Female Intuition and Female Choice
sharon
were evolving to hunt the men.
Female Choice
Despite competition between males for mates, it is females who retain
primary control over reproduction. This is due to the fact that she
alone produces eggs and exerts a great deal of control over which
male's sperm will fertilize her eggs. A variety of factors come into
play when a female decides which male she will allow to inseminate
her--male resources, male appearance, and courtship displays all play
roles. Males have evolved elaborate ways of influencing female
behavior, and this evolutionary process has, over time, produced more
and more effective operators in the arena of sexual interaction (Alcock
457).
http://faculty.vassar.edu/suter/1websites/bejohns/mateselection/files/choice.htm
The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior
Amazon.co.uk Review
Most evolutionary biologists agree that what makes humans unique among
animals is our brainpower. But why--and how--did we evolve our
oversized brains? Craig Stanford dusts off theold "Man the Hunter"
theory, roundly criticised as replete with bad (and sexist)
assumptions, and finds a thick, juicy, postmodern steak at the heart of
it. He argues: "The origins of human intelligence are linked to the
acquisition of meat, especially through the cognitive capacities
necessary for the strategic sharing of meat with fellow group members."
Stanford studied the great apes, especially chimpanzees, and came to
the conclusion that among primates, meat is a valuable commodity both
nutritionally and socially. Although many other foods are nutritionally
desirable, meat is unique in its social desirability and for males, it
represents power:
Underlying the nutritional aspect of getting meat, part of the social
fabric of the community is revealed in the dominance displays, the
tolerated theft, and the bartered meat for sexual access. The end of
the hunt is often only the beginning of a whole other arena of social
interaction.
From: The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior
(Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hunting-Apes-Eating-Origins-Behavior/dp/0691011605
Female intuition provides a clear advantage over males for females.
"women's senses are generally sharper than men's"
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/culture1.html
"Sharing of resources and its concomitant division of labor led to a
divergence in both the biological and cultural evolution of the sexes.
Evidence shows that women are more group-oriented in their activities
than men, while men are more individualistic; that women's senses are
generally sharper than men's; that women are more language oriented
than men, while men are more spatially oriented; that women are better
able to "read" faces for emotion than men. (Moir, 1989; Tannen, 1991)
Each of these differences arises from how the brain works, both in
perception and response to that perception. Several aspects of
protohuman social life based on cooperative food gathering could well
have contributed to these biological differences between how each
gender's brain functions."
Darwin theorized female choice and for humans, "female intuition" can
play a very important role in "female choice".
spintronic
sharon wrote:
> While men's brains may have evolved for sake of hunting animals, women
> were evolving to hunt the men.
>
> Female Choice
> Despite competition between males for mates, it is females who retain
> primary control over reproduction.
Lol, you have to say that, or youd have the womens rights lobby pissing
on the fire.
In reality, the fittest or strongest (men) would have their way.
Happens in most other species!
The biggest antlers prevail.
spintronic
sharon wrote:
>A variety of factors come into
>play when a female decides which male she will allow to inseminate
>her
Sorry, but your later 20th century political correctedness doesnt work
here!
>A variety of factors come into
>play when a female decides which male she will allow to inseminate
>her
Those factors would be, the strongest male has just kicked all the
other males butts, he somehow finds this female attractive, so takes
her as he wishes! She doesnt really have a choice!
spintronic
Cough, cough, bullshit!!!!! Oh how you felines are gullable!!
Gary Bohn
news:1162063854.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Way to reduce a very complex system down to a ridiculous (and
meaningless) simplicity.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
Ernest Major
<gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes
>"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:1162063854.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> sharon wrote:
>>> While men's brains may have evolved for sake of hunting animals,
>>> women were evolving to hunt the men.
>>>
>>> Female Choice
>>> Despite competition between males for mates, it is females who retain
>>> primary control over reproduction.
>>
>> Lol, you have to say that, or youd have the womens rights lobby
>> pissing on the fire.
>>
>> In reality, the fittest or strongest (men) would have their way.
>> Happens in most other species!
>> The biggest antlers prevail.
>>
>>
>
>Way to reduce a very complex system down to a ridiculous (and
>meaningless) simplicity.
>
>
BTW, the BBC ran an "Autumn Watch" series a few weeks back, including
coverage of the red deer rut on Rhum. One hind was observed happily
grazing on one stag's rutting ground, until she came into heat,
whereupon she nipped over to another stag's ground, returning to her
original location after the event. Definitely looks like female choice
to me.
--
alias Ernest Major
sharon
spintronic wrote:
> Lol, you have to say that, or youd have the womens rights lobby pissing
> on the fire.
You think so?
Saw a tv doc on apes recently. New male takes over, he's abusive, he's
cruel... this went on for a few days, scientists were filming.
scientists go out to film, find him beaten up and bruised... and
mightily humbled and off to himself. Another male was chosen by the
females.
they said overnight the females had all ganged up on him and beaten
him.
sharon
spintronic wrote:
> Cough, cough, bullshit!!!!! Oh how you felines are gullable!!
spoken by a true "ladies' man".
spintronic
Gary Bohn wrote:
> Way to reduce a very complex system down to a ridiculous (and
> meaningless) simplicity.
You mean like saying how "females somehow controlled what males
impregnated them"?
sharon
"Rapists would have been ostracized or killed,"
30. Popular culture images of prehistory sustain the myth of rapacious,
unchoosy cave-men and helpless, unchoosy cave-women. Likewise, early
primatology suggested that 'alpha males' attained the 'right to mate'
with all females in a group. More recent studies of human tribal
societies and of other primates suggests these views are wrong, and
that both sexes exercise mate choice among chimpanzees, bonobos, and
tribal humans, which are all characterized by multi-male, multi-female
social groups. Other evidence (ranging from comparative morphology to
evolutionary psychology) suggests that hominids were not lifelong
monogamists, but followed a pattern of serial social monogamy (with
relationships lasting a few days to a few years) augmented by extra-
pair copulations and some polygyny. Rapists would have been ostracized
or killed, and these costs would have usually exceeded the reproductive
benefits of a single copulation, given concealed ovulation.
http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/perl/local/psyc/makedoc?id=137&type=html
Pfusand
On Oct 28, 2:22 pm, "sharon" <sharon192837...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> Female intuition provides a clear advantage over males for females.
>
> "women's senses are generally sharper than men's"http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/culture1.html
...
Uh, excuse me.
Why are you referring to sensory perception as "intuition"?
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
Has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Pfusand
On Oct 28, 3:30 pm, "spintronic" <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> sharon wrote:
> > While men's brains may have evolved for sake of hunting animals, women
> > were evolving to hunt the men.
>
> > Female Choice
> > Despite competition between males for mates, it is females who retain
> > primary control over reproduction.Lol, you have to say that, or youd have the womens rights lobby pissing
> on the fire.
>
> In reality, the fittest or strongest (men) would have their way.
> Happens in most other species!
> The biggest antlers prevail.
Ah, yes. Like Holofernes, right?
(Really, you should actually read something on this subject before you
shove your ego out there.)
spintronic
David Holland
Have you put your theory into practice? How has it worked out for you?
sharon
Pfusand wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:22 pm, "sharon" <sharon192837...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > Female intuition provides a clear advantage over males for females.
> >
> > "women's senses are generally sharper than men's"http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/culture1.html
> ...
>
> Uh, excuse me.
>
> Why are you referring to sensory perception as "intuition"?
Because it is.
Google up "decoding nonverbal female intuition".
Random House | Books | The Definitive Book of Body Language
...Female intuition is particularly evident in women who have raised
children. For the first few years, the mother relies almost solely on
the nonverbal ...
www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780553804720&view=excerpt
Exploring the Origins and Information Processing Differences
...Also, the ancient concept of women's intuition could actually be
based in part on women's greater accuracy at decoding nonverbal cues or
their tendency to ...
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3896/is_200101/ai_n8945616
[PDF] "Subordination" and sensitivity to nonverbal cues: A study of
...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
better at decoding the female voice (the voice that should be more
salient ... Women's intuition: The effect of subordinate role on
interpersonal ...
www.springerlink.com/index/Q151516K086377PU.pdf
Ohsojourner
spintronic wrote:
> sharon wrote:
> > While men's brains may have evolved for sake of hunting animals, women
> > were evolving to hunt the men.
> >
> > Female Choice
> > Despite competition between males for mates, it is females who retain
> > primary control over reproduction.
>
> Lol, you have to say that, or youd have the womens rights lobby pissing
> on the fire.
Actually, there's some simple truth to this, and it has nothing to do
with feminism. Since the female bears the eggs and young, the female
is the one that holds the "goods" to the future of the next generation.
The easiest way to fertilization is the more efficient system; female
desire to mate is an "easier" system, and active female choice will get
the eggs fertilized faster than females that do nothing.
> In reality, the fittest or strongest (men) would have their way.
> Happens in most other species!
If there were no female choice involved then we would not expect women
to favor or desire men, but they do, so that behavioral phenomenon must
be taken into account when studying human evolution. Obviously, a
female who is receptive to mating is more likely to mate and reproduce
than a female who is not.
Moreover, if this were a simple matter of stronger men shoving the
weaker men aside for mating privileges, then we would be seeing huge
brute men carrying off diminutive women instead of men and women going
through their "getting to know each other" rituals. One would expect
humans to be more like gorillas in terms of sexual dichotomy. But the
trend in human evolution has shown a gradual reduction in the size
difference between men and women, which reflects a more monogamous and
egalitarian lifestyle as well as less reliance on brute size and
strength.
The fact is that among highly intelligent, social species, mating
behavior is more complex and not as easy to explain away in one or two
sentences. In primate societies, the "alpha" member of the troop isn't
necessarily the only one with breeding privileges; his role may be
more for the purposes of order and protection while the females will
breed with males of lesser rank. This has even been observed in
baboons, where females have been observed sneaking off to mate on the
sly to mate with non-alpha males.
In humans, probably the more accurate observation is that there is
two-way selection going on, since both men and women have the power to
make conscious choices:
http://www.davidbrin.com/neotenyarticle1.html
> The biggest antlers prevail.
Humans aren't deer. OTOH, males of less brawny species, such as
songbirds, compete without much in the way of physical combat, by using
song, color, etc. The females tend to choose the males that are most
attractive to them.
In his book, "The Mating Mind", Geoffrey Miller proposes that women
tended to be attracted to men who showed greater intelligence and
creativity. Note that it's the "songbirds" of the human world (e.g.
rock stars and other celebrities) that women tend to throw themselves
at -- not the wrestling champions or the generals. And what's an
easier and more likely scenario in today's society: the groupie
getting pregnant by the guitarist, or big muscle-men duking it out on
some woman's front lawn for the privilege of going to bed with her?
sharon
Pfusand wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:22 pm, "sharon" <sharon192837...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > Female intuition provides a clear advantage over males for females.
> >
> > "women's senses are generally sharper than men's"http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/culture1.html
> ...
>
> Uh, excuse me.
>
> Why are you referring to sensory perception as "intuition"?
>
They're not talking about taste, sight, etc., .. they're speaking of
intuitive sense, as in "that women's senses are generally sharper than
men's; that women are more language oriented than men, while men are
more spatially oriented; that women are better able to "read" faces for
emotion than men."
It goes on to say...
"Each of these differences arises from how the brain works, both in
perception and response to that perception."
Intuition... sharper senses, as in decoding nonverbal signals,
expressions.
sharon
Pfusand wrote:
> Why are you referring to sensory perception as "intuition"?
"A review on intuition would be incomplete without reference to women's
intuition, the colloquial notion that women have a sixth sense or a
more able intuition faculty than men."
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2005/04/on_female_intuition.html
Unfortunately, superstition has relegated natural intuition off into a
spiritual or demonic "sixth sense".
Being clear on the definition of what "sense" is, while I'm at it.
sense noun, verb, sensed, sens·ing.
"by which humans and animals perceive stimuli originating from outside
or inside the body."
-noun 1. any of the faculties, as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or
touch, by which humans and animals perceive stimuli originating from
outside or inside the body.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sense
4. a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste,
etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the
body: to have a sense of cold.
5. a faculty or function of the mind analogous to sensation: the moral
sense.
6. any special capacity for perception, estimation, appreciation, etc.:
a sense of humor.
7. Usually, senses. clear and sound mental faculties; sanity: Have you
taken leave of your senses?
8. a more or less vague perception or impression: a sense of security.
9. a mental discernment, realization, or recognition; acuteness: a just
sense of the worth of a thing.
10. the recognition of something as incumbent or fitting: a sense of
duty.
11. sound practical intelligence: He has no sense.
12. something that is sensible or reasonable: to talk sense.
13. the meaning or gist of something: You missed the sense of his
statement.
14. the value or worth of something; merit: There's no sense in
worrying about the past.
15. the meaning of a word or phrase in a specific context, esp. as
isolated in a dictionary or glossary; the semantic element in a word or
group of words.
16. an opinion or judgment formed or held, esp. by an assemblage or
body of persons: the sense of a meeting.
17. Genetics. a DNA sequence that is capable of coding for an amino
acid (distinguished from nonsense).
18. Mathematics. one of two opposite directions in which a vector may
point.
-verb (used with object) 19. to perceive (something) by the senses;
become aware of.
20. to grasp the meaning of; understand.
21. (of certain mechanical devices) to detect physical phenomena, as
light, temperature, radioactivity, etc., mechanically, electrically, or
photoelectrically.
22. Computers. to read (punched holes, tape, data, etc.) mechanically,
electrically, or photoelectrically.
-Idioms23. come to one's senses, to regain one's good judgment or
realistic point of view; become reasonable.
24. in a sense, according to one explanation or view; to a certain
extent: In a sense it may have been the only possible solution.
25. make sense, to be reasonable or comprehensible: His attitude
doesn't make sense.
-Synonyms 4. Sense, sensation refer to consciousness of stimulus or
of a perception as pleasant or unpleasant. A sense is an awareness or
recognition of something; the stimulus may be subjective and the entire
process may be mental or intellectual: a sense of failure. A sensation
is an impression derived from an objective (external) stimulus through
any of the sense organs: a sensation of heat. It is also a general,
indefinite physical or emotional feeling: a sensation of weariness. 5.
awareness, apprehension. 7. rationality. 9. estimation, appreciation.
13. signification, import, denotation, connotation, interpretation. See
meaning. 16. feeling, sentiment. 19. discern, appreciate, recognize.
sharon
Pfusand wrote:
> Uh, excuse me.
>
> Why are you referring to sensory perception as "intuition"?
>
Here awhile back, another talk origin regular turned me on to a
peculiar experiment performed on chimps, which aimed to measure their
"'sense' of Justice".
Only females were used for the study, because females have um, more
intelligence in emotional matters.
Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: Monkey Business ...
The findings suggest that the animals have an innate sense of justice,
... Only females were selected for this study, because previous work
had shown males to be less attuned to inequality than females.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C3167-BADB-1F68-905980A84189EEDF
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=chimps+sense+of+justice+female
sharon
Pfusand wrote:
>
> Why are you referring to sensory perception as "intuition"?
this research by Pfizer fits in nicely...
"it's a mind thing"
"Scientists have concluded that women achieve most sexual satisfaction
through the stimulation of their brain... Its exhaustive research has
concluded that men and women have a fundamentally different
relationship between arousal and desire. A women's arousal is triggered
by a network of emotional, intellectual and relationship-based factors
rather than the simple physical response required by a man, it says...
The company's sex research team ... [concluded the brain is crucial]
... in a woman.... Women get satisfaction from things much deeper from
emotions that involve romance and love, men on the other hand are quite
basic in their instincts on desire, therefore the belief that sex is a
matter of organ function, like breathing or sleeping is a totally wrong
assumption to make. The fact that the earth only moves for women if
they think it does comes as no surprise to many leading female
sexologists It has long been held in these circles that a women has an
emotional libido and it only a question of, when will men realise, the
only surprise has been that it has taken many hours of research and
thousands of pounds to conclude something that is blindingly obvious.
Pfizer says... the benefits of this latest research has been a far
better understanding of the biochemical and physiological factors
involved in female sexual function.
Why spend millions when the right setting a bunch of roses and a caring
partner can provide the perfect ambiance conducive to love and romance.
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/relationships/sex-all-in-the-mind.php
The research seems to imply how conducive female "intuitive sense" is
in whether or not the male attempting to initiate the act of
copulation, scores a homerun.
CreateThis
wrote:
>[snip "women are cool too" stuff]
OK. So what?
I agree (and so do most here, I assume) that women have their special
talents, like men have theirs. I also agree it's unfortunate that
women are social underdogs to men (although that's slowly changing).
But I think the important questions for you are:
1. Is random internet combativeness an effective tool?
2. Is being obsessed with this a fulfilling life?
CT
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
> 1. Is random internet combativeness an effective tool?
I really don't understand why you feel there is an ongoing combat.
>
> 2. Is being obsessed with this a fulfilling life?
>
In other words, you're saying it should not be discussed in the age
where we have access to mass communication, and a few bytes on Google
Groups to publish the issue, and will probably end like most threads
do, briefly, but yet, you find these ideas extremely "offensive", and
the issue has no right to be discussed? The first admendment has lost
all its meaning!
You are very selective over other people's freedoms and interests.
Quite controlling.
Like racism and other forms of discrimination, we were all to discuss
the issue once, only around non-racists too, therefore, let's discuss
it no more,
let's not discuss females and intuition (when just yesterday some of
you denied even the existence of this phenomena in the female brain!)
"...because I am made personally uncomfortable by it" and "want to
learn nothing about it" -- though I could have just as easily ignored
this thread and picked over to something I wanted to read.
You know, John Harshmann was the person who suggested to me last night,
to start another thread under an appropriate title, on this topic?
Therefore, I felt welcomed to do just that, and proceeded to gather
even more information, which is seldom to never discussed except remote
evolutionist and (pro-woman men) hovels in cyberspace.
There are some men on this group whom I've taken note of, who have an
interest in women and their abilities, and are interested in seeing
women put on equal footing, and get their fair share out of life. Maybe
they wanted to read? Or are you trying to control their interests and
access to information as well?
what I've posted is on topic for this newsgroup, and above all, it
hasn't harmed a soul.
> CT
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2006 11:22:20 -0700, "sharon" <sharon1...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >[snip "women are cool too" stuff]
>
> OK.
That's definately an improvement upon yesterday's denial it existed,
and proclaiming the scientific data I've been reading over past years'
"mental".
"women are cool too"
I like your attitude.
>
> CT
Nic
sharon wrote:
> CreateThis wrote:
>
> > 1. Is random internet combativeness an effective tool?
>
> I really don't understand why you feel there is an ongoing combat.
He may be intuiting it:) That's not what my intuition is picking up.
Mine is picking up on that you want to interact, and don't have skills
for putting people at their ease.
> >
> > 2. Is being obsessed with this a fulfilling life?
> >
>
> In other words, you're saying it should not be discussed in the age
> where we have access to mass communication, and a few bytes on Google
> Groups to publish the issue, and will probably end like most threads
> do, briefly, but yet, you find these ideas extremely "offensive", and
> the issue has no right to be discussed? The first admendment has lost
> all its meaning!
CreateThis asked a question, albeit one with a provocative premise.
That's not the same as saying a thing shouldn't be discussed - quite
the opposite.
> You are very selective over other people's freedoms and interests.
> Quite controlling.
>
> Like racism and other forms of discrimination, we were all to discuss
> the issue once, only around non-racists too, therefore, let's discuss
> it no more,
> let's not discuss females and intuition (when just yesterday some of
> you denied even the existence of this phenomena in the female brain!)
> "...because I am made personally uncomfortable by it" and "want to
> learn nothing about it" -- though I could have just as easily ignored
> this thread and picked over to something I wanted to read.
And well discussed it is being - even if mostly among yourself.
> You know, John Harshmann was the person who suggested to me last night,
> to start another thread under an appropriate title, on this topic?
> Therefore, I felt welcomed to do just that, and proceeded to gather
> even more information, which is seldom to never discussed except remote
> evolutionist and (pro-woman men) hovels in cyberspace.
The information you gathered is worthwhile. I don't think women's
brains are wired differently - I think women and men *have* to
specialise slightly differently, for as long this is not an equal
society. Haven't you ever speculated how your life and personal
development would have panned out differently if that self same brain
had been in a different body?
Ok, I wouldn't go sa far as saying that in a truly equal society women
would suddenly discover an interest in planes and trains and drains.
> There are some men on this group whom I've taken note of, who have an
> interest in women and their abilities, and are interested in seeing
> women put on equal footing, and get their fair share out of life. Maybe
> they wanted to read? Or are you trying to control their interests and
> access to information as well?
>
> what I've posted is on topic for this newsgroup, and above all, it
> hasn't harmed a soul.
Alas, you may be right.
> > CT
chris.li...@gmail.com
spintronic wrote:
> Fook, google is buggering about again, whats the point posting?
While I haven't noticed any problems with Google, I must concur: what's
the point of you posting?
Chris
sharon
Nic wrote:
> And well discussed it is being - even if mostly among yourself.
What you are doing is making a vicious little "insinuation" which I
comprehend rather well.
Yesterday's discussion is all one needs to attest to the fact, most on
this group were incapable to discuss the issue. Some were ignorant of
its existence, even denied its existence. (Truthfully, that's what I
suspect, those individuals would rather the issue not be discussed,
lest they reminded they were in error.) Nonetheless, so you understand,
being a stand-alone person that I am, I put the information out there,
"in your face" if you will. Doesn't matter how the information gets
disseminated, just that it gets disseminated... including whilst having
insults and "insinuations" hurled, most of which just piss me off. But
I let it ride, and get the job done anyway, despite them.
In my lifetime (you see, we, you and I) have walked very different
paths, which creates uniques individuals) and often I was put in
situations where I was forced to stand alone on many issues, religion,
rape, discrimination -- life has made me how I am -- and while I have
an interesting issue to me, which I know is of interest to others -- I
find being a loud mouth has its advantages. Often, I've chosen to go
through with issues when nobody else would or could... and later on,
see where others had caught on, and following my lead. I don't wait for
"the crowd" to initiate the response, I go forward with everything and
whatever, I have to say, whether crowd likes it or not... and see where
it goes.
I was taught by a published author, years ago, to jot everything down.
Usenet makes an excellent trap for notes. It's free, and I can always
type into the advanced search engine on Google and find my notes. You
guys have already long moved on. Google is my friend. Sometimes I have
referred back to my posts, to make an article. From my perspective,
maybe its a selfish perspective, posting whatever I please makes
perfect sense to me -- to others, it may seem strange. Hard-drive
crashes are a real bitch, you know that? I am not trying to impress
anyone. Either they like me for my opinions and ideas, or not. Take it
or leave it.
> The information you gathered is worthwhile. I don't think women's
Thanks. That's all that matters. No harm done. I shared information,
and received all the "peer review" this group had to offer. I like to
test my ideas against the opinions of others.
> > what I've posted is on topic for this newsgroup, and above all, it
> > hasn't harmed a soul.
>
> Alas, you may be right.
I am right. Nary black eye or bruise on your body.
Didn't hurt anyone. People are far too uptight when it comes to
harmless (albeit controversial) opinions.
>
> > > CT
sharon
Nic wrote:
> The information you gathered is worthwhile. I don't think women's
> brains are wired differently - I think women and men *have* to
scientific data supports very different wiring, starting with the most
primitive region, hypothalamus.
"Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men,
... researchers showed that the brain's hypothalamus region, which is
involved in sexual behavior, ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
Brain wiring helps to make us individuals in very unique ways.
> specialise slightly differently, for as long this is not an equal
> society. Haven't you ever speculated how your life and personal
> development would have panned out differently if that self same brain
> had been in a different body?
Of course, because the way people treat us, is much like a mirror of
ourselves. Any psychiatric professional would tell you that if you
surround yourself with negative people, it is like looking in a dirty
mirror and a reflection of yourself, and you might develop low self
esteem, while surrounding yourself with positive people, it is like
looking in a good, clean mirror, and you can say "Hey, this doesn't
look that bad afterall."
Yes, outside people influence who and what we are.
But most important in who and what we are, is determined within. It is
a decision we make ourselves. I tried an expirament, many years ago,
"stepping outside my true personality". My best friend, a female, is
outgoing, she's got a sparkle in her eye, (the one I told of earlier
who suggests catering to men's egos and suggested I should be less
combative, and let men believe they're right, when I know they're wrong
"it builds their egos" was her suggestion)... she also has dated some
real dumbasses in her life and was married to one, but I can't do that.
It goes against my standards. It's just me and my picky standards. My
intolerance for sub-standards -- I would prefer to seek out a more
intelligent crowd of men, who are in fact, "correct". In other words,
earned their kudo fair and honest, you know? It's just me. Anyway, out
of curiosity, I observed her body language, her voice, the way she
dressed and walked, and smiled and all the subtle things -- including
how she never says anything, unless it's positive -- she always
accentuates the positive. Everyone likes her. The men fall head over
heels in love with her. Go to picnic, and I mimmick her every
behavior... sure enough, the guys take notice.
Subtle vibes we give off to others, is everything.
Did I enjoy the attention? Not really. It wasn't me. I didn't enjoy
being her, not at all. It was fake, it was uncomfortable. I was happy
to be home and be myself. Never tried that expirament again. It's just
me, I prefer a small number of truly good, loyal friends, than the
acceptance of a crowd.
Would I want to have been born in another body or with a silver spoon
in my mouth or the daughter of a millionaire... or maybe even a son (to
experience what its like to get ahead in "a man's world"? No. I like
who I am today. I am happy with who I am. I was pondering that question
just this morning, about the society we're living in -- I see it on the
newsgroups a lot and often, how males are trained and encouraged to be
"tough and aggressive"... considering males and their peculiarities...
sent to a friend of mine...we discuss psychology sometimes...
"...It's like looking outside my back door at animals. I have male cats
that wander up here... sometimes they fight. Sometimes they'll choose
to dwell with each other in the same territory -- but at a healthy
distance of each other. They're not born mean, they're trained to be
that way out in the wild. The female cats are really frightened when
aggression and competition breaks out between them. I've seen the
female cat take off running and obviously she has nothing to gain from
their conflicts, and wants nothing to do with them.
But strange to me is, that it's not the same kind of "fear" the female
has -- she runs away and nobody would say it's an act of "cowardice".
The male is scared, has fear, but it comes out in a type of behavior
that's like "maim or be maimed", doesn't seem to care about
consequences, "kill or be killed"... matter of pride or his status.
I know that humans males have to be much more intelligent than this --
evolved to a point they would rather have kindness expressed to them
than cruelty. So, why do they often invite aggression on themselves?
You said statistics show males are more likely to be victims of violent
crime than women -- why do men continue to invite danger into their
personal lives?
That's got to be pretty hard on men -- for instance, the male cat's
brain hasn't evolved enough for natural tenderness and "humanity" on
its own -- , but the human male brain has -- and at the same time,
forced (pressure in society) to behave like primitives (competitive,
aggressive, confrontational, soforth). It's got to be frustrating,
confusing and leading to much personal insecurity and not quite sure
*what* they're suppose to act like. You know, your brain telling you to
act like "this", but outside influences are telling you to act like
"that."
I don't like what I see in the mammalian male. I don't think I'd want
to be one."
I really feel some sympathy on men. I studied in Psychology, the
pressures men face... that I have never had to experience and I would
never want to.
Though, I think a lot is a matter of choice, how we act determines a
lot about how people treat us... more, how we really want people to
treat us.
Nic
sharon wrote:
> Nic wrote:
> > And well discussed it is being - even if mostly among yourself.
>
> What you are doing is making a vicious little "insinuation" which I
> comprehend rather well.
a.k.a a poke in the ribs!
> Yesterday's discussion is all one needs to attest to the fact, most on
> this group were incapable to discuss the issue. Some were ignorant of
> its existence, even denied its existence. (Truthfully, that's what I
> suspect, those individuals would rather the issue not be discussed,
> lest they reminded they were in error.) Nonetheless, so you understand,
> being a stand-alone person that I am, I put the information out there,
> "in your face" if you will. Doesn't matter how the information gets
> disseminated, just that it gets disseminated... including whilst having
> insults and "insinuations" hurled, most of which just piss me off. But
> I let it ride, and get the job done anyway, despite them.
Don't get me wrong, I see how everyone has a contribution to make. I
wouldn't read this newsgroup if I didn't expect to learn lots of
things. It is the exactly the right sort of place to try and make your
points. If people don't like what you write, they can say nothing, or
tell you why. You can't lose, really.
> In my lifetime (you see, we, you and I) have walked very different
> paths, which creates uniques individuals) and often I was put in
> situations where I was forced to stand alone on many issues, religion,
> rape, discrimination -- life has made me how I am -- and while I have
> an interesting issue to me, which I know is of interest to others -- I
> find being a loud mouth has its advantages. Often, I've chosen to go
> through with issues when nobody else would or could... and later on,
> see where others had caught on, and following my lead. I don't wait for
> "the crowd" to initiate the response, I go forward with everything and
> whatever, I have to say, whether crowd likes it or not... and see where
> it goes.
No need to explain (but it's appreciated).
> I was taught by a published author, years ago, to jot everything down.
> Usenet makes an excellent trap for notes. It's free, and I can always
> type into the advanced search engine on Google and find my notes. You
> guys have already long moved on. Google is my friend. Sometimes I have
> referred back to my posts, to make an article. From my perspective,
> maybe its a selfish perspective, posting whatever I please makes
> perfect sense to me -- to others, it may seem strange. Hard-drive
> crashes are a real bitch, you know that? I am not trying to impress
> anyone. Either they like me for my opinions and ideas, or not. Take it
> or leave it.
>
> > The information you gathered is worthwhile. I don't think women's
>
> Thanks. That's all that matters. No harm done. I shared information,
> and received all the "peer review" this group had to offer. I like to
> test my ideas against the opinions of others.
>
> > > what I've posted is on topic for this newsgroup, and above all, it
> > > hasn't harmed a soul.
> >
> > Alas, you may be right.
>
> I am right. Nary black eye or bruise on your body.
Yes - though I've done nothing to deserve it.
sharon
Nic wrote:
> sharon wrote:
> > Nic wrote:
> > > And well discussed it is being - even if mostly among yourself.
> >
> > What you are doing is making a vicious little "insinuation" which I
> > comprehend rather well.
>
> a.k.a a poke in the ribs!
and those can hurt.
Nic
sharon wrote:
> Nic wrote:
> > The information you gathered is worthwhile. I don't think women's
> > brains are wired differently - I think women and men *have* to
>
> scientific data supports very different wiring, starting with the most
> primitive region, hypothalamus.
>
> "Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men,
> ... researchers showed that the brain's hypothalamus region, which is
> involved in sexual behavior, ...
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
Do you really want to make that comparison (between women and gay men)?
By all means do so, but I'm sure those two parties would have a lot to
say about that!
> Brain wiring helps to make us individuals in very unique ways.
>
> > specialise slightly differently, for as long this is not an equal
> > society. Haven't you ever speculated how your life and personal
> > development would have panned out differently if that self same brain
> > had been in a different body?
>
> Of course, because the way people treat us, is much like a mirror of
> ourselves.
Really? I think most people would be shocked to the core if they knew
what stereotype they were being assigned to by everyone else. Or
perhaps that's not what you mean. Maybe you meant the face society
shows us, is the face we are somehow asking for - well, that's nothing
more than victim mentality - get rid.
Nothing wrong with being positive, is there? What would your usual
behaviour on a picnic be? I mean, you wouldn't exactly be lost for
words, would you?
> Subtle vibes we give off to others, is everything.
>
> Did I enjoy the attention? Not really. It wasn't me. I didn't enjoy
> being her, not at all. It was fake, it was uncomfortable. I was happy
> to be home and be myself. Never tried that expirament again. It's just
> me, I prefer a small number of truly good, loyal friends, than the
> acceptance of a crowd.
>
> Would I want to have been born in another body or with a silver spoon
> in my mouth or the daughter of a millionaire... or maybe even a son (to
> experience what its like to get ahead in "a man's world"? No. I like
> who I am today. I am happy with who I am. I was pondering that question
> just this morning, about the society we're living in -- I see it on the
> newsgroups a lot and often, how males are trained and encouraged to be
> "tough and aggressive"... considering males and their peculiarities...
Trained and encouraged? There isn't any of that, as I recall. Wasn't
until I got an office job I realised how gratutiously combative both
sexes are if it is their first time in a position of authority.
> sent to a friend of mine...we discuss psychology sometimes...
> "...It's like looking outside my back door at animals. I have male cats
> that wander up here... sometimes they fight. Sometimes they'll choose
> to dwell with each other in the same territory -- but at a healthy
> distance of each other. They're not born mean, they're trained to be
> that way out in the wild. The female cats are really frightened when
> aggression and competition breaks out between them. I've seen the
> female cat take off running and obviously she has nothing to gain from
> their conflicts, and wants nothing to do with them.
Female cats fight too.
> But strange to me is, that it's not the same kind of "fear" the female
> has -- she runs away and nobody would say it's an act of "cowardice".
> The male is scared, has fear, but it comes out in a type of behavior
> that's like "maim or be maimed", doesn't seem to care about
> consequences, "kill or be killed"... matter of pride or his status.
You are projecting a bit here. Even in humans it isn't really like
that - not much room for pride. A bit like a country at war deciding
to surrender or not, or like one with a WMD deciding to use it or not.
> I know that humans males have to be much more intelligent than this --
> evolved to a point they would rather have kindness expressed to them
> than cruelty. So, why do they often invite aggression on themselves?
> You said statistics show males are more likely to be victims of violent
> crime than women -- why do men continue to invite danger into their
> personal lives?
I can't remember saying that, but if you mean crime by people the
victim doesn't know, then I believe that is the case, but not for all
age ranges.
> That's got to be pretty hard on men -- for instance, the male cat's
> brain hasn't evolved enough for natural tenderness and "humanity" on
> its own -- , but the human male brain has -- and at the same time,
> forced (pressure in society) to behave like primitives (competitive,
> aggressive, confrontational, soforth). It's got to be frustrating,
> confusing and leading to much personal insecurity and not quite sure
> *what* they're suppose to act like. You know, your brain telling you to
> act like "this", but outside influences are telling you to act like
> "that."
It's not a society we interact with, it's an economy, if you hadn't
noticed. Maybe that is an improvement?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1162092020.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> sharon wrote:
> > Nic wrote:
> > > The information you gathered is worthwhile. I don't think women's
> > > brains are wired differently - I think women and men *have* to
> >
> > scientific data supports very different wiring, starting with the most
> > primitive region, hypothalamus.
> >
> > "Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men,
> > ... researchers showed that the brain's hypothalamus region, which is
> > involved in sexual behavior, ...
> > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
>
> Do you really want to make that comparison (between women and gay men)?
> By all means do so, but I'm sure those two parties would have a lot to
> say about that!
When the comparison is made between humans and other apes, there is a lot
of outrage expressed too. Doesn't change the science though.
Here is what the article said:
The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated
the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but
not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated
the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men.
I realize that it is a pre-scientific stereotype to say that gay men
are somehow 'feminized' males. But the fact that it is a stereotype
doesn't make it automatically wrong. This seems to be one area in
which the stereotype applies.
sharon
Nic wrote:
> Nothing wrong with being positive, is there? What would your usual
> behaviour on a picnic be? I mean, you wouldn't exactly be lost for
> words, would you?
Preferring to carry on a quiet conversation with one or two level
headed people, -- basically whatever you see on this newsgroup, is what
you get in real life.
> > newsgroups a lot and often, how males are trained and encouraged to be
> > "tough and aggressive"... considering males and their peculiarities...
>
> Trained and encouraged? There isn't any of that, as I recall. Wasn't
> until I got an office job I realised how gratutiously combative both
> sexes are if it is their first time in a position of authority.
It wasn't too many decades ago, when most successful corporations were
staffed by 1) White 2) Males. Times are changing... there are major
transitions going on in the job market.
When I was growing up (maybe I am older than you) I heard all the time,
the man's place was to be a bread-winner and women to stay home and
raise kids. Each gender had its role assigned to them. Only in recent
years, have people began becoming educated about these stereotypes and
roles. As I said, I read in Psychology about the pressure in society
for men to be tough and aggressive. One text used the term, (comparison
with female "sex object") for males to become "success objects". That's
not a comfortable place to be in. Men sometimes resent women in the job
market. I've even read hate material produced by men, expressing deep
anger when a female got a promotion "on the basis she was female". I've
read these same things on newsgroups.
>
> > sent to a friend of mine...we discuss psychology sometimes...
> > "...It's like looking outside my back door at animals. I have male cats
> > that wander up here... sometimes they fight. Sometimes they'll choose
> > to dwell with each other in the same territory -- but at a healthy
> > distance of each other. They're not born mean, they're trained to be
> > that way out in the wild. The female cats are really frightened when
> > aggression and competition breaks out between them. I've seen the
> > female cat take off running and obviously she has nothing to gain from
> > their conflicts, and wants nothing to do with them.
>
> Female cats fight too.
normally, females do not provoke such confrontations. unless its for
food, or to protect their cubs. granted, if a bear or tiger feels her
cubs are in danger, she'll kill you. But males, typically,
statistically, provoke the unwarranted confrontations. they also die
more as a result of it.
I've seen documentaries on the injuries inflicted on young pups and
cruelties at the teeth and claws of males from various mammal species,
when they didn't get their way. They'll kill another male's cubs. The
male provokes confrontations with other males. they'll force their way
in on territory that's not their own with sole intent to take over.
I've seen documentaries on the cruel mating rituals of some of the more
primitive species... nurse sharks are a nice one, the male rips her
gills open, leaving the female bleeding in the water -- all part of
mating. It is not the female that instigates this common, aggressive
behavior found in many males. If you need witness, take a look around
at this predominantly male-dominated news forum, and all the males that
apparently enjoy arguments and conflicts. Personally, I do not, and I
have no interest in getting dragged into serious conflicts with any of
them.
Now, with exception to somebody who is wilfully lying and dishonest --
manipulation -- underlying motives -- unfairly maligning a person --
or, a serious misunderstanding I feel the need to correct, -- I don't
like those things.
>
> > But strange to me is, that it's not the same kind of "fear" the female
> > has -- she runs away and nobody would say it's an act of "cowardice".
> > The male is scared, has fear, but it comes out in a type of behavior
> > that's like "maim or be maimed", doesn't seem to care about
> > consequences, "kill or be killed"... matter of pride or his status.
>
> You are projecting a bit here. Even in humans it isn't really like
I have seen the documentaries where males fight until they've inflicted
serious injury, and sometimes die as a result.
> that - not much room for pride. A bit like a country at war deciding
> to surrender or not, or like one with a WMD deciding to use it or not.
its not projection. That's what male conflicts look like to me.
Threatening, even, insanity, and I don't want to be involved. Men
sometimes kill men over an opinion. They will hurt you real bad. That's
a fact. I've seen men and their conflicts, and I really don't
understand, and maybe I don't want to -- they even seem to even enjoy
it (that's the insanity of it). I do not. Take for instance what the
fundamentalist terrorists have done -- almost always men, and they cut
people's heads off, but they never stop to ask "would I want this done
to me?" I think women, in general, are more merciful than men. I am
confused by males. It's appalling. In my experience.. they seem to
think I (maybe they assume all women in general) reason like them,
therefore we must enjoy conflict too, like them, competition,
aggression in the same way they do, and attempt to lure me into an
argument with them. Thinking I'm going to enjoy a boxing match? Not
hardly. Let me make it clear, I am really not interested. They really
have no idea, how they could be farther from the truth. I dislike it. I
don't enjoy it. I'm interested in their neat factoids, their insights,
their 2 cents on lots of "stuff" -- but not the fighting.
My female cat concurs. She runs away when the males start fighting, or
one of them has eaten the head off her newborn kitten.
>
> > I know that humans males have to be much more intelligent than this --
> > evolved to a point they would rather have kindness expressed to them
> > than cruelty. So, why do they often invite aggression on themselves?
> > You said statistics show males are more likely to be victims of violent
> > crime than women -- why do men continue to invite danger into their
> > personal lives?
>
> I can't remember saying that, but if you mean crime by people the
> victim doesn't know, then I believe that is the case, but not for all
> age ranges.
>
> > That's got to be pretty hard on men -- for instance, the male cat's
> > brain hasn't evolved enough for natural tenderness and "humanity" on
> > its own -- , but the human male brain has -- and at the same time,
> > forced (pressure in society) to behave like primitives (competitive,
> > aggressive, confrontational, soforth). It's got to be frustrating,
> > confusing and leading to much personal insecurity and not quite sure
> > *what* they're suppose to act like. You know, your brain telling you to
> > act like "this", but outside influences are telling you to act like
> > "that."
>
nice guy comes on this forum, he's going to be lured into acting "tough
and aggressive", to assimilate, if not directly, he will feel pressured
to. I feel the pressure to do things I don't want to even out on the
highway. some jerk drives up three ft on my bumper and I feel pressure
to "speed up". I don't like it.
> It's not a society we interact with,
it is society we're interacting with. This newsgroup is a part of our
society, and there is lots of pressure in it to act tough and
aggressive, for men. when you turn on the television to NASCAR and
Heavyweight Boxing and NFL Football (which most women do not care to
watch, some do, most don't) -- you see male aggression, everywhere...
from the headline news with what some crazy man went did like bombing a
building, or speeding to impress, and ends up in the obituary.. it's
everywhere. From Jerry Falwell condemning the "effiminate" men, to
those tv commercials pushing those 'make-your-muscles-big' workout
machines, to the spams pushing viagra... the bigger, the bullisher, the
"better".
it's an economy, if you hadn't
> noticed. Maybe that is an improvement?
Yes, maybe money is a key underlying factor. However, society
encourages men to be tough, aggressive, and competitive.
sharon
BACK ON TOPIC...
> While men's brains may have evolved for sake of hunting animals, women
> were evolving to hunt the men.
Let me explain for those men who don't understand what intuition is,
and how it works.
Betty Broderick is an extreme, although pretty good example. I watched
the movie. They were happily married to begin with I gather. A woman
gets used to, and knows how a man is suppose to act... little things in
his behavior. His eyes... how intimate he acts day to day, loving, --
Dan's behavior changed, and she began taking notice of it. He began
coming home from work late, though telling her nothing was going on. He
insulted her by saying she was over-reacting and no, she was not
over-reacting. She was focused on his emotional fidelity (as many chimp
studies in females have) -- she sensed he was being dishonest. He began
growing farther apart from her, because she dared to challenge him on
his fidelity... some snide men would think "he had a right to cheat and
she should have just shut her whining" She felt he was lying, her
intuition told her he was a lowdown, dirty cheat, and confronted him,
he lies about it. She knew what her intuition was telling her, but his
words were telling her another. That I believe was his error, he
insulted her intelligence.
She wasn't stupid, and she resented being taken for granted, her pride
was smashed to a pulp... Though she was seeing another man after she
and Dan divorced, she went back and killed him. What Dan did to her,
was probably the ultimate insult to a woman.
Betty Broderick received piles of "fan mail" from women, after killing
Dan.
I think she took it as the ultimate insult, because for women emotional
fidelity is normally very important, the act of monogamy tells a woman
her worth -- and cheating is saying "You're not good enough ... you're
not woman enough." But to lie to her face is to say "you're stupid
too." She killed him. There are men, even in this day and age, stupid
enough to believe they have right to "70 virgins". What a single one of
those poor girls, so guilty of, that they should be cursed to dwell
with HIM for eternity?! They may be his blessing, but he's their curse.
Women find it archaic arrogance on behalf of men.
Also, in my personal experience, men who feel they have a right to
cheat, and the right to *lie* about it, (what two consenting adults
choose to do is one thing, but the woman seldom consents to his
adulterous affairs)-- such men have other problematic, even criminal
behaviors.
Women will focus on emotional fidelity, watching for any clue that
indicates he'll cheat. If a woman sees those signs... its time to dump
him.
google snippets...
Evolutionary Psychology
Females focus on emotional fidelity (will he leave me?) ...
lifesciences.asu.edu/bio100/nmackay/evolutionarypsychology.htm
HBES 2005 Abstract Submission
Like modern Western societies, male's sexual jealousy and
proprietariness ... whereas women should be more sensitive to cues
indicating emotional fidelity. ...
www.hbes.com/HBES/talks.html
Yale Psychologists Challenge Experiments Stressing Evolution As Primary
Cause of Gender Differences in Feelings of Jealousy
New Haven, CT -- Add jealousy to the long list of emotions men and
women seem to approach from different perspectives. When forced to
choose between sexual and emotional infidelity, men are more upset by
thoughts of a partner's sexual infidelity while women fear emotional
infidelity more, according to several recent scientific studies.
Researchers disagree, however, about whether this dichotomy is due
primarily to genetic factors -- differences in hard-wired responses
attributable to millennia of evolution -- or whether the main causes
are cultural. This nature-nurture debate surfaced in the November issue
of the journal Psychological Science in an exchange among three groups
of researchers.
http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/97-02-12-01.all.html
Anyhow...
Female intuition and MANIPULATION
subtle clues, like a slip of the lip, a man who makes bold prideful
statements,... clearly he's telling me and everyone else he's a sucker
for kudos... weakness spotted and targeted.
woman starts by dumbing down to pretend she's "harmless, sweet,
admiring of him" -- like he's smarter than she is, and playing up to
his ego. His ego is his addiction. Since he can see with his eyes she's
obviously no threat, and dumber than he is, he doesn't think she's
actually smart enough to be playing him in a game and using him, "she
looks so harmless, cute, sweet" ... he can't see through it, neither
just how much of a fool she really thinks he is. She tells him things
to boost his ego, talks friendly, kind -- says what she knows he wants
to hear... and he will do anything for this sweet, beautiful angel --
HIS angel... takes her to Belks... buys her a $120 lace nightgown, and
a $200 velvet dress, expensive perfume, and she smiles at him "I don't
know what you're buying me this for, you'll never see me in it." He's a
bit miffed, but it goes in one ear and out the other. He hears what he
wants to hear. An occasional truth doesn't hurt anything, because he
don't want to believe it anyway. She returns home and says to her
girlfriend, "come on, let's go and get these exchanged for the cash."
She dumps him only a few weeks later.
And those rare men who not only think they're "something else", they
know they're special... regular God's gift to women. I really don't
like them. All the more reason some women just might want to give them
a good jerk around and teach them a lesson.
Men can't stand it when a woman rejects them. The old "play hard to get
game".
"That Don't Impress Me Much Lyrics - Shania TwainOh-oo-oh, you think
you're special Oh-oo-oh, you think you're something else Okay, so
you're Brad Pitt That don't impress me much So you got the looks but
...
www.lyrics007.com/Shania%20Twain%20Lyrics/That%20Don't%20Impress%20Me%20Much%20Lyrics.html
Anyway... that's a couple examples how women use intuition to
manipulate men.
another example -- character-strengths in a man. women observes them
(one of the articles I re-posted mentioned men discard extra
information, and think linear, while women tend to hold on to more
details and think in terms of more variables...)
If a man tells me he went to College in 1989, this week, and then five
months later says he was in College in 1996... I remember the
information, that's how my mind works -- I store odd information, men
would probably discard... I do the math, that doesn't seem to add up...
seven years in college? unless he went back to college? giving him the
benefit of the doubt, maybe he made an error... but I would not want
him to know outright that he had been caught in a lie (because I might
be wrong), and I wouldn't tell him, instead I would hold this
contradiction in mind, and keep it to myself, and think carefully about
it and come up with a question to pick more information from him, test
him and see what he says... and depending on what he says, start
drawing my conclusion... slowly, but surely, I'd get to the truth out
of him -- the entire story. Once I've discovered his lies are in fact
lies, me, I leave him. I guess integrity, honesty and character are
very important to me. To other women, what they hold as most important
will determine how they pick and choose -- or at least, accept.
Same goes for cheating... or any form of dishonesty. Eye contact,
sudden change in wanting to talk... his mind seems like its somewhere
else... Men leave clues about themselves lying around, like they leave
the toilet seat up and the cap off the toothpaste, and never think
twice about it. Men are very transparent.
Some maybe is the use of deductive logic, applied to intuitive in
general sense. Everyone has basic interests, desires, needs... they
want acceptance, they want love, they want respect, etc. -- even when
they deny it, or refuse to admit it. As I was teasing John Harshmann,
-- by the simple fact that he even took the time and interest to have
involved himself in the thread and what I was saying about him (despite
an abrasive front, the actions spoke louder than words), he proved,
that in fact, he has "sensitivity" about what people think of him...
and does cares, what they and I think of him. Yes, he certainly does.
he's human as anyone else. As soon as a woman spots sensitivity, or
other emotional traits that are vulnerable to kudos... he's game. The
rest is saying what you suspect that particular man wants to hear.
a lot is considered though, over time of getting to know more about an
individual man -- whatever a woman considers most important -- parental
responsibility, financial security, emotional stability, status, or
*whatever* she is looking for in life... she'll size his character up
in comparison to what she feels is most important. for instance, if he
shows signs of irresponsibility or incompetance -- and financial
security is most important to her -- it's obvious that's a relationship
that won't work. If emotional security is very important -- and she
suspects he looking at other women, lots of problems.
There's just too many individual scenerios, to go into all of them --
thousands of them. Every man is an individual, just as every woman is,
and each man with his own unique characteristic weaknesses, flaws and
strengths. A woman will observe and learn his character and either work
with it, or in the worst case scenerio, around it, if she's really
desperate.
At least, this is my theory about how female intuition may play a part
in female choice in humans.
dkomo
Yeah right. And what about the woman who cheats? Do you have any
statistics about the number of married men who cheat relative to the
number of married women who cheat? Adultery involving both females and
males is quite common in pair-bonding mammalian and bird species. It
apparently is a normal part of animal behavior.
If a female can get impregnated by a male with a better set of genes and
then have her mate help raise the offspring, she wins in the
reproductive lottery. If a male can impregnate another male's mate, and
have him help raise the offspring, *he* wins in the reproductive
lottery. That's why adulterous behavior is common.
CreateThis
wrote:
>
>CreateThis wrote:
>
>> 1. Is random internet combativeness an effective tool?
>
>I really don't understand why you feel there is an ongoing combat.
You don't seem to understand anything I say. I said "combativeness",
not "combat". Specifically, your combativeness. You're mostly
talking to yourself and reacting defensively to every response. The
combat is yours alone as far as I can tell. Who's winning, by the
way?
>> 2. Is being obsessed with this a fulfilling life?
>>
>
>In other words, you're saying it should not be discussed in the age
>where we have access to mass communication, and a few bytes on Google
>Groups to publish the issue, and will probably end like most threads
>do, briefly, but yet, you find these ideas extremely "offensive", and
>the issue has no right to be discussed? The first admendment has lost
>all its meaning!
No, I'm saying you seem to be obsessed with this and I wonder whether
you've considered that it might just be feeding your bitterness. You
seem very bitter. The women's issues you obsess over are important,
but don't forget to leave room in your life for fun. The issues we
focus on here are important too, but most of us (notably excluding the
creationists) seem to have a sense of humor and perspective about
them. Maybe you should try that.
[snip more ranting]
CT
mjq123
quibble:
"Female intuition provides a clear advantage over males for females."
Various studies have apparently debunked "Feminine intuition" (sorry I
don't have a link handy). It would be better to call it underling's
radar. The workers in an office are always carefully reading their
boss's moods, for example, even if it's not conscious on their part.
Women have gotten this reputation because for most of history they have
been chattel to men.
sharon
> > Women will focus on emotional fidelity, watching for any clue that
> > indicates he'll cheat.
> Yeah right.
YEAH.
RIGHT.
> statistics about the number of married men who cheat relative to the
> number of married women who cheat? Adultery involving both females and
> males is quite common in pair-bonding mammalian and bird species. It
> apparently is a normal part of animal behavior.
Your questions to me seem irrelevant to female intuition, and its role
in female choice... especially in humans.
For the example I gave earlier on the documentary on apes and an
abusive male. He takes over and by his actions, it became clear his
"emotional interests" were centered toward himself -- habitually cruel
to the females. The females ganged up on him overnight, beat and
dethroned him, and I remember the male they chose as their leader...
older,... calmer, sensitive, GENTLER toward the females... all
observations on his emotional state.
Emotional fidelity... you know, like when I posted the link to the
stuff I illustrated from the whale article -- it was John Wilkins whom,
without some underlying motive or suspicious behavior writes a simple
"Great Job...." and what not -- I studied his words for a bit, he
wasn't trying to do something to cause harm to me, malign, or cause
trouble on this group... just a simple, nice gesture...
straight-forward... it told me a lot about his "emotional" state toward
me, and how he would possibly treat me in the future on this newsgroup.
It told me something important, about what's important to him. I
remember stuff like that very well. it sure does make the difference
between which people on this newsgroup I choose to speak with, trust,
etc. It could make the difference in a lot of things.
Somebody who has habitually taken my words out of context, or insulted
me, if I see where they're being given unfair treatment -- I reason
"taste of their own medicine." I won't be as likely to get involved.
Through experience, I know the good guys on this group, from the bad...
and even a little insight into who and what they are as people.
>
> If a female can get impregnated by a male with a better set of genes and
> then have her mate help raise the offspring, she wins in the
> reproductive lottery. If a male can impregnate another male's mate, and
> have him help raise the offspring, *he* wins in the reproductive
> lottery. That's why adulterous behavior is common.
>
I don't care about reproductive lotteries. I'm the one holding the
ovaries, remember?
All I care about, is if he has MY interests at heart or not, because I
will be primarily responsible for the offspring. Typically, females
are responsible for the offspring. If there is no emotional fidelity, I
am not investing my trust and confidence in him, or anything else for
that matter. He won't stick around to help me when I need help with
*his* offspring. Both of my formers, if I went to them today and asked,
yes, they would help me with my children. I was looking at that aspect
of their character, when I got involved with them. The one is married
today, the other has repetitively begged we patch things up and get
remarried. Help with the kids, sure they would.
I test my buddy Ed all the time for his emotional fidelity, and we're
not even having a sexual relationship. I've invested a lot into *our*
site we built together -- and he's reciprocated an emotional AND
FINANCIAL investment in it, and I watch him like a vulture... to see
what he's doing on the sly.
It determines how I choose friends, a lot of things.
>
> --dk...@cris.com
CreateThis
Sure. That's my point: she's pretty much preaching to the choir here,
but seems to think she's locked in mortal combat with the forces of
misogynistic evil.
CT
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
> not "combat". Specifically, your combativeness. You're mostly
>
> [snip more ranting]
> CT
So, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
You are sensitive. That's for certain. I said something you didn't
understand anything about just a couple days ago, and you were in
error. You haven't forgotten it either, and you're not about to let it
go. Sounds like you're on an ego trip to me.
I'm not arguing with you. I MIGHT TALK to you, when you calm down and
stop insulting me.
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
>
> Sure. That's my point: she's pretty much preaching to the choir here,
> but seems to think she's locked in mortal combat with the forces of
> misogynistic evil.
>
> CT
a lot of that is in your imagination.
in difference to some of the nice, calm, friendlier men on this
newsgroup, your words tell me you are hostile, unfriendly, quick to say
unkind things, DEFENSIVE... and since we're on the subject, have no
"emotional fidelity" toward me. *smile*
I am quite observant of attitudes. More than the actual words you say,
but HOW you say it... right now, I would not trust anything you have to
say, because your attitude is shouting "ego trip" and when a man is on
an ego trip, he's liable to say anything -- including dishonest things,
or lies.
I ask myself, what is his motive... how does his words make me feel?
I conclude, your words are *intended* to make me feel bad.
You sort of remind me of my first ex-husband. He would make his wiley
comments for no good reason, than simply to tear down esteem,
...because he was a controller, and he was abusive. He was also an
adulterer. I left him. I refused to go back.
If you disagree with what I have to say, you can ignore it, or find
nicer ways to say why you disagree. There's lots of very nice guys on
this newsgroup to look to for an example how to act. There's really no
need to get so bent out of shape, over difference in opinions.
sharon
> CreateThis wrote:
> >
> > Sure. That's my point: she's pretty much preaching to the choir here,
> > but seems to think she's locked in mortal combat with the forces of
> > misogynistic evil.
> >
> > CT
The big question is, what kind of long-term commitment and provider
would you make? Never mind the "reproductive lottery".. would you be
reliable in providing for offspring, protective over a female, and all
the neat things that make for a stable relationship?
>From your angry, insulting words, I gather not. Though I have seen you
write things that imply you want deep down, to be a gentleman, and
treat women with respect. So its up in the air... I am not really sure
right now, what kind of man you are. You can never tell this kind of
stuff from a single conversation or a snapshot... it takes getting to
know the person, and a lot of observation.
>From what I've seen today, you would lose the reproductive lottery.
Unless I saw much more of the good, kinder side from you, no.
Female choice.
Nic
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> "Nic" <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1162092020.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > sharon wrote:
> > > Nic wrote:
> > > > The information you gathered is worthwhile. I don't think women's
> > > > brains are wired differently - I think women and men *have* to
> > >
> > > scientific data supports very different wiring, starting with the most
> > > primitive region, hypothalamus.
> > >
> > > "Sexy" Smells Different for Gay, Straight Men,
> > > ... researchers showed that the brain's hypothalamus region, which is
> > > involved in sexual behavior, ...
> > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
> >
> > Do you really want to make that comparison (between women and gay men)?
> > By all means do so, but I'm sure those two parties would have a lot to
> > say about that!
>
> When the comparison is made between humans and other apes, there is a lot
> of outrage expressed too. Doesn't change the science though.
Indeed. I was questioning Sharon's choice of example (I accept there
are plenty of examples to choose from). What I would call 'wired
differently' for purposes of this discussion is something that affects
a skill or aptitude, not just a preference - obviously there has to be
hard wiring of preferences. My response didn't articulate this because
I no doubt succumbed to the temptation to troll.
> Here is what the article said:
>
> The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated
> the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but
> not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated
> the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men.
The authors were also careful to point out their observations imply
nothing about the direction of the causation. What if you did the same
experiment only you exposed the same subject groups to visual images of
say, thighs in suspenders? And what if you got a similar result? As
there can't be any genetically preprogrammed recognition of man-made
artifacts, you would I guess, always conclude the causality lay the
other way round, and it was a learned response.
However, I think the science is turning out more and more to support
what you say:
Vend
> While men's brains may have evolved for sake of hunting animals, women
> were evolving to hunt the men.
>
> Female Choice
> Despite competition between males for mates, it is females who retain
> primary control over reproduction.
Why despite competition?
Females are likely to choose males who win the competition.
>This is due to the fact that she
> alone produces eggs and exerts a great deal of control over which
> male's sperm will fertilize her eggs. A variety of factors come into
> play when a female decides which male she will allow to inseminate
> her--male resources, male appearance, and courtship displays all play
> roles. Males have evolved elaborate ways of influencing female
> behavior, and this evolutionary process has, over time, produced more
> and more effective operators in the arena of sexual interaction (Alcock
> 457).
> http://faculty.vassar.edu/suter/1websites/bejohns/mateselection/files/choice.htm
Females can exert some control, but not so much, after all. Otherwise
there would be no women who become pregnant after a rape.
<snip>
> Female intuition provides a clear advantage over males for females.
What is female intuition?
> "women's senses are generally sharper than men's"
Evidence?
> http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/culture1.html
> "Sharing of resources and its concomitant division of labor led to a
> divergence in both the biological and cultural evolution of the sexes.
> Evidence shows that women are more group-oriented in their activities
> than men, while men are more individualistic;
It seems the contrary to me, but I may be wrong. What is that evidence?
> that women's senses are
> generally sharper than men's; that women are more language oriented
> than men, while men are more spatially oriented; that women are better
> able to "read" faces for emotion than men. (Moir, 1989; Tannen, 1991)
Ok with the language vs. spatial specialization
> Each of these differences arises from how the brain works, both in
> perception and response to that perception. Several aspects of
> protohuman social life based on cooperative food gathering could well
> have contributed to these biological differences between how each
> gender's brain functions."
>
> Darwin theorized female choice and for humans, "female intuition" can
> play a very important role in "female choice".
Vend
Ben Standeven
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
[...]
> Here is what the article said:
>
> The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated
> the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but
> not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated
> the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men.
>
> I realize that it is a pre-scientific stereotype to say that gay men
> are somehow 'feminized' males. But the fact that it is a stereotype
> doesn't make it automatically wrong. This seems to be one area in
> which the stereotype applies.
Actually, from the paragraph you quoted, it looks like it's us
straights that
are "feminized"...
sharon
Vend wrote:
> Why despite competition?
> Females are likely to choose males who win the competition.
Females are likely to do a lot of things!
Including some who've adapted mating with ALL the males, to prevent the
male from knowing whose offspring it really is, and killing the
offspring.
Sex keeps evolving like the arms race.
sharon
Vend wrote:
> > "women's senses are generally sharper than men's"
>
> Evidence?
You're having trouble posting too. Saw you posted the same thing twice,
a minute apart.
sharon
Nic wrote:
> > When the comparison is made between humans and other apes, there is a lot
> > of outrage expressed too. Doesn't change the science though.
>
> Indeed. I was questioning Sharon's choice of example (I accept there
> are plenty of examples to choose from). What I would call 'wired
> differently' for purposes of this discussion is something that affects
> a skill or aptitude, not just a preference - obviously there has to be
> hard wiring of preferences. My response didn't articulate this because
> I no doubt succumbed to the temptation to troll.
Nic said he didn't think women's and men's brains are wired
differently. Men and women's brains are most assuredly wired different,
affecting behavior, this has been established through years of various
research, just as assuredly some men's vs. men's apparently are.
sharon
> Vend:
You didn't get that, did you?
In other words, I pay attention to not only what you say, how you say
it, but the details surrounding the times your post propagated, --
considering multiple variables, like what you are doing, haven't
checked -- but presume you might be using googlegroups, too. Don't
know. Women pay attention to a lot more details, than men do. That's
what the one article I reposted thrice, now said. Men's brain typically
function on the linear, tend to compartmentalize relevant information,
while women tend to gather more information -- things men consider
"irrelevant" and discard, women consider as part of an overall
equation.
Then again, on your question, you'll have to ask the scientists who've
been quoted in all those articles scattered around the internet.
Deadrat
news:1162110577.8...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> BACK ON TOPIC...
>
>> While men's brains may have evolved for sake of hunting animals,
>> women were evolving to hunt the men.
>
> Let me explain for those men who don't understand what intuition is,
> and how it works.
>
> Betty Broderick is an extreme, although pretty good example. I watched
> the movie. They were happily married to begin with I gather. A woman
> gets used to, and knows how a man is suppose to act... little things
> in his behavior. His eyes... how intimate he acts day to day, loving,
> -- Dan's behavior changed, and she began taking notice of it. He began
> coming home from work late, though telling her nothing was going on.
> He insulted her by saying she was over-reacting and no, she was not
> over-reacting.
I'm having trouble figuring out what was so "intuitive" about this.
Betty's husband's behavior changed: he began coming home late and as
evasive in his explanations.
> She was focused on his emotional fidelity (as many
> chimp studies in females have) -- she sensed he was being dishonest.
> He began growing farther apart from her, because she dared to
> challenge him on his fidelity... some snide men would think "he had a
> right to cheat and she should have just shut her whining" She felt he
> was lying, her intuition told her he was a lowdown, dirty cheat, and
> confronted him, he lies about it. She knew what her intuition was
> telling her, but his words were telling her another. That I believe
> was his error, he insulted her intelligence.
> She wasn't stupid, and she resented being taken for granted, her pride
> was smashed to a pulp... Though she was seeing another man after she
> and Dan divorced, she went back and killed him.
Strayed a little afield from intution, haven't we? What's your point?
If a man insults a woman (or her intuition), she should kill him.
> What Dan did to her,
> was probably the ultimate insult to a woman.
> Betty Broderick received piles of "fan mail" from women, after killing
> Dan.
> I think she took it as the ultimate insult, because for women
> emotional fidelity is normally very important, the act of monogamy
> tells a woman her worth -- and cheating is saying "You're not good
> enough ... you're not woman enough." But to lie to her face is to say
> "you're stupid too."
Acutally, a woman's fidelity tells us something about her worth, and a
man's infidelity tells us something about his lack of worth. If Betty
decided to cede the judgment of her self-worth to her husband, then she
was a fool.
> She killed him. There are men, even in this day
> and age, stupid enough to believe they have right to "70 virgins".
> What a single one of those poor girls, so guilty of, that they should
> be cursed to dwell with HIM for eternity?! They may be his blessing,
> but he's their curse.
These virgins appear in the afterlife. Let's not confuse them with
flesh-and-blood women.
> Women find it archaic arrogance on behalf of men.
>
> Also, in my personal experience, men who feel they have a right to
> cheat, and the right to *lie* about it, (what two consenting adults
> choose to do is one thing, but the woman seldom consents to his
> adulterous affairs)-- such men have other problematic, even criminal
> behaviors.
Maybe so. But there's still no private action for criminal behavior in
the US.
> Women will focus on emotional fidelity, watching for any clue that
> indicates he'll cheat. If a woman sees those signs... its time to dump
> him.
And then kill him, I suppose. Betty was sentenced to two consecutive 15
year to life terms. No more than what she deserved.
<snip>
Deadrat
Perplexed in Peoria
"Ben Standeven" <be...@pop.networkusa.net> wrote in message news:1162148845.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Er... How do you get that reading?
sharon
Deadrat wrote:
> > -- Dan's behavior changed, and she began taking notice of it. He began
> > coming home from work late, though telling her nothing was going on.
> > He insulted her by saying she was over-reacting and no, she was not
> > over-reacting.
>
> I'm having trouble figuring out what was so "intuitive" about this.
> Betty's husband's behavior changed: he began coming home late and as
> evasive in his explanations.
I suppose you can't.
- If you have no hard proof of extramarital affair. Betty didn't see
him with another woman. She couldn't prove it either. Just a strong
suspicion.
- He refuses to admit he's having an extramarital affair. She doesn't
even have the benefit of an admission.
.. but you sense he's having an extramarital affair, subtle clues he's
leaving all around, in things he says, and does... and an intuitive
woman puts everything together (that ability women have to consider
many variables, vs. a male discarding "irrelevant details") and arrives
at a judgment he is having an extramarital affair, based only on
intuition -- "you can feel it... you sense it... he's cheating."
I know, because I went through this myself with my first husband.
Despite not knowing his language, and he thought he was so very much
smarter than I... told me "I'm going to work now... I'll be gone for a
couple days." He'd head out and I had no idea where he was. He was
distant, odd thing, came in with a ring on his finger I did not
recognize... he didn't want to explain. I kept picking up on subtle and
not so subtle clues to what he was really doing. Phone calls -- and the
person wouldn't identify themself. Nobody told me... I just began
putting all these little hints together, and concluded he was cheating.
Then one evening he phones, and I told him "Don't lie to me anymore.
You tell me where you are." He lies. I told him, "You are at another
woman's house right now, aren't you?" He hesitated to answer, then I
told him, "I'm packing my stuff, and leaving." He came running home and
told me everything.
that's intuition.
why, Betty was right, wasn't she?
Nic
Maybe the work environment is a red herring, and all players are at an
equal disadvantage. In a more natural environment, seniority is based
on something (not necessarily something you like), whereas at work it
is fairly random.
> >
> > > sent to a friend of mine...we discuss psychology sometimes...
> > > "...It's like looking outside my back door at animals. I have male cats
> > > that wander up here... sometimes they fight. Sometimes they'll choose
> > > to dwell with each other in the same territory -- but at a healthy
> > > distance of each other. They're not born mean, they're trained to be
> > > that way out in the wild. The female cats are really frightened when
> > > aggression and competition breaks out between them. I've seen the
> > > female cat take off running and obviously she has nothing to gain from
> > > their conflicts, and wants nothing to do with them.
> >
> > Female cats fight too.
>
> normally, females do not provoke such confrontations. unless its for
> food, or to protect their cubs. granted, if a bear or tiger feels her
> cubs are in danger, she'll kill you. But males, typically,
> statistically, provoke the unwarranted confrontations. they also die
> more as a result of it.
It is an imperfect, approximate control system. Animals are not aware
of the underlying genetics, so they cannot focus their competitive
behaviour reliably on genetic outcomes - they often compete
'mistakenly'.
> I've seen documentaries on the injuries inflicted on young pups and
> cruelties at the teeth and claws of males from various mammal species,
> when they didn't get their way. They'll kill another male's cubs. The
> male provokes confrontations with other males. they'll force their way
> in on territory that's not their own with sole intent to take over.
> I've seen documentaries on the cruel mating rituals of some of the more
> primitive species... nurse sharks are a nice one, the male rips her
> gills open, leaving the female bleeding in the water -- all part of
> mating. It is not the female that instigates this common, aggressive
> behavior found in many males. If you need witness, take a look around
> at this predominantly male-dominated news forum, and all the males that
> apparently enjoy arguments and conflicts. Personally, I do not, and I
> have no interest in getting dragged into serious conflicts with any of
> them.
> Now, with exception to somebody who is wilfully lying and dishonest --
> manipulation -- underlying motives -- unfairly maligning a person --
> or, a serious misunderstanding I feel the need to correct, -- I don't
> like those things.
No need to over-explain!
> >
> > > But strange to me is, that it's not the same kind of "fear" the female
> > > has -- she runs away and nobody would say it's an act of "cowardice".
> > > The male is scared, has fear, but it comes out in a type of behavior
> > > that's like "maim or be maimed", doesn't seem to care about
> > > consequences, "kill or be killed"... matter of pride or his status.
> >
> > You are projecting a bit here. Even in humans it isn't really like
>
> I have seen the documentaries where males fight until they've inflicted
> serious injury, and sometimes die as a result.
>
> > that - not much room for pride. A bit like a country at war deciding
> > to surrender or not, or like one with a WMD deciding to use it or not.
>
> its not projection. That's what male conflicts look like to me.
> Threatening, even, insanity, and I don't want to be involved. Men
> sometimes kill men over an opinion. They will hurt you real bad. That's
> a fact. I've seen men and their conflicts, and I really don't
> understand, and maybe I don't want to -- they even seem to even enjoy
> it (that's the insanity of it).
There are different sorts of fights. Anyone with actual fighting
skills will not employ them hot-headedly, any more than they would say,
computer hacking skills. Most men have no fighting skills, and you
tend see the contender who loses the initial advantage being kicked
repeatedly once on the ground - and you know what? That is exactly
what I see when girls are fighting.
> I do not. Take for instance what the
> fundamentalist terrorists have done -- almost always men, and they cut
> people's heads off, but they never stop to ask "would I want this done
> to me?" I think women, in general, are more merciful than men. I am
> confused by males. It's appalling. In my experience.. they seem to
> think I (maybe they assume all women in general) reason like them,
> therefore we must enjoy conflict too, like them, competition,
> aggression in the same way they do, and attempt to lure me into an
> argument with them. Thinking I'm going to enjoy a boxing match? Not
> hardly. Let me make it clear, I am really not interested. They really
> have no idea, how they could be farther from the truth. I dislike it. I
> don't enjoy it. I'm interested in their neat factoids, their insights,
> their 2 cents on lots of "stuff" -- but not the fighting.
>
> My female cat concurs. She runs away when the males start fighting, or
> one of them has eaten the head off her newborn kitten.
Hum? I thought earlier you were talking about big cats on the African
savannah. This really shouldn't be going on on your kitchen floor.
What sort of a house are you running there?
I don't find that. People come here with ideas to sell. On the whole
they don't attack the other stall-holders, because each is so utterly
convinced of the superiority of their own product!
sharon
Estrogen
Any of several steroid hormones produced chiefly by the ovaries and
responsible for promoting estrus and the development and maintenance of
female secondary sex characteristics.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/estrogen
CreateThis
wrote:
>
>> CreateThis wrote:
>> >
>> > Sure. That's my point: she's pretty much preaching to the choir here,
>> > but seems to think she's locked in mortal combat with the forces of
>> > misogynistic evil.
>> >
>> > CT
>
>The big question is, what kind of long-term commitment and provider
>would you make? Never mind the "reproductive lottery".. would you be
>reliable in providing for offspring, protective over a female, and all
>the neat things that make for a stable relationship?
>
>>From your angry, insulting words, I gather not.
Angry? I thought you were supposed to be some kind of superintuitive,
supersensitive manreader.
>Though I have seen you
>write things that imply you want deep down, to be a gentleman, and
>treat women with respect. So its up in the air... I am not really sure
>right now, what kind of man you are. You can never tell this kind of
>stuff from a single conversation or a snapshot... it takes getting to
>know the person, and a lot of observation.
You're wrapped a little too tight to get to know me.
>>From what I've seen today, you would lose the reproductive lottery.
My family will be disappointed to know that.
>Unless I saw much more of the good, kinder side from you, no.
It's not entirely your choice, is it?
CT
sharon
Nic wrote:
> > Now, with exception to somebody who is wilfully lying and dishonest --
> > manipulation -- underlying motives -- unfairly maligning a person --
> > or, a serious misunderstanding I feel the need to correct, -- I don't
> > like those things.
>
> No need to over-explain!
I read that in Psychology class, women tend to apologize even when
they've done nothing wrong. Theres influences in society which tell
women they have something to apologize for. Just go to church and
listen to a sermon on Eve and what the Apostle Paul had to say about
women. Comes out in their language, unaware. Part of those "vibes"
which can be decoded by a careful observer, (whether by conscious
choice, or sub-conscious) that were brought into discussion earlier.
It's as possible to read body language as it is possible to read posts,
and picking up clues on who an individual is in private life.
Like I said about John Wilkins, (he apparently concurs) he's had formal
education which today requires Psychology courses of some sort or
another, and I've taken those courses -- a few of them, including human
relations in business, which deal with Psychology. John has quite
likely became aware of a lot of subtle things people do, without
realizing they do it. Conflict management, team leadership, lots of
stuff is covered in those Psychology classes. He's became skilled at
disguising his emotions, and exercising control over himself, and
others while he's at it.
dkomo
> dkomo wrote:
>
>
>>>Women will focus on emotional fidelity, watching for any clue that
>>>indicates he'll cheat.
>
>
>>Yeah right.
>
>
> YEAH.
>
> RIGHT.
>
>
>>statistics about the number of married men who cheat relative to the
>>number of married women who cheat? Adultery involving both females and
>>males is quite common in pair-bonding mammalian and bird species. It
>>apparently is a normal part of animal behavior.
>
>
> Your questions to me seem irrelevant to female intuition, and its role
> in female choice... especially in humans.
>
Umm, not really irrelevant. If cheating in men were a lot more common
than cheating in women, that could explain the evolution of a more
sensitive "mate cheater detection" module in the female brain. You can
call it "intuition" or whatever you like.
I did some half-hearted googling for adultery statistics but didn't find
much other than that in contemporary American society, 44% of married
men had committed adultery and 25% of married women had. So there is a
clear gender skew in the behavior. But this only applies to one society
for one historical period. Hardly enough data to base any conclusion on.
Deadrat
news:1162081145.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> CreateThis wrote:
>
>> 1. Is random internet combativeness an effective tool?
>
> I really don't understand why you feel there is an ongoing combat.
>
>>
>> 2. Is being obsessed with this a fulfilling life?
>>
>
> In other words, you're saying it should not be discussed in the age
> where we have access to mass communication, and a few bytes on Google
> Groups to publish the issue, and will probably end like most threads
> do, briefly, but yet, you find these ideas extremely "offensive", and
> the issue has no right to be discussed? The first admendment has lost
> all its meaning!
The First Amendment does not guarantee your ideas a respectful hearing,
or indeed a hearing at all. It does guarantee that the state cannot stop
you from speaking.
>
> You are very selective over other people's freedoms and interests.
> Quite controlling.
For the First Amendment, the only controllers who count are state actors.
>
> Like racism and other forms of discrimination, we were all to discuss
> the issue once, only around non-racists too, therefore, let's discuss
> it no more,
> let's not discuss females and intuition (when just yesterday some of
> you denied even the existence of this phenomena in the female brain!)
> "...because I am made personally uncomfortable by it" and "want to
> learn nothing about it" -- though I could have just as easily ignored
> this thread and picked over to something I wanted to read.
>
> You know, John Harshmann was the person who suggested to me last night,
> to start another thread under an appropriate title, on this topic?
> Therefore, I felt welcomed to do just that, and proceeded to gather
> even more information, which is seldom to never discussed except remote
> evolutionist and (pro-woman men) hovels in cyberspace.
>
> There are some men on this group whom I've taken note of, who have an
> interest in women and their abilities, and are interested in seeing
> women put on equal footing, and get their fair share out of life. Maybe
> they wanted to read? Or are you trying to control their interests and
> access to information as well?
>
> what I've posted is on topic for this newsgroup, and above all, it
> hasn't harmed a soul.
Just your reputation. But why would you care about that?
Deadrat
>
>> CT
>
>
Deadrat
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> CreateThis wrote:
>>
>> Sure. That's my point: she's pretty much preaching to the choir here,
>> but seems to think she's locked in mortal combat with the forces of
>> misogynistic evil.
>>
>> CT
>
> a lot of that is in your imagination.
>
> in difference to some of the nice, calm, friendlier men on this
> newsgroup, your words tell me you are hostile, unfriendly, quick to say
> unkind things, DEFENSIVE... and since we're on the subject, have no
> "emotional fidelity" toward me. *smile*
>
> I am quite observant of attitudes. More than the actual words you say,
> but HOW you say it... right now, I would not trust anything you have to
> say, because your attitude is shouting "ego trip" and when a man is on
> an ego trip, he's liable to say anything -- including dishonest things,
> or lies.
Stop projecting. All you're doing is reading your own feelings into
words on a screen.
>
> I ask myself, what is his motive... how does his words make me feel?
> I conclude, your words are *intended* to make me feel bad.
You can't know "his" motive. You can't even know whether "he" is male.
> You sort of remind me of my first ex-husband. He would make his wiley
> comments for no good reason, than simply to tear down esteem,
> ...because he was a controller, and he was abusive. He was also an
> adulterer. I left him. I refused to go back.
Why didn't you kill him, Betty? Sounds like he was askin' fer it.
>
> If you disagree with what I have to say, you can ignore it, or find
> nicer ways to say why you disagree. There's lots of very nice guys on
> this newsgroup to look to for an example how to act.
Name one.
Deadrat
Deadrat
news:1162141697....@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
You don't know any of the "guys" on this group. You don't even know
whether they're guys. Your "insight" is a just a projection of your
emotional state onto the words you're looking at. Wake up.
Deadrat
>> If a female can get impregnated by a male with a better set of genes
>> and then have her mate help raise the offspring, she wins in the
>> reproductive lottery. If a male can impregnate another male's mate,
>> and have him help raise the offspring, *he* wins in the reproductive
>> lottery. That's why adulterous behavior is common.
>>
>
> I don't care about reproductive lotteries. I'm the one holding the
> ovaries, remember?
>
> All I care about, is if he has MY interests at heart or not, because I
> will be primarily responsible for the offspring. Typically, females
> are responsible for the offspring. If there is no emotional fidelity,
> I am not investing my trust and confidence in him, or anything else
> for that matter. He won't stick around to help me when I need help
> with *his* offspring. Both of my formers, if I went to them today and
> asked, yes, they would help me with my children. I was looking at that
> aspect of their character, when I got involved with them. The one is
> married today, the other has repetitively begged we patch things up
> and get remarried. Help with the kids, sure they would.
>
> I test my buddy Ed all the time for his emotional fidelity, and we're
> not even having a sexual relationship. I've invested a lot into *our*
> site we built together -- and he's reciprocated an emotional AND
> FINANCIAL investment in it, and I watch him like a vulture... to see
> what he's doing on the sly.
Lucky Ed. Under constant suspicion, and he's not even getting laid.
Deadrat
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
for a stable relationship?
> >
> >>From your angry, insulting words, I gather not.
>
> Angry? I thought you were supposed to be some kind of superintuitive,
> supersensitive manreader.
Took you awhile to respond, didn't it? A little bit there to clear the
old head perhaps. prove to everyone you're a real big family man... got
your life "all together". I know plenty of women stuck in miserable
relationships that are on their last leg. That doesn't prove anything.
How long have you been married?
How much support do you offer your wife in little things, like do you
ever help with the dishes and give her a rose while you're at it.
An occasional "I love you", for no reason.
soforth. You're alright, didn't say you weren't, I told you that
already, I've seen where you've written (your choice, you weren't under
pressure from anyone to do so) to say things that imply you do care
(equates to emotional fidelity) about women. I observe emotional
behavior in individuals... and collect details about them, you would
consider irrelevant, and continue retaining such details, and that
means... after observing an individual long enough (they do not even
realize they're being observed and notes taken down), I can get a
pretty good idea what kind of person you really are from comparing
everything.
>
> CT
Nic
I can only guess at the relevance here. No doubt John Wilkins, before
he turns in at night, makes one last tour of his empire. He peers
round the door of a dark and almost silent room with only a few LEDs to
give away the awesome power of the server farm which is the talk
origins archive. And smugly he thinks "mine's bigger than that
Sharon's".
Deadrat
news:1162153446....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>> > -- Dan's behavior changed, and she began taking notice of it. He
>> > began coming home from work late, though telling her nothing was
>> > going on. He insulted her by saying she was over-reacting and no,
>> > she was not over-reacting.
>>
>> I'm having trouble figuring out what was so "intuitive" about this.
>> Betty's husband's behavior changed: he began coming home late and as
>> evasive in his explanations.
>
> I suppose you can't.
I was being polite. I'm surprised you didn't intuit that. What I meant
was that there's no need to posit some magical "intuition," when obvious
behavioral changes would give even the least observant wife cause for
concern.
> - If you have no hard proof of extramarital affair. Betty didn't see
> him with another woman. She couldn't prove it either. Just a strong
> suspicion.
Because of suspicious behavior.
>
> - He refuses to admit he's having an extramarital affair. She doesn't
> even have the benefit of an admission.
She doesn't need a confession. Obervation and logic will account for the
correct conclusion she draws.
>
> .. but you sense he's having an extramarital affair, subtle clues he's
> leaving all around, in things he says, and does... and an intuitive
> woman puts everything together (that ability women have to consider
> many variables, vs. a male discarding "irrelevant details") and
> arrives at a judgment he is having an extramarital affair, based only
> on intuition -- "you can feel it... you sense it... he's cheating."
Subtle? Coming home late? Refusing to give any explanation?
>
> I know, because I went through this myself with my first husband.
> Despite not knowing his language, and he thought he was so very much
> smarter than I... told me "I'm going to work now... I'll be gone for a
> couple days." He'd head out and I had no idea where he was. He was
> distant, odd thing, came in with a ring on his finger I did not
> recognize... he didn't want to explain. I kept picking up on subtle
> and not so subtle clues to what he was really doing. Phone calls --
> and the person wouldn't identify themself. Nobody told me... I just
> began putting all these little hints together, and concluded he was
> cheating.
Your first husband does everything but write "I'm having an affair" on
your mirror with your lipstick, and you're claiming you knew he was
cheating based on your intuition?
> Then one evening he phones, and I told him "Don't lie to me
> anymore. You tell me where you are." He lies. I told him, "You are at
> another woman's house right now, aren't you?" He hesitated to answer,
> then I told him, "I'm packing my stuff, and leaving." He came running
> home and told me everything.
Look, if this story is true and your reporting of your reactions is true,
then this sounds like a traumatic episode in your life. Don't take my
conditional as an insult: I can't know anything about you or your life
except what's before me on screen. But your intuition was not some
magical power, just a set of logical conclusions from observation. Some
women don't follow the logic or make the observations. "I was the last
to know" is practically a cliche. So much for women's intuition, eh?
And you're using your own non-existent intuition on this newsgroup to
determine the character and characteristics of other posters. All you're
doing is looking into the mirror.
> that's intuition.
>
> why, Betty was right, wasn't she?
Yeah, right where she belongs. In prison.
Deadrat
sharon
dkomo wrote:
> Umm, not really irrelevant. If cheating in men were a lot more common
> than cheating in women, that could explain the evolution of a more
> sensitive "mate cheater detection" module in the female brain. You can
> call it "intuition" or whatever you like.
If its any consolation to you, I am a woman, and I am quite in touch
with what I feel and think, and not influenced too well by what I
perceive people *want* me to say. Quite the contrary, if somebody were
to point out a fact, I can accept a fact, but I recognize "argument for
sake of argument" for what it is, and "opinions" for what they are.
I'm honest, to the point of being "brutally honest," sometimes.
I share my opinion. My opinion comes from past Psychology courses, news
released on research performed on men and women and, best of all just a
life experience.
Of course, in the society we live in, besides teaching males to be
tough, competitive and aggressive, it's traditionally been to demean
women's practical judgment on a lot of matters, besides this one.
> --dkomocris.com
CreateThis
wrote:
>
>CreateThis wrote:
>for a stable relationship?
>> >
>> >>From your angry, insulting words, I gather not.
>>
>> Angry? I thought you were supposed to be some kind of superintuitive,
>> supersensitive manreader.
>
>Took you awhile to respond, didn't it? A little bit there to clear the
>old head perhaps. prove to everyone you're a real big family man... got
>your life "all together".
You responded right away. Hanging on my every word?
>I know plenty of women stuck in miserable
>relationships that are on their last leg.
Yes, it sounds like you do.
>How long have you been married?
How long have you been single?
CT
sharon
Deadrat wrote:
> You don't know any of the "guys" on this group. You don't even know
> whether they're guys. Your "insight" is a just a projection of your
> emotional state onto the words you're looking at. Wake up.
you're being abrasive. Isn't that obvious? You know why? Because you're
an abrasive person.
Now let's get into deeper details on this...
Why you're speaking to me? Because you're argumentative. You want to
provoke an argument. You don't even qualify in the example of John
Harshmann who has a reputation of being abrasive. He's abrasive too...
but different than yours. He has once (excuse me John) -- when I was
under attack by some of you mindless insulters -- John wrote something
I vaguely recall -- the man he really is -- a calm, thoughtful,
reassuring "Just calm down, and everything will be okay." He's not at
all like you. He's a much nicer person.. and he's left clues to that
all over this newsgroup.
WAKE UP. It tells me many things about you, choosing a disgusting,
stupid screen name like "Dead Rat". Ever smelled one?
Considering you are the source for your information, why should any
intelligent person invest any serious interest in any thing you have to
say?
I really am not concerned about your criticism. You want people
(including me) to think you're a troublemaker. What could you possibly
have to offer to this issue? It does require a certain degree of
emotional maturity to understand intuition, which you've proven you
completely lack.
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
>
> You responded right away. Hanging on my every word?
On everyone's. Sometimes, being a female, and being we have much
sharper senses than men ... yes, it gets upsetting, ... you already
know women statistically cry more than men too. Their senses are
sharper, and they do hang on to far more details than men do. You're
correct.
>
> >I know plenty of women stuck in miserable
> >relationships that are on their last leg.
>
> Yes, it sounds like you do.
Which may include your wife? But I'm already sensing who and what you
are. Your ego is doing this talking. And upon realizing you're being
hurtful, and DO hurt, in reality, you're not wanting to do that. You're
like "Hey c'mon, don't get upset." And like most men I know, turn
around and apologize when they say things they really didn't mean out
of anger or whatever.
>
> >How long have you been married?
>
> How long have you been single?
I'm not single. I have three kids to watch out for.
Trying to imply that a woman MUST BE INVOLVED at all times with a man,
or "there's something wrong with her"? If you must know, recently my ex
husband was spending time here on and off, helping with the kids. Yes,
I am single and I enjoy it. I am selective of my friends, and I choose
for a few good loyal friends who give me a lot of emotional
satisfaction.
Perhaps my being single is by choice? Was married twice, and I did not
enjoy it. Saw too many other women, who cannot seem to do without a man
-- and they end up compromising themselves, and unhappy. Or, eventually
leave, i.e., both working, but he won't help around the house with
chores... thinks that's demeaning and "woman's work". Saw a lot of
couples bust up over it. Is something wrong with a woman who's in a
lesbian relationship, or how about a man who chooses a homosexual
relationship... do you consider them having "something wrong" with
their choices? Then what's wrong with my choice, at this time, I want
to be alone with my children? The more I see, like the news, about a
young boyfriend who picks up the woman's two year old and threw him
through the window -- and killed the kid, the less interested I am. had
guys around, they seem a little too interested in Budweiser, or tell
me, "I wish you'd get off that computer." Or a bit too bossy, "let's go
out tonight", and when I don't want to do just what they want to do,
they throw an egotistical temper tantrum, or give me the cold shoulder
treatment. Trying to control my life. I prefer to be alone. Does that
answer your questions?
Above all, there is no law requiring that I must explain myself to you,
is there? there's that problematic control streak I see in you, that I
told you about earlier, again... and a few of those old-traditional
stereotypes (women MUST BE involved, or something's wrong with her...
barefoot and pregnant... you know?)
>
> CT
sharon
> CreateThis wrote:
> Which may include your wife?
I take that back. I think you say things out of anger, sometimes, too
quick to say things, defensive, and you don't consider the consequences
of just how badly it may hurt others, but when you see you have hurt
them, you're the kind of man who will apologize, and take it back...
you're not really wanting to hurt anyone.
> > CT
CreateThis
wrote:
It doesn't matter to me that you're single or why. It was just easy
to guess from the chip you have on your shoulder for men. By
contrast, you've got nothing right about me. So much for your
piercing female intuition.
CT
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
> >Perhaps my being single is by choice?
>
> It doesn't matter to me that you're single or why.
You lie. If you didn't, you wouldn't have asked me the question to
begin with. You didn't care to know why, as much as you wanted to make
a point. You did not anticipate an answer half as good as the one I
gave you... you were attempting to say, "since you're alone, you must
not be a very good judge on men"... and all these guys on the newsgroup
are now looking at you... what to show?
I gave you an answer that cut straight to the heart of your attitude.
You do retain a lot of old traditional stereotypes. i.e., something
wrong with a woman if she's not straddled down with kids and a man to
wash his drawers, cook for him, clean for him, etc. Nope, I don't want
that.
I'm alone, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Since my response wasn't awkward, and proving "yes, I'm alone,
therefore you're right C.T., I am just a stupid dimwit and you win the
argument." Be serious. Your ego is talking.
You didn't prove me wrong. Got to win this stupid argument. Because you
have many, many tough, aggressive, competitive men looking at you. But,
if you were actually saying this one on one with a woman, as soon as
they're gone... and you're seeing the hurt you've caused by FORCING an
argument... you're going to do just what I said, in hindsight, you
don't like how you say things, your ego made you say.
Again, what John Harshmann did just a couple nights ago. I made the
"horrible accusation" he's really a good guy, based on little things
I've seen him say and do... but for sake of argument, he said I was
wrong about *everything*. So, what's he possibly proving by denying --
that he's a bad person offline? Nah, John Harshmann has his good
points, and he need not deny them.
It was just easy
> to guess from the chip you have on your shoulder for men. By
You have a chip on your shoulder. Actually, I find you quite peculiar.
And, of course since there are many tough, aggressive, competitive
males observing your responses, and you feel pressured to cave to what
you believe they want you to say, and act like -- this conversation is
hopeless. However, one on one, you'd rather avoid this conflict we are
having. Because one on one, you wouldn't be facing the pressure they're
putting on you to act this or that way -- you'd feel the pressure of
how I would want you to act. In other words, they make it impossible
for you to be yourself, to admit your sensitivities, and they prevent
friendship growing between yourself and others.
Your ego is your greatest weakness, that's the case for most men.
Pride.
> contrast, you've got nothing right about me. So much for your
> piercing female intuition.
You mean right after you claimed you're a good family man, now you're
saying you are (despite what my own intuition, tells me, and I
proceeded to confirm some of the claims you made) -- you'd rather lie,
when the truth is better, and go for claiming you're INSENSITIVE to
women. Afterall, that's what I said dear, that you are the type who
says things that hurt, and then turn around and say, "I'm sorry," but
you have to actually see the tears on the face before you realize what
you've done. You aren't intuitive enough to avoid making these kinds of
errors in the first place.
You discredit your own earlier claims of being a good family man, by
denying what I've said about you.
I say, you're sensitive, and you say things often, you wish you didn't.
Lots of guys do this.
Little insecure there and not always certain how you're suppose to act.
In fact, it's impossible when you have 20 or 30 men breathing down your
shoulder, reading everything -- you've got to win that argument, even
if it requires lying or denying things you know are true.
>
> CT
sharon
CreateThis wrote:
>
> CT
You're a man, you have your weaknesses. but I can overlook that.
You know, I'd much rather have peaceful communication with you.
Anyway, I don't think it's worthwhile to continue doing free psychic
evals on you guys. There's folks getting paid big for this stuff.
*laughs* I don't come on this group to argue, and really that's all
most threads get turned into -- a mish mash of insults, accusations,
and I have other things to do, than getting all worked up over comments
men make because their pride was (all worked up).
Deadrat
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Vend wrote:
>
>> Why despite competition?
>> Females are likely to choose males who win the competition.
>
> Females are likely to do a lot of things!
>
> Including some who've adapted mating with ALL the males, to prevent the
> male from knowing whose offspring it really is, and killing the
> offspring.
>
> Sex keeps evolving like the arms race.
"Arms race" here has a technical meaning, the co-evolution of defenses of
prey against predators and the abilities of predators to counter those
defenses. I don't see how that applies to sexual behavior within a
species.
Deadrat
Nic
sharon wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
>
> > You don't know any of the "guys" on this group. You don't even know
> > whether they're guys. Your "insight" is a just a projection of your
> > emotional state onto the words you're looking at. Wake up.
>
> you're being abrasive. Isn't that obvious? You know why? Because you're
> an abrasive person.
>
> Now let's get into deeper details on this...
>
> Why you're speaking to me? Because you're argumentative. You want to
> provoke an argument. You don't even qualify in the example of John
> Harshmann who has a reputation of being abrasive. He's abrasive too...
> but different than yours. He has once (excuse me John) -- when I was
> under attack by some of you mindless insulters -- John wrote something
> I vaguely recall -- the man he really is -- a calm, thoughtful,
> reassuring "Just calm down, and everything will be okay." He's not at
> all like you. He's a much nicer person.. and he's left clues to that
> all over this newsgroup.
>
> WAKE UP. It tells me many things about you, choosing a disgusting,
> stupid screen name like "Dead Rat". Ever smelled one?
This topic just isn't getting anywhere near silly enough for my liking.
I'm sure deadrat isn't stepping over the headless torsos of kittens
when he stumbles into his kitchen in the morning.
CreateThis
wrote:
>You're a man, you have your weaknesses. but I can overlook that.
More than I dared hope for from a member of the emotionally superior
gender.
CT
John Wilkins
Sharon, will you get off this kick? I have not done formal pyschology
classes. I don't have training at hiding my emotions, unless you count
an uptight family as training. And you can't intuit what people are
thinking in an ASCII only medium. There's no body language, no tics or
hand gestures, and no physical context. In this sort of communication,
emotions don't generally convey, and besides, I get plenty heated at
times.
"Vibes" are a 1970s invention, like auras.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
John Wilkins
You forgot that I also demean my minions, and piss around the perimeter.
Pfusand
On Oct 28, 4:37 pm, "sharon" <sharon192837...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pfusandwrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2:22 pm, "sharon" <sharon192837...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > > Female intuition provides a clear advantage over males for females.
>
> > > "women's senses are generally sharper than men's"http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/culture1.html
> > ...
>
> > Uh, excuse me.
>
> > Why are you referring to sensory perception as "intuition"?Because it is.
>
> Google up "decoding nonverbal female intuition".
>
> Random House | Books | The Definitive Book of Body Language
> ...Female intuition is particularly evident in women who have raised
> children. For the first few years, the mother relies almost solely on
> the nonverbal ...www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780553804720&view=exc...
>
> Exploring the Origins and Information Processing Differences
> ...Also, the ancient concept of women's intuition could actually be
> based in part on women's greater accuracy at decoding nonverbal cues or
> their tendency to ...
> findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3896/is_200101/ai_n8945616
>
> [PDF] "Subordination" and sensitivity to nonverbal cues: A study of
> ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
> better at decoding the female voice (the voice that should be more
> salient ... Women's intuition: The effect of subordinate role on
> interpersonal ...www.springerlink.com/index/Q151516K086377PU.pdf
Oh, I see. You have decided that using an old, demeaning term for a
series of skills is appropriate.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Deadrat
news:1162157331.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>> You don't know any of the "guys" on this group. You don't even know
>> whether they're guys. Your "insight" is a just a projection of your
>> emotional state onto the words you're looking at. Wake up.
>
> you're being abrasive. Isn't that obvious?
No, you've taken my words, which state some simple facts (you don't know
any of the people you're corresponding with, and you don't know their
sex) and a simple inference (your insights cannot be based on what you
don't know) and because they contradict your point of view, you've
decided the words are "abrasive."
> You know why? Because you're an abrasive person.
You know absolutely nothing about me. I may be an abrasive person; I may
be meek and unassuming.
> Now let's get into deeper details on this...
>
> Why you're speaking to me? Because you're argumentative.
I repeat. You know nothing about me. I have offered a contradcitory
view from yours, and you therefore have decided not that I'm offering an
argument, but that I'm "argumentative."
> You want to provoke an argument.
How am I doing?
> You don't even qualify in the example of John
> Harshmann who has a reputation of being abrasive. He's abrasive too...
Please note that John spells his last name with one 'n.' I find John the
least abrasive of informed posters on this newsgroup. But that's my
interpretation of his posts. I don't know him, and neither do you.
> but different than yours. He has once (excuse me John) -- when I was
> under attack by some of you mindless insulters -- John wrote something
> I vaguely recall -- the man he really is -- a calm, thoughtful,
> reassuring "Just calm down, and everything will be okay."
So John wrote something you liked, so you like him. Fine.
> He's not at all like you.
Probably not.
> He's a much nicer person..
You have absolutely no basis for making this statement. John may be a
serial killer, and I may have dedicated my life to helping the poor.
Stick with the evidence and logic of the posts. Your screen is not a
crystal ball.
> and he's left clues to that all over this newsgroup.
No, you've decided that what he writes are clues. *You've* decided.
>
> WAKE UP. It tells me many things about you, choosing a disgusting,
> stupid screen name like "Dead Rat".
It tells you nothing about me. You don't know why I use the name, and in
fact, it is irrelevant to any argument I have to make, which arguments
stand or fall on the evidence presented and the logic employed.
> Ever smelled one?
Oh, my dear, you don't know the half of it.
> Considering you are the source for your information, why should any
> intelligent person invest any serious interest in any thing you have to
> say?
Ah, the ultimate ad hominem. Since *I* have advanced an argument, then
no one (or at least no one intelligent) need pay attention to what I have
to say.
Nota bene: I've employed no such argument against you. I think your
point of view ill founded, and I've challenged your ideas.
> I really am not concerned about your criticism.
Why should you be "concerned"? You don't know me.
> You want people (including me) to think you're a troublemaker.
I think your evidence is paltry and your conclusions are nonsense. What
trouble do you think I'm making (or even could make) by stating that?
> What could you possibly have to offer to this issue?
The same thing everyone here might offer. Evidence and argument.
> It does require a certain degree of
> emotional maturity to understand intuition,
It requires a certain intellectual rigor to understand anything. I'm
suggesting you ratchet yours up a notch.
> which you've proven you completely lack.
Again. You know nothing about me except that you don't like that I've
contradicted you.
Deadrat
Deadrat
news:1162162567.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> CreateThis wrote:
>>
>> CT
>
> You're a man, you have your weaknesses. but I can overlook that.
Imagine his relief at hearing that.
> You know, I'd much rather have peaceful communication with you.
How about a substantive one?
> Anyway, I don't think it's worthwhile to continue doing free psychic
> evals on you guys.
Nice Freudian slip. But the only *psychological* information you're
posting is about yourself.
> There's folks getting paid big for this stuff.
Avail yourself.
> *laughs* I don't come on this group to argue,
My intuition tells me that's *exactly* why you're here.
> and really that's all
> most threads get turned into -- a mish mash of insults, accusations,
> and I have other things to do,
Really?
> than getting all worked up over comments
> men make because their pride was (all worked up).
Deadrat
sharon
John Wilkins wrote:
> Sharon, will you get off this kick? I have not done formal pyschology
> classes. I don't have training at hiding my emotions, unless you count
I did not say you were a Psychologist.
I did not say that. I said you have had education, including knowledge
of Psychology. You even posted some information just a couple days ago,
which would indicate you are in fact, familiar with Psychology.
> an uptight family as training. And you can't intuit what people are
> thinking in an ASCII only medium. There's no body language, no tics or
That is not what the research points to. Women can. They have very
different reasoning patterns than men. Information you discard, women
tend to retain, and they tend to focus on emotional. Like figuring out
moods, attitudes, character.
John, you know yourself that several research projects, all pointing
toward the same conclusion are not wrong. For instance, monitoring the
brain -- while women are showing activity in one region (intellectual)
of the brain, men show activity in another (primitive).
But some are denying this information, and without a scrap of research
to support their denials.
You're not denying science, John. I know you are not denying scientific
data. Multiple research projects have been performed. The more research
that's done, the more science is concluding men have misdiagnosed women
for centuries -- most of history. Just as days ago, I was accused of
discussing "irrelevant" things, and I reposted an excerpt from an
article stating exactly that. Women tend to consider more variables,
and men discard information they think are irrelevant. The things I
discussed, was not irrelevant to me nor would it have been to most
women.
> hand gestures, and no physical context. In this sort of communication,
Communication is communication.
> emotions don't generally convey, and besides, I get plenty heated at
> times.
and?
do I sense anger, not really.
do I sense sadness. nope.
do I sense you trying to communicate a certain p.o.v., yes. You're not
emotionally tied up in this... but some of the guys are, very easily.
They must win every single argument, and if they do not, they will
slander, insult, deny truths, or whatnot. That's ego talking.
>
> John S. Wilkins,
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
You've never taken psychology courses?
> University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
Been in college? Looks just like that to me. I was required to take
psychology courses, just as soon as I entered college-- several of them
in fact. I know that what I learned changed my outlook as a person.
Those courses will help anyone gain more self-control, confidence, team
leadership skills, and soforth -- if they're actually reading the text
and doing the course work. From experiments performed on Groupthink to
gender roles and society.
Yup, you're more in control of yourself, better reasoned than many I've
encountered on this group.
I think that's knowing enough about you, isn't it?
In fact, it is. That's just "a little piece" of John Wilkins' overall
character.
Perplexed in Peoria
"sharon" <sharon1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1162154065.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > "Ben Standeven" <be...@pop.networkusa.net> wrote in message news:1162148845.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Here is what the article said:
> > > >
> > > > The researchers found that the testosterone compound activated
> > > > the hypothalamus in homosexual men and heterosexual women, but
> > > > not heterosexual men. Conversely, the estrogen compound activated
> > > > the hypothalamus only in heterosexual men.
> > > >
> > > > I realize that it is a pre-scientific stereotype to say that gay men
> > > > are somehow 'feminized' males. But the fact that it is a stereotype
> > > > doesn't make it automatically wrong. This seems to be one area in
> > > > which the stereotype applies.
> > >
> > > Actually, from the paragraph you quoted, it looks like it's us
> > > straights that
> > > are "feminized"...
> >
> > Er... How do you get that reading?
>
> "estrogen compound activated the hypothalamus only in heterosexual
> men."
Er... Those guys were *smelling* that estrogen compound, not making it.
I wouldn't call it being 'feminized' if you catch 'the scent of a
woman' and respond appropriately. Quoting from the article:
The scientists exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual
men to chemicals found in male and female sex hormones. One chemical
is a testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat. The other
chemical is an estrogen-like compound in women's urine.
These chemicals have long been suspected of being pheromones,
molecules emitted by one individual that evoke some behavior in
another of the same species. Pheromones trigger basic responses,
such as sexual attraction, in many animals.
But scientists have long debated if humans respond to pheromones.
The new study suggests that pheromones indeed play a part in making
humans sexually attractive to one another.
Vend
sharon wrote:
> You didn't get that, did you?
>
> In other words, I pay attention to not only what you say, how you say
> it, but the details surrounding the times your post propagated, --
> considering multiple variables, like what you are doing, haven't
> checked -- but presume you might be using googlegroups, too. Don't
> know. Women pay attention to a lot more details, than men do. That's
> what the one article I reposted thrice, now said. Men's brain typically
> function on the linear, tend to compartmentalize relevant information,
> while women tend to gather more information -- things men consider
> "irrelevant" and discard, women consider as part of an overall
> equation.
>
> Then again, on your question, you'll have to ask the scientists who've
> been quoted in all those articles scattered around the internet.
You discovered I used google to post! How do you did? Do you have
magical powers? Do you beat someone to get the information? No it must
be your superior femmine intellect capable of doing fine reasoning that
my linear testosterone-poisoned aggressive ape-like male brain can't
understand.
Just joking... :D
Vend
sharon wrote:
> Vend wrote:
>
> > Why despite competition?
> > Females are likely to choose males who win the competition.
>
> Females are likely to do a lot of things!
>
> Including some who've adapted mating with ALL the males, to prevent the
> male from knowing whose offspring it really is, and killing the
> offspring.
If the female keeps mating with all the males she can find, how she
knows who's the father of her offspring?
It doesn't seems a clever reproductive strategy.
Moreover it doesn't happen to observe it in humans.
Human females compete with each others to get the males in the highest
possible social position, human males compete with each others to be in
the highest possible social position.
sharon
John Wilkins wrote:
> Nic <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > origins archive. And smugly he thinks "mine's bigger than that
> > Sharon's".
and how big is yours Nic?
But to address your comment. No, he does not. I can state that as a
matter of fact, John Wilkins does not. (Unless he felt I was competing
with him, then he might, but John knows I am not in personal
competition with him). So why would he? I have not provoked him.
John Wilkins is actually thinking that's quite silly because John
Wilkins doesn't care what I do on the web, ... except happy when he's
seen that myself and others have done something productive, like
getting a couple of very nice professors to assist in a couple of
interesting evolution articles recently, and John Wilkins is
supportive, and like "Good going!" you know why, because me and John
Wilkins are on the same side, that of science. I'm not his enemy, and
therefore, he's certainly got to crack a bit of a smile to this foolish
nonsense.
John Wilkins has enough confidence, that he doesn't have to run other
people down in the dirt to build himself up. won't look it up, you guys
can do it yourselves, Mark Twain said something about people who seek
to belittle ambitions... small people always do that, but great people
make you feel you can achieve great things too. Great, as in building
the origins archive??
Great people don't belittle others. Nope, in fact, I have seen where
John Wilkins has made efforts to BUILD UP OTHERS, instead of tear their
ambitions down.
>
> You forgot that I also demean my minions, and piss around the perimeter.
Oh yes, I know. But how often, and when provoked, isn't it?
I know everything I need and want to know about you John.
Don't deny what I've said. It's the truth.
sharon
Vend wrote:
> If the female keeps mating with all the males she can find, how she
> knows who's the father of her offspring?
> It doesn't seems a clever reproductive strategy.
What benefit in knowing the father, as long as the offspring is
provided for.
>
> Moreover it doesn't happen to observe it in humans.
Does that change what a species of ape's peculiar breeding habits are
like?
>
> Human females compete with each others to get the males in the highest
I don't.
> possible social position, human males compete with each others to be in
> the highest possible social position.
All males do? Are you absolutely sure about that? I see a lot of men
walking along the road without even a car, and couldn't care less.
They're looking for that next Bud, and could care less about social
position.
Vend
sharon wrote:
> > an uptight family as training. And you can't intuit what people are
> > thinking in an ASCII only medium. There's no body language, no tics or
>
> That is not what the research points to. Women can. They have very
> different reasoning patterns than men. Information you discard, women
> tend to retain, and they tend to focus on emotional. Like figuring out
> moods, attitudes, character.
Does research show that females can read emotions in written text
better than males?
> John, you know yourself that several research projects, all pointing
> toward the same conclusion are not wrong. For instance, monitoring the
> brain -- while women are showing activity in one region (intellectual)
> of the brain, men show activity in another (primitive).
Can you provide a link, please?
> But some are denying this information, and without a scrap of research
> to support their denials.
>
> You're not denying science, John. I know you are not denying scientific
> data. Multiple research projects have been performed. The more research
> that's done, the more science is concluding men have misdiagnosed women
> for centuries -- most of history. Just as days ago, I was accused of
> discussing "irrelevant" things, and I reposted an excerpt from an
> article stating exactly that. Women tend to consider more variables,
> and men discard information they think are irrelevant. The things I
> discussed, was not irrelevant to me nor would it have been to most
> women.
According to your theory we would expect women to:
1) Be less capable of generalization but more 'creative' than men
2) Be more subject to cognitive biases like apophenia, pareidolia,
clustering illusion
3) Be more likely to have psychotic disorders.
I'm not sure but I think that there is little or no evidence of this.
sharon
>
> > Sharon, will you get off this kick? I have not done formal pyschology
There's no "kick" John. It's a matter of deductive logic. Tests,
research, studies, etc have pointed out difference in reasoning of men
vs. women.
Fact: Women retain information men consider irrelevant.
Here while back I was following the threads, and one of the guys posts
in sarcasm, if those young women were interested in his old (ommitting
adjectives) self, he'd take several of them. Another woman told him he
better check out the pricetag.
Elsewhere he posts, he was out chopping wood, and speaks like he's a
regular Charles Atlas... and women were gawking at him.
He's amusing.
I retain information like that and my mind (female mind) processes it
as a contradiction. Is he old and haggard, or youthful and sturdy?
Either way, it didn't provoke any sexual interest in him -- just
curiosity which is the truth. And, upon catching such a bold
contradiction -- anything he says, I won't be able to trust it. I
realized "he's liable to say anything online, and therefore ... no way
to know when he's telling the truth or not."
Oh well, good way to throw people off your scent though.
Vend
sharon wrote:
> Vend wrote:
>
> > If the female keeps mating with all the males she can find, how she
> > knows who's the father of her offspring?
> > It doesn't seems a clever reproductive strategy.
>
> What benefit in knowing the father, as long as the offspring is
> provided for.
I thought you were suggesting that those females selectively kill the
offspring of the males they don't like. If they can't distinguish the
fathers there is no way of doing that.
> >
> > Moreover it doesn't happen to observe it in humans.
>
> Does that change what a species of ape's peculiar breeding habits are
> like?
I was talking about humans.
Anyway, what species of ape do that?
> >
> > Human females compete with each others to get the males in the highest
>
> I don't.
Well, there are always anomalies.
> > possible social position, human males compete with each others to be in
> > the highest possible social position.
>
> All males do? Are you absolutely sure about that?
As I said before, there are always anomalies.
> I see a lot of men
> walking along the road without even a car, and couldn't care less.
1) Claiming not to care doesn't imply don't really caring: many people
claim that they don't like what they can't afford, but given the
opportunity they would buy it.
2) A car doesn't equate to high social position. In some cultures (more
properly sub-cultures) the quality of your car is an indicator of your
social position, but this is not universal.
Any culture has its preculiar set of social sybols and rules for
properly displaying them.
Using social symbols not accepted in a culture or displayied
inappropriately according to its rules, tags you as a wannabe outsider,
placing you low in the social ladder.
> They're looking for that next Bud, and could care less about social
> position.
Seems unlikely. Can you read their minds? Oh, sorry, you are female,
you can do it. :D
Nic
sharon wrote:
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Nic <harris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > origins archive. And smugly he thinks "mine's bigger than that
> > > Sharon's".
>
> and how big is yours Nic?
Obviously you're not in humorous mode. 'Fraid I still am - and I know
it's not good for me.
> But to address your comment. No, he does not. I can state that as a
> matter of fact, John Wilkins does not. (Unless he felt I was competing
> with him, then he might, but John knows I am not in personal
> competition with him). So why would he? I have not provoked him.
Your guess is as good as mine. That seems to be what this feminine
intuition piece is all about - guess and refine.
> John Wilkins is actually thinking that's quite silly because John
> Wilkins doesn't care what I do on the web, ... except happy when he's
> seen that myself and others have done something productive, like
> getting a couple of very nice professors to assist in a couple of
> interesting evolution articles recently, and John Wilkins is
> supportive, and like "Good going!" you know why, because me and John
> Wilkins are on the same side, that of science. I'm not his enemy, and
> therefore, he's certainly got to crack a bit of a smile to this foolish
> nonsense.
What's this attack of nerves about? I for one think your work is very
good. I don't know why you are (unilaterally) talking of sides. Maybe
I am out of the loop.
Nic
Apologies.
sharon
Vend wrote:
> sharon wrote:
>
> > > an uptight family as training. And you can't intuit what people are
> > > thinking in an ASCII only medium. There's no body language, no tics or
> >
> > That is not what the research points to. Women can. They have very
> > different reasoning patterns than men. Information you discard, women
> > tend to retain, and they tend to focus on emotional. Like figuring out
> > moods, attitudes, character.
>
> Does research show that females can read emotions in written text
> better than males?
Will repost, so there's no mistake. Small example for John. Women catch
details, which men consider irrelevant information. Men discard the
information. Women compare notes on the info they collect. Women can
figure out if a man is being honest, or telling a fib. Women can sense,
from this kind of information if a man is trustworthy or not... and a
lot of other things. In fact, I've had guys try to snow me, and I
sensed it... they were deliberately trying to put on a front, thinking
I could not see through it. But I sensed it. I cut off communication
with them. You know.. like online predator-types. I sensed it, that's
all I can say. Ray Martinez, he was telling me I was "winking at the
group" -- and it was just so dumb, how he said it, I sensed this guy
was trying to put some kind of thought in my mind, that wasn't there,
and didn't belong there. His "ignorance act" was just transparent...
and I soon figured out, he was doing it on purpose. That's when I
confronted him -- and started talking to the TRUE Ray Martinez. He is
ignorant, but not stupid..
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > Sharon, will you get off this kick? I have not done formal pyschology
There's no "kick" John. It's a matter of deductive logic. Tests,
He's amusing.
>
> > John, you know yourself that several research projects, all pointing
> > toward the same conclusion are not wrong. For instance, monitoring the
> > brain -- while women are showing activity in one region (intellectual)
> > of the brain, men show activity in another (primitive).
>
> Can you provide a link, please?
See above post. Feel free to go look up what Desertphile said yourself.
My recollection is close enough, but not word for word. After catching
his contradiction, my mind (like men's) begins the process of
discarding the information as irrelevant, too.
sharon
Vend wrote:
> > misdiagnosed women
> > for centuries --
>
> According to your theory we would expect women to:
> 1) Be less capable of generalization but more 'creative' than men
> 2) Be more subject to cognitive biases like apophenia, pareidolia,
> clustering illusion
> 3) Be more likely to have psychotic disorders.
How do you figure all this? Men are better at spatial abilities, but
not all men. In fact, for a gender so capable of skills in science,
math, etc -- they sure are flooding the prisons. Very few ever discover
a new energy source, or make a breakthrough discovery in Physics.
Go read the church fathers, like Luther. Women are supposedly
*inconsistent* -- not quite as sensible as men, just as I was accused
of being *irrelevant* on a thread here a while back.
Vend
sharon wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
>
> > You don't know any of the "guys" on this group. You don't even know
> > whether they're guys. Your "insight" is a just a projection of your
> > emotional state onto the words you're looking at. Wake up.
>
> you're being abrasive. Isn't that obvious? You know why? Because you're
> an abrasive person.
>
> Now let's get into deeper details on this...
>
> Why you're speaking to me? Because you're argumentative. You want to
> provoke an argument. You don't even qualify in the example of John
> Harshmann who has a reputation of being abrasive. He's abrasive too...
> but different than yours. He has once (excuse me John) -- when I was
> under attack by some of you mindless insulters -- John wrote something
> I vaguely recall -- the man he really is -- a calm, thoughtful,
> reassuring "Just calm down, and everything will be okay." He's not at
> all like you. He's a much nicer person.. and he's left clues to that
> all over this newsgroup.
>
> WAKE UP. It tells me many things about you, choosing a disgusting,
> stupid screen name like "Dead Rat". Ever smelled one?
>
> Considering you are the source for your information, why should any
> intelligent person invest any serious interest in any thing you have to
> say?
>
> I really am not concerned about your criticism. You want people
> (including me) to think you're a troublemaker. What could you possibly
> have to offer to this issue? It does require a certain degree of
> emotional maturity to understand intuition, which you've proven you
> completely lack.
This is an ad hominem fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
sharon
Vend wrote:
> >
> > I really am not concerned about your criticism. You want people
> > (including me) to think you're a troublemaker. What could you possibly
> > have to offer to this issue? It does require a certain degree of
> > emotional maturity to understand intuition, which you've proven you
> > completely lack.
>
> This is an ad hominem fallacy:
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
No dear, it's a hard fact. I do not give a damn what somebody has to
say who is,
1. Attacking me. He doesn't even care about the issue, he's just
wanting excuse to insult.
2. Has no evidence for what he's claiming.
3. Goes by a name like Dead Rat.
That's common sense.
And, your only motive here is to discredit and argue isn't it?
I read one of the posts earlier, where somebody made the claim female
intuition was "proven a myth". Yup, like God's been proven a myth.
Belief or an opinion doesn't qualify as proof. Female intuition is far
from debunked, hasn't been debunked, and I'm not deceived... why don't
you go over that way and offer some fair criticism? Wouldn't want
anyone to think you're biased would you?
Oh, there's that damned female intuition again... huh? Recognizing
unfair treatment like the female chimps in the "sense of justice"
expirament.
yes, go over there and criticise the guy who lied and said Female
intuition was debunked, when it wasn't. Some equal time with your
skepticism, please.
some have merely proposed it's a myth, though numerous research has
been done to establish not only different brain wiring, not only
conclusive evidence that females observe and focus on emotional
fidelity.. not only that but researchers KNOW female chimps are more
attune to equality and emotional issues than males, including the
research Pfizer churned up... go do some research and show me where I'm
wrong. got links? Oh, only a link to some fallacy file that's turned
your "evidence" into a simple ad hominem, that has nothing to do with
female intuition, right?
now, Ive got good sense, to recognize when I'm talking to an
unreasonable person, that's going to say I'm wrong no matter what
evidence is presented and calling a plain fact, an "argument fallacy".
I don't invest any trust in people who go by names like "Dead Rat". A
name like that tells me a lot of information about the "emotional
state" of the person behind the posts.
You guys are too aggressive.
You've proven nothing to me.
Please do some research instead of simply denying things you don't want
to believe, or know nothing about... or that intimidate.
Vend
sharon wrote:
> Vend wrote:
>
> > > misdiagnosed women
> > > for centuries --
>
> >
> > According to your theory we would expect women to:
> > 1) Be less capable of generalization but more 'creative' than men
> > 2) Be more subject to cognitive biases like apophenia, pareidolia,
> > clustering illusion
> > 3) Be more likely to have psychotic disorders.
>
> How do you figure all this?
Simply said, the more information you take in, the more difficult the
learning or pattern matching task becomes.
I've seen that phenomenon when I studied artficial intelligence, where
it's called "the curse of dimensionality".
I also read that there is a link between creativity an propensity of
illusions and psychosis, they seem to be two faces of the same coin.
In both cases those people find relevant connections where other people
see none.
Your position that women can process more variables would imply that
they should be more subject to the types of errors which involve giving
mening to irrelevant patterns, like the ones I listed.
I don't see evidence for that.
> Men are better at spatial abilities, but
> not all men.
Men are taller, but not all men.
So what?
> In fact, for a gender so capable of skills in science,
> math, etc -- they sure are flooding the prisons. Very few ever discover
> a new energy source, or make a breakthrough discovery in Physics.
Irrelevant to the point.
> Go read the church fathers, like Luther. Women are supposedly
> *inconsistent* -- not quite as sensible as men,
Don't you realize that you're making the same accusation against men?
> just as I was accused
> of being *irrelevant* on a thread here a while back.
Actually you are quite irrelevant.
You responded to Deadrat with a long ad hominem argument: a typical
example of fallacy of irrelevancy
(http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html)
sharon
> Vend wrote:
Never mind what Vend wrote.
Amazing isn't it? Let's step back and take a look at the overall
picture. How does one little woman have the ability to stand alone
against a crowd of men like you, who gang up on her? Because I see
through each of you guys as individuals.
I know what you are and what you are trying to do. i.e., ignoring
scientific research I posted earlier in the thread, denying evidence /
including providing none.
and no matter what I say, even if you know its a fact or truth, you
either fail to respond or deny it. You refuse to be reasoned with.
i've seen insults, insinuations.. but nothing to support anything
you've claimed. I know this newsgroup well enough, that if there were
evidence, you'd posted it already to make your point. All of you are
quick to post links, if you actually have any.
In short, I'm wasting my time. Some of the guys on this group can see
through you, as I do, and of course they're not wanting to get
involved, fighting with other men, and won't get involved to avoid
getting ostracized by the pack, but they'll think about all I've said,
and look into the research that's been done and being done.
That's what's important.
Goal accomplished.
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Sharon, will you get off this kick? I have not done formal pyschology
> > classes. I don't have training at hiding my emotions, unless you count
>
> I did not say you were a Psychologist.
>
> I did not say that. I said you have had education, including knowledge
> of Psychology. You even posted some information just a couple days ago,
> which would indicate you are in fact, familiar with Psychology.
Fsamiliar with it only because there are Informed Folk near me who tell
me these things. (and I really recommend Baron-Cohen's work to you -
you'll find it very interesting).
>
> > an uptight family as training. And you can't intuit what people are
> > thinking in an ASCII only medium. There's no body language, no tics or
>
> That is not what the research points to. Women can. They have very
> different reasoning patterns than men. Information you discard, women
> tend to retain, and they tend to focus on emotional. Like figuring out
> moods, attitudes, character.
There's a problem of reference class when you refer to "women". Some
women, perhaps. Women as a whole may have a somewhat different average
modality than men as a whole. But you want to be very careful about
generalised claims like "women process information differently to men"
because that is not universally true, or even true most of the time. The
most effective person I ever knew at reading people and interacting with
them was a man - Sir Gustav Nossal (he's still alive, but I don't see
him any more) - he beat hollow every woman I have ever known. And
whatever the "modality" of women and of men is, the two overlap
substantially. That's why Baron-Cohen's scales are so useful (although
the popular reporting of his work is typically wrong, in true
journalistic fashion) - they show that while the "male brain" is
slightly to one end of the field, and the "female brain" to the other,
there is no overall separation of skills.
> John, you know yourself that several research projects, all pointing
> toward the same conclusion are not wrong. For instance, monitoring the
> brain -- while women are showing activity in one region (intellectual)
> of the brain, men show activity in another (primitive).
This is a false distinction. Our brains don't come in neat packages, one
part of which is primitive and the other "advanced" (the often-mentioned
"reptilian brain" is both phylogenetically false, and overlooks the fact
that the more basal parts of the brain have themselves coevolved with
the so-called "higher function" parts of the cortex).
>
> But some are denying this information, and without a scrap of research
> to support their denials.
>
> You're not denying science, John. I know you are not denying scientific
> data. Multiple research projects have been performed. The more research
> that's done, the more science is concluding men have misdiagnosed women
> for centuries -- most of history. Just as days ago, I was accused of
> discussing "irrelevant" things, and I reposted an excerpt from an
> article stating exactly that. Women tend to consider more variables,
> and men discard information they think are irrelevant. The things I
> discussed, was not irrelevant to me nor would it have been to most
> women.
>
> > hand gestures, and no physical context. In this sort of communication,
>
> Communication is communication.
Yes, and no. A large part of communication is nonverbal, as you have
yourself said, and that doesn't come through in text-based media. For
instance, you have no idea whether I am furrowing my brow as I type this
or sitting here in Buddha-like serenity (always the latter, of course),
or I am screaming that the screen. That is not something you can get
from the form of words I use. I come across, I guess, as a calm and
reasonable man. That only shows how well I fool you all ;-)
>
> > emotions don't generally convey, and besides, I get plenty heated at
> > times.
>
> and?
>
> do I sense anger, not really.
> do I sense sadness. nope.
> do I sense you trying to communicate a certain p.o.v., yes. You're not
> emotionally tied up in this... but some of the guys are, very easily.
> They must win every single argument, and if they do not, they will
> slander, insult, deny truths, or whatnot. That's ego talking.
I long ago decided to try to be polite on Usenet. I'm usually polite
with kooks and informed opponents alike (although Larry got me going
recently). Politeness is not necessarily the same as lackign ego.
Studies done on Southern Americans (from the South, Dixieland types),
showed that they would respond less immediately to discourtesy, but once
past the threshold of polite behaviour would show more rage. This is
cultural, and in Australia we do a self-deprecating thing to deflect
conflict. That's the way I was brought up (it helps that my family was
anal and middle class), and so that facade is what you see here. I don't
think you can generalise on gender - you may be able to generalise on
culture. I find American women, for instance, far more assertive, and
occasionally aggressive, than Australian women.
>
> >
>
> > John S. Wilkins,
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
>
> You've never taken psychology courses?
Nope. Theology, philosophy and history is my bag.
>
> > University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
>
> Been in college? Looks just like that to me. I was required to take
> psychology courses, just as soon as I entered college-- several of them
> in fact. I know that what I learned changed my outlook as a person.
> Those courses will help anyone gain more self-control, confidence, team
> leadership skills, and soforth -- if they're actually reading the text
> and doing the course work. From experiments performed on Groupthink to
> gender roles and society.
We have a different system here. No basic college courses (unfortunately
- we get people who specialise in narrow disciplines from the get-go). I
have read a considerble amount of psychology for a lay person, but I'm
not educated in it as such.
>
> Yup, you're more in control of yourself, better reasoned than many I've
> encountered on this group.
Or maybe I just proofread and rewrite more than they do (I was a
proofreader and writer before I became a philosopher. Old habits die
hard, even in an ephemeral medium like Usenet. I don't even use a spell
chucker, sorry spill chicker).
>
> I think that's knowing enough about you, isn't it?
It's knowing *some* about me. My online persona is similar to my
realworld facade. But you don't have enough information to make a good
assessment. I'm smarter on paper than in person, for a start.
>
> In fact, it is. That's just "a little piece" of John Wilkins' overall
> character.
I'm basically just a beta ape.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
Vend
sharon wrote:
> Vend wrote:
> > >
> > > I really am not concerned about your criticism. You want people
> > > (including me) to think you're a troublemaker. What could you possibly
> > > have to offer to this issue? It does require a certain degree of
> > > emotional maturity to understand intuition, which you've proven you
> > > completely lack.
> >
> > This is an ad hominem fallacy:
> > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>
> No dear, it's a hard fact. I do not give a damn what somebody has to
> say who is,
> 1. Attacking me. He doesn't even care about the issue, he's just
> wanting excuse to insult.
I don't see so.
> 2. Has no evidence for what he's claiming.
I find his claim reasonable: That you can't really know a person from
just a few usenet posts.
> 3. Goes by a name like Dead Rat.
Ad Hominem
> That's common sense.
Flat earth and astrology were also 'intuited' and 'common sense' for
thousands of years, but they were wrong.
> And, your only motive here is to discredit and argue isn't it?
Yes, of course everybody who doesn't agree with you is just interested
in discrediting you.
> I read one of the posts earlier, where somebody made the claim female
> intuition was "proven a myth". Yup, like God's been proven a myth.
> Belief or an opinion doesn't qualify as proof. Female intuition is far
> from debunked, hasn't been debunked, and I'm not deceived... why don't
> you go over that way and offer some fair criticism? Wouldn't want
> anyone to think you're biased would you?
Provide the link
> Oh, there's that damned female intuition again... huh? Recognizing
> unfair treatment like the female chimps in the "sense of justice"
> expirament.
Simply I don't read all the posts.
Anyway, you're againg going to "poison the well" with irrelevant
arguments.
Even if I choose to criticize only you for whether motive, that doesn't
make my arguments less valid.
> yes, go over there and criticise the guy who lied and said Female
> intuition was debunked, when it wasn't. Some equal time with your
> skepticism, please.
I'm still waiting for a definition for 'Female Intuition' and evidence
for its existence.
> some have merely proposed it's a myth, though numerous research has
> been done to establish not only different brain wiring, not only
> conclusive evidence that females observe and focus on emotional
> fidelity.. not only that but researchers KNOW female chimps are more
> attune to equality and emotional issues than males, including the
> research Pfizer churned up... go do some research and show me where I'm
> wrong. got links?
This seems to have nothing to do with 'intuition'.
> Oh, only a link to some fallacy file that's turned
> your "evidence" into a simple ad hominem, that has nothing to do with
> female intuition, right?
You used an ad hominem argument, i noted it and provided the link for
convenience.
> now, Ive got good sense, to recognize when I'm talking to an
> unreasonable person, that's going to say I'm wrong no matter what
> evidence is presented and calling a plain fact, an "argument fallacy".
Ad hominem again.
> I don't invest any trust in people who go by names like "Dead Rat". A
> name like that tells me a lot of information about the "emotional
> state" of the person behind the posts.
This is a perfect example of the fallibility of your 'intuition': You
don't know why he choosed that name, perhaps it's from some work of
fiction, or perhaps form some event in his life.
You just naively reason: Dead rats seem disgusting => he must be a
disgusting person => what he says must be wrong.
> You guys are too aggressive.
Ad hominem
> You've proven nothing to me.
>
> Please do some research instead of simply denying things you don't want
> to believe, or know nothing about... or that intimidate.
Since you're the one making the claim you should provide the data.
sharon
Vend wrote:
> Simply said, the more information you take in, the more difficult the
> learning or pattern matching task becomes.
Vend... you've not been following anything I've posted, and I'm tired
of repeating myself and you need to stop talking to me and go do some
search on Google if you're really interested in the subject and
honestly I don't think you are. Scientists already said that, women
take in more information and think in more complex patterns.
"Women tend to gather more data than men, and integrate these details
faster and put
them into more complex patterns."
Okay?
> I've seen that phenomenon when I studied artficial intelligence, where
> it's called "the curse of dimensionality".
But Vend, women are not artificial intelligence. That would be like
comparing apples and oranges. Already covered that a week or two ago,
what is intelligence? It's the collection of information and ability to
process it. Women collect information you men, find irrelevant.
Therefore, even if I say something -- in your view, it's going to be
IRRELEVANT to you.
Women can observe people, and can put together the information together
in a complex pattern that is wired toward emotional fidelity and
stuff... socialization skills, learned early on in ... dishonesty,
fairness, equality, integrity or lack thereof, etc etc ... men don't
need intuition. He's endowed with brute force. Let's assume it's as
simple as that. Nature gave them bigger muscles to kill an attacker.
Women were endowed with intuition as a self-protective measure.
talk.origins - Oct 13, 1:31
"Men tend to discard extraneous data, compartmentalize relevant
material, and analyze information in a linear path. Women tend to
gather more data than men, and integrate these details faster and put
them into more complex patterns. As women make decisions, they take
into account more variables, and consider more options, and actually
see a wider spectrum of solutions to the problem.
For decades women have been misdiagnosed because their thinking style
was foreign and confusing to men. Some men saw women's behavior as
indecisive, unfocused, scattered, or even "loose cannon" behavior.
Those negative appraisals have held women back for decades.
But maybe it's not our thinking style that confuses men, but our
communication style."
I'm not arguing with you guys anymore. It's silly and really, honestly,
women are more sharper sensed than men -- I CAN FEEL THE COMBATIVE
HOSTILITY from some-- you desire to "verbally" blacken my eye, you
ENJOY A GOOD TIGHT BRAWL... and my brain is not wired for AGGRESSION,
like yours is. In the past I have came away from this newsgroup,
rattled, because I would ask myself about certain individual men, "How
can a person be so cruel and vicious?"
Yes, I am viewing each of you as individuals.. and my mind traps and
hangs on to every word and action -- including anything I perceive as
dishonesty or deliberate evasion, etc. Communication is communication,
and evolution designed women to be very sensitive to communication.
Your words and motive and insults -- HURT. That's what's suppose to
happen. I don't find any of it, "healthy competition", I find it just
plain frustrating and hurtful, like any normal woman would. In fact,
statistically, women tend to stay off predominantly male dominated
forums like this. Occasionally you might have the luck of a woman or
two drifting in, but if you start personally insulting her -- she's not
going to stick around long.
Got an email a couple days ago, where another forum, male-dominated --
I inquired from the sender, why the subject line was titled what it
was,
Subject : Re: Fw: boy, do we have a way with women
The response: "That was the subject line concerning the fact that they
haven't been able to find and keep a female contributor.
The guys were not bragging but making a self-deprecatory statement
amongst themselves."
Sad statement on men.