations today. If you grew up around others who avoided blame, your mirror neurons took it in and more connections got built. -- "Why should anyone be blamed?" you may say. But when your brain sees a problem, it looks for a cause. Your conscious mind has no intent to blame, but it skillfully marshalls "evidence" that makes you feel good in the moment. In the long run, this habit leaves you feeling like a victim of other people's misdeeds. If you surround yourself with people who see the world this way too, you never know what you're missing. You successfully avoid the dreaded feeling of being responsible for what happens to you. But you're trapped in a dead end.'
psychology  brain  cortisol  control  victimhood  learnedhelplessness  agencyvspatiency 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- Hook Ups, Oxytocin, and the Brain’s Quest for Trust by Loretta G Breuning
'Sex is a boom and bust way to get your oxytocin -- Sex triggers a big jolt of oxytocin, but it’s soon gone. Once it’s metabolized, you feel endangered like a sheep without a flock. Our brain keeps seeking oxytocin because that promotes survival in the state of nature. A sheep survives in a world full of wolves if it sticks with the flock. An ape survives if it has reliable allies. A lizard's genes survive if it finds mates. Natural selection produced a brain that feels good with oxytocin, and bad without it. -- Elderly people holding hands on a park bench are stimulating oxytocin. They don't get enough for spikes of ecstasy, but enough to protect them from extremes of insecurity. Unfortunately, holding just any hand does not work. The mammal brain is very picky about when it releases oxytocin because misplaced trust threatens survival in the state of nature. Apes are known to bite off the fingers, toes and even the scrotum of a troop mate. Lizards can get eaten by individuals they approach for sex, and lambs succumb to predators cloaked in the scent of the flock. Getting close makes it easy to get hurt. Our urge to trust could get us into trouble were it not for nature’s alarm signal: cortisol. This chemical is often equated with stress, but it's the primitive brain’s pain signal. Betrayed trust leads to physical pain in the state of nature, so your cortisol siren is triggered when your trust is betrayed. -- We are left with a terrible dilemma. Our brain craves the good feeling of trust, yet it avoid things associated with past pain as if your life depended on it. Humans have struggled with this brain since they first walked the earth. In past millennia, people relied on fixed social bonds to stimulate their oxytocin and ease their cortisol. They formed tribes, clans, families, and pair bonds with sharp distinctions about when to trust and when not to trust. Maybe you got bitten by the people inside your trust circle, but survival without them seemed impossible. You rarely got to pick and choose your trust bonds, or build your own from scratch, or take a chance outside established trust networks. -- Today, we want more. We want big surges of oxytocin with no stabs of pain. We leave behind the imperfect social bonds of our youth in the expectation of something better. But it turns out that trust bonds are harder to build than we expect, especially after the neuroplasticity of youth. We shop for oxytocin and get disappointed sometimes. As disappointments accumulate, our brains keep alarming us with pain signals. What's a modern mammal to do? -- An immediate blast of oxytocin is tempting, of course. But once you get it, it passes quickly and you’re left feeling like something is wrong. The fast, easy road to oxytocin often feels bad in the long run, but social bonds that are forced on you feel bad too. Your brain feels best when you have trust bonds that built up from many one-to-one experiences over time. -- This is hard to do because we mammals easily get in each other’s way and trigger each other’s cortisol. If you run from every alarm bell, you may never build trust circuits that are big enough to survive the everyday annoyances of a mammalian herd or pack or troop. -- Trust builds from an accumulation of small experiences. Each time you enjoy the trustworthiness of another person and offer your trustworthiness to them, your neural pathway builds. -- Touch and trust go together in the state of nature because you can’t let someone get close enough to touch you unless you are sure you can trust them. Today, we rub shoulders carelessly with all kinds of people and it seems safe. But if we don’t build deep bonds of mutual trust, our mammal brain tells us that we are not safe. -- Trust bonds don’t get built by partying. They don’t get built by analyzing the flaws of “our society.” Other people can't build them for you. You can build your own oxytocin circuits if you make it a priority. If you do, you will be rewarded with a calm, safe feeling instead of chasing after huge ups that are followed by huge downs.
psychology  cortisol  attachment  trust  oxytocin  sexuality  herd  touch 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- [The connections between your neurons make you who you are] by Loretta G Breuning
'Our brains evolved to honor our early experience, and sound the alarm when we violate it. -- The connections between your neurons make you who you are. These connections turn on your happy chemicals (dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, endorphin) and your unhappy chemical (cortisol). Happy chemicals mask the alarm feeling that cortisol causes, but good feelings pass quickly because the brain chemicals get metabolized. Threatened feeling return, and people often rush to trigger more happy chemicals in any way that worked before. Happy habits are powerful because they mask the sense of urgency caused by cortisol. Your brain thinks you're putting out the fire, even as you're setting a new fire. We are better off learning to tolerate our own threatened feelings instead of rushing to mask them. We will always feel threatened because the brain doesn’t distinguish between physical threats and social threats. Once your physical needs are met, your brain focuses on social needs as if your life depended on it. The social disappointments of your past built neural superhighways that turn on your cortisol today. You can learn to turn off that alarm instead of masking it with a happy habit. You can build new happy habits that support your well-being.'
psychology  dopamine  oxytocin  serotonin  cortisol  brain  trauma  absurd  * 
6 weeks ago
Psychology Today -- [Compassion for bad behavior can promote bad behavior] by Loretta G Breuning
'The problem is that the brain learns from rewards. Your compassion is rewarding to others. If they get your compassion when they act badly, their brain wires itself to get rewards by acting badly. Compassion is good, but the pendulum can swing too far the other way. Your good intentions lead to harm if they reinforce self-destructive behavior. -- When you hold yourself responsible for their outcomes, you teach them they are not responsible for their outcomes. -- The rescuer is typically as addicted to rescuing as the receiver is to needing rescue.'
psychology  victimhood  learnedhelplessness  codependence 
6 weeks ago
« earlier      
"capitalism" #bandwidth #socialization * 1984 abuse activism addiction advertising advice agencyvspatiency america archetypes art attachment attention augmentationistsvsimmersionists authenticity 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 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 kipple land law leaky learning legalese life literaryculturevsoralculture mapping marketing markets media men mercantilism mobile money morality motivation music narcissism narrativeactivism narrativeenvironments narrativeobjects networks news numbers objects oligarchicalcollectivism oligarchy parasitism parenting pathocracy performance philosophy planning play politics predation 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: