Women talk more than men: official

[Kevin Solway]

the cognitive differences between men and women appear to be quite few.

That statement doesn't mean very much to me, since we could say that there are few cognitive differences between human beings and chimpanzees. In fact, we could say that there is only one main cognitive difference . . . human beings are more intelligent.

"Few"? How many possible cognitive differences can there be? One thousand? Two thousand? And is one cognitive difference the equal of another?

[ExpectantlyIronic]

your attempt at humor...

At least I tried...

but you should ask yourself if that's another cultural circumstance or not.

Given the level and intensity of the debate over this issue, I highly doubt it. Any papers that get published on such things probably get peer-reviewed to all hell.

How would you go about it getting to the truth here?

Reading the available literature very closely, doing your own study, and applying a few drops of reason.

1. "poor social judgment". Is that a healthy social functioning that is perceived as not having numbers 2, 3 and 4 ?

Would you find someone with the aforementioned traits to be competent in social situations? Although, to answer your question: I'm not sure. I'd have to go digging for more info.

Perhaps I should qualify your list here a bit:

I'd still call everything on my list lame.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

In fact, we could say that there is only one main cognitive difference . . . human beings are more intelligent.

We have a much larger neocortex: the part of the brain responsible for conscious experience, intelligence, and memory. The size of the neocortex is the same in both men and women (relative to overall brain size and body mass).

How many possible cognitive differences can there be? One thousand? Two thousand?

Yeah. I'd say probably around that.

And is one cognitive difference the equal of another?

That's a matter of opinion really.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

your attempt at humor...

At least I tried...

Could you also try to include the name of the ones responding to in your quotes or otherwise? This would really help others to follow the flow better. Perhaps you could call it a form of 'social' online behavior :)

but you should ask yourself if that's another cultural circumstance or not.

Given the level and intensity of the debate over this issue, I highly doubt it. Any papers that get published on such things probably get peer-reviewed to all hell.

But you didn't cite or even implied any specific peer-reviewed research, or did I miss something? The relation between phenotype and genotype is very complex and highly debated. A peer-reviewed publication gets only its peers to allow it if they make clear which part of their research is speculation and which is measurement. And if they address existing conflicting research. Even then, some publications get through with are garbage as well and later retracted or attacked in yet another peer-reviewed scientific publication.

The research mentioned in this thread is just one example.

To Kevin: The size of the neocortex is the same in both men and women (relative to overall brain size and body mass).

And that's about it, because most other things seem different: distribution grey/white matter, symmetry, structuring, signal paths, neuron distribution and function, etc. From birth.

And still all behavioral differences are 'due to cultural circumstances? One could wonder how it's possible men and women appear so alike in behavior? Is this the correct observation and if so, how is this happening with the brain functioning so differently in each sex?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth,

BTW Scott – newsflash: David is not always right.

What does David have to do with my comment? It was directed at YOU.

I was explaining that just because David made a similar comment does not mean that it is a correct comment. Here, look at the whole comment I made to you again, and maybe you will see:

Elizabeth,

I get the impression you like to talk as a way of sorting out your ideas, rather than sorting them out first and then talking.

Scott,

I get the impression you only “came up with that idea” as a reflection of one of David’s earlier posts. Unless you can support your assertation by citing a reference and explaining your position, I will consider that you are just parroting something an admin said, possibly as some unconscious act of brown-nosing.

BTW Scott – newsflash: David is not always right.

Now here is a copy of what David wrote on 11/26/06 at 9:01 a.m. on the Truth & Gender thread:

I also think that Elizabeth should write less and reflect more inwardly about the subject-matter at hand before attempting to write about it. I don't like the way she uses her posts to do her thinking for her.

I do not believe that my posts are thinking for me - at least not more than anybody else's. We do post here to bounce our thoughts off of each other, but that is hardly letting our posts do our thinking for us.

I let that comment go coming from David because I think the reason for his comment was irrelevant to the words (but of course I could be wrong). As I said in the Truth & Gender thread:

For my personal journey, knowing they use trickery...my defenses are up. I do not learn as well in an environment of distrust...

Not knowing if someone is giving me their thoughts straight ... most recently David... erodes my confidence of understanding ...

If I get the idea that someone may not be playing straight, I don't know what to make of their statements.

Although I understand the major gestalt of the overall meaning David has, I don't trust that he always gives me a literal (or near literal) transcription of his meaning or intent. I believe his accusation that I let my posts think for me is an example of that nonliteral transcription - so I let it go as far as addressing it directly.

You, Scott, more accuratly reflect either what is on your mind or what you think is on your mind. I am suspecting you of not knowing what you are talking about, but giving you an opportunity to explain yourself before I reach the conclusion that you made your accusation against me without concious consideration. That is what David had to do with your post, even though it was directed at me.

Here's another level that I am applying to my understanding of you and your meaning in this instance: I gather that you are in the military. The military has the benefit of centuries of research and practice in programing young people to automatically (read - unconciously) recognize and defer to authority figures, whether the authority figures are right or wrong.

I've seen that in myself (although I was never in the military, my father was a retired Lt. Col. from before I was born, yet his favorite job in his military career was when he was a sgt. and "bustin' privates." It is said that the military breaks you down then builds you up - they sent people to my father to break them down, and to someone else to build them up). It took me over 10 years of concious effort to reach a reasonable degree of recognition of when I am inappropriatly rank-concious, compartmentalize what, where, when, how, why, and if to defer, and to place principles above the potentially flawed influence of people.

I don't know if it is possible or practical for you to eliminate that in yourself at this point - at least as a reactionary response - but it might be good to consider a second thought for everything that you have a reactionary thought to. Your second thought may be the same as your first, but building a secondary thought routine to supplement your military program may be helpful to you. Full birds and generals think, so it might not be counterproductive to your career to build a second-thought validity check into your thought process.

[sschaula]

Elizabeth,

I wrote:

What does David have to do with my comment? It was directed at YOU.

Elizabeth replied:

I was explaining that just because David made a similar comment does not mean that it is a correct comment. Here, look at the whole comment I made to you again, and maybe you will see:

David Quinn wrote:

I also think that Elizabeth should write less and reflect more inwardly about the subject-matter at hand before attempting to write about it. I don't like the way she uses her posts to do her thinking for her.

Unlike some people here, I don't stalk the members of this forum. I barely even read anyone else's posts here. I'm going to school full time, writing a lot of music, trying to work on various projects like building a recording studio, dealing with real life people, driving 4 hours to the guard one weekend a month, cooking for myself, cleaning my place, and trying to fit in work outs. I'm kind of busy.

I didn't see David's post. Funny though that both of us said the same thing about you without collaborating. Either we're both wrong, or...

I do not believe that my posts are thinking for me - at least not more than anybody else's. We do post here to bounce our thoughts off of each other, but that is hardly letting our posts do our thinking for us.

It seems like you haven't thought about anything, but you just like discussing it anyway. It's all good...there's nothing wrong with doing that. For a woman you're one of the more rational ones here, in my opinion...the way you "act" is better. So don't think I'm just ripping on you.

You, Scott, more accuratly reflect either what is on your mind or what you think is on your mind. I am suspecting you of not knowing what you are talking about, but giving you an opportunity to explain yourself before I reach the conclusion that you made your accusation against me without concious consideration.

Why would I need to explain myself to you? Proving that my thinking has been conscious to someone whose thinking hasn't been conscious? It doesn't make much sense.

It's so weird how you (the unconscious) turns the accusations around onto the accuser. You suspect ME of not knowing what I'm talking about? Haha!

Well my response is: do I seem to get a fuck?

Here's another level that I am applying to my understanding of you and your meaning in this instance: I gather that you are in the military. The military has the benefit of centuries of research and practice in programing young people to automatically (read - unconciously) recognize and defer to authority figures, whether the authority figures are right or wrong.

Do I really come off as the type to follow the rules, and succumb to authority figures?

Do you really think 2 months of basic training can successfully program someone that way? Especially when the authority figures come in all different shapes and sizes.

Have you ever met anyone in the military? Did they seem like little bitches to you? I suspect that the general public is more programmed to follow orders than a member of the military.

Anyway...think what you will. Or don't think. It has no effect on who I am.

I've seen that in myself (although I was never in the military, my father was a retired Lt. Col. from before I was born, yet his favorite job in his military career was when he was a sgt. and "bustin' privates." It is said that the military breaks you down then builds you up - they sent people to my father to break them down, and to someone else to build them up). It took me over 10 years of concious effort to reach a reasonable degree of recognition of when I am inappropriatly rank-concious, compartmentalize what, where, when, how, why, and if to defer, and to place principles above the potentially flawed influence of people.

Yes, it's a stupid way to live. It's the biggest reason why I regret joining...the whole attitude that military people tend to have.

It's only unconscious if the person doesn't take the time to analyze it.

I don't know if it is possible or practical for you to eliminate that in yourself at this point - at least as a reactionary response - but it might be good to consider a second thought for everything that you have a reactionary thought to. Your second thought may be the same as your first, but building a secondary thought routine to supplement your military program may be helpful to you. Full birds and generals think, so it might not be counterproductive to your career to build a second-thought validity check into your thought process.

Funny how you think I just post things without thinking about the repercussions. I have fifth thoughts, and third guesses. Yes I say what's on my mind, but it's not spurting out of me thoughtlessly.

Funny how the unconscious always tend to turn the whole thing around on the accusers. Why don't you just question if what David and I have said is actually true, instead of pleading with us that it's not? Instead of pointing fingers elsewhere?

I didn't think you would respond this way. I thought you were smarter than this, E.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Diebert,

Could you also try to include the name of the ones responding to in your quotes or otherwise?

No problem.

But you didn't cite or even implied any specific peer-reviewed research, or did I miss something?

I never said I did. If I understood you correctly, you were implying that there could be a cultural bias that would render the available research untrustworthy. My response was to point out the fact that the controversy could increase the accuracy of the research. Peer-review isn't flawless, but it's an important part of academic research.

You can attack the available evidence as untrustworthy, but if we accept that, and thus have no available sources, then why even post a topic about it? It's not like we can determine such things a priori of any available research.

And that's about it, because most other things seem different: distribution grey/white matter, symmetry, structuring, signal paths, neuron distribution and function, etc. From birth.

Unless the research can't be trusted, as you've pointed out. All jabs aside though, how can neuron function AND distribution both be uniquely different? A neuron just releases it's action potential when chemicals flow over to it from another neuron. For the function to be significantly different, it'd have to either do something different then this, do this in a different way, or be positioned differently (which would render your mentioning of distribution above redundant). So exactly how is the neuron function different?

And still all behavioral differences are 'due to cultural circumstances?

I never suggested as much. I said "mostly due to cultural circumstances".

One could wonder how it's possible men and women appear so alike in behavior?

How alike they appear to act would depend on a person's personal opinion.

how is this happening with the brain functioning so differently in each sex?

It doesn't function all that differently. You haven't demonstrated that the differences you've mentioned amount to anything significant. I should tell you that my main subject of fascination is consciousness and intelligence, and thus I'm something of a neocortical supremacist. Unless you can demonstrate that there's a significant difference in the neocortex or the limbic system, I'll assume that the brain differences amount to what would be expected given the anatomical differences between men and women.

The neocortex is the home of the mind. The old brain just takes care of the details involved with our interaction with the world. Intelligence, conscious experience, generation of motor commands, perception, it all takes place in the neocortex. Given that we both agree that the neocortex is the same between sexes, we'll have to conclude that that raw mental differences between men and women don't amount to much that can't be explained away by cultural circumstances.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I barely even read anyone else's posts here.

Well that explains a lot.

Why would I need to explain myself to you?

If you're going to make an accusation on a philosophy forum, you should be prepared to back it up.

Well my response is: do I seem to get a fuck?

Yes. I back that up with the fact that your response was 24.33 inches long on my screen. For a busy guy, that's a lot of response while still avoiding backing up your accusation.

[sschaula]

Well that explains a lot.

Yes it does, like how David and I both think the same thing of you without seeing eachother's posts on it.

If you're going to make an accusation on a philosophy forum, you should be prepared to back it up.

You want me to back up the fact that you don't think before you post? Create a new topic, and I'm sure a few others here would help contribute. As for myself, I really don't want to waste my time. You'll just have to take my word for it, that it's how I view you.

Yes. I back that up with the fact that your response was 24.33 inches long on my screen. For a busy guy, that's a lot of response while still avoiding backing up your accusation.

So what? I need breaks from homework.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But you didn't cite or even implied any specific peer-reviewed research, or did I miss something?

I never said I did. If I understood you correctly, you were implying that there could be a cultural bias that would render the available research untrustworthy.

And I only said you should question the idea of cultural bias after you stated: "I'm inclined to believe that the majority of observed behavioral differences are due to cultural circumstances".

You can attack the available evidence as untrustworthy, but if we accept that, and thus have no available sources, then why even post a topic about it? It's not like we can determine such things a priori of any available research.

I didn't attack any evidence since nothing was given by you. It was you however who posted :

Women probably talk more then men due to the fact that they have a wider corpus callosum

And then:

From the available data...

Without stating what kinds of fact and data, which leaves not much to attack apart from your handling of logic, reason and the like.

how can neuron function AND distribution both be uniquely different?

Not sure if I understand your question. There are of course different types of neuron cells, for different functions and each type could be distributed in different ways at different locations to perform functions as a group.

For example a bipolar neuron works differently from an unipolar neuron, and their build is really different as well. Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic?

I said "mostly due to cultural circumstances".

Granted you said: "I'm inclined to believe that the majority of observed behavioral differences are due to...", which is I guess similar. But that doesn't answer the question on what you have based that opinion exactly, apart from a personal hunch, for example in relation to the article posted at the start.

How alike they appear to act would depend on a person's personal opinion.

Come on, can you get more specific? Your observations? Any research you'd like to point to? Examples? Are you telling me you just logged on here to give vague opinions and leave it like that? On a Genius forum? You gotta be kidding.

You haven't demonstrated that the differences you've mentioned amount to anything significant.

Well, lets return to the topic of the thread you chose to respond to. Are you denying there's a difference in amount of words used per day? Or the way emotions are handled? Or is this not 'significant'? What do you think about the prof who beliefs (as many on this board do as well) that "women actually perceive the world differently from men".

Unless you can demonstrate that there's a significant difference in the neocortex or the limbic system, I'll assume that the brain differences amount to what would be expected given the anatomical differences between men and women.

You imply here you're still dwelling in Descartes' error: that there's any meaningful divide between body and mind. Your assumption is based on this error which would take too long to explain.

Given that we both agree that the neocortex is the same between sexes, we'll have to conclude that that raw mental differences between men and women don't amount to much that can't be explained away by cultural circumstances.

No, I only agreed the size was the same and gave a huge list of differences. The rest is in your imagination. In fact I think the level of basic comprehension and background knowledge you've displayed so far is so disappointing I think the discussion should stop here until you catch up with your skills or attitude a bit.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well that explains a lot.

Yes it does, like how David and I both think the same thing of you without seeing eachother's posts on it.

To me it explains such resopnses as:


followed shortly thereafter by quoting me:

I've seen that in myself (although I was never in the military, my father was a retired Lt. Col. ... It took me over 10 years of concious effort to reach a reasonable degree of recognition of when I am inappropriatly rank-concious,
...

Full birds and generals think,

How clearly do I have to spell things out for you? Yes, I met my father, and he was the one that programmed me. He was career military, and fought in WWII and the Korean war. A brother of mine was in Vietnam, and although I never really got to know him, I did meet him a few times. I've had friends and coworkers who were in the military, and I was in JROTC in high school - and my instructors were in the military.

I've seen enough that I am aware that all military are not the same, but I've also seen enough to recognize some common threads. An extreme example (extreme examples do surface readily for me) was one time in the BX with my parents, I saw this one guy smaking the crud out of his kid, sitting in the shopping cart. The kid couldn't have been much more than 2 years old. While he was smacking her, he kept yelling "Shut up! *smack* I said shut up! *smack* Don't you listen? I said shut up! *smack*" It was like looking in the mirror - the only other person I'd seen do that was my father to me, and I later learned that my father had done the same thing to his first set of kids. Nobody in the BX but me even flinched at this guys behavior - like it was perfectly normal. I guess to the military - it was. That's one of the common threads - at least accepting that kind of behavior even if they do not participate in it.

Okay, if you have only put in two weekends, you probably are not indoctrinated yet. If you come back from active combat, maybe you will be. I dated one guy who was in the reserves once, and he had not been in combat at that time. He'd been in the reserves for quite some time, yet he was not indoctrinated like career military. I do wish you the best Scott, which includes that if you do have to give up thinking your own first thought in order to survive at some point in the future, that's okay.

Back to the point of whether which of us thinks before posting, if you'd even thought a little bit, you would have realized that my statements about my father and about higher ranking officers meant I had met people in the military, and you would not have asked if I'd ever met anyone in the military. You were not thinking before posting.

You want me to back up the fact that you don't think before you post? Create a new topic, and I'm sure a few others here would help contribute. As for myself, I really don't want to waste my time. You'll just have to take my word for it,

Don't try to hide behind the group. You made the statement, you back it up yourself. Pretty ironic that the military man wants other members of the board to fight his battle for him.
.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Diebert,

Not sure if I understand your question. There are of course different types of neuron cells, for different functions and each type could be distributed in different ways at different locations to perform functions as a group.

Yes, but the different types of neurons appear in both sexes. So really it's purely a matter of distribution. I thought it would be obvious that I was getting at precisely that. Oh well. It's clarified now.

But that doesn't answer the question on what you have based that opinion exactly, apart from a personal hunch, for example in relation to the article posted at the start.

I've based my opinion on the fact that the difference in brain structure is largely inconsequential insofar as behavioral differences are concerned. I'll reiterate that no data suggests as much, unless you feel that the differences you've pointed out a priori entail such a difference.

Are you denying there's a difference in amount of words used per day? Or the way emotions are handled? Or is this not 'significant'? What do you think about the prof who beliefs (as many on this board do as well) that "women actually perceive the world differently from men".

I agree that women in our culture talk more then men. I also agree that there seems to be a difference in how women show emotions, although I'm not convinced this represents a difference in how they experience emotion. I'm unsure of what is meant by "women perceive the world differently then men". Maybe you could elaborate on that for me?

You imply here you're still dwelling in Descartes' error: that there's any meaningful divide between body and mind. Your assumption is based on this error which would take too long to explain.

I'm not a substance dualist.

In fact I think the level of basic comprehension and background knowledge you've displayed so far is so disappointing I think the discussion should stop here until you catch up with your skills or attitude a bit.

I apologize if I demonstrated an "attitude". I was just being light-hearted.

[sschaula]

I'm very close to stopping this mindless banter, E, by not responding anymore. Just letting you know you should not argue just for my attention...got it?

How clearly do I have to spell things out for you? Yes, I met my father

Having a family member in the military is not knowing people in the military. My own family doesn't understand what it means to know people in the military...I guess you have to be in to see what I mean by this. You have to be one of them, because otherwise they seem different. Before I joined I thought it was all a lot more disciplined and strict than it is. Now that I'm in, I'm kind of scared to go to war! I don't truly understand how wars are fought with the people I've trained with. I can't imagine anything getting done properly, but I guess somehow it does. Anyway, it's not as if I skipped over the part where you said your father was in the military...

and he was the one that programmed me. He was career military, and fought in WWII and the Korean war. A brother of mine was in Vietnam, and although I never really got to know him, I did meet him a few times. I've had friends and coworkers who were in the military, and I was in JROTC in high school - and my instructors were in the military.

I should say that the military is a lot different today than yesterday. "Army strong!" Haha!

I've seen enough that I am aware that all military are not the same, but I've also seen enough to recognize some common threads. An extreme example (extreme examples do surface readily for me) was one time in the BX with my parents, I saw this one guy smaking the crud out of his kid, sitting in the shopping cart. The kid couldn't have been much more than 2 years old. While he was smacking her, he kept yelling "Shut up! *smack* I said shut up! *smack* Don't you listen? I said shut up! *smack*" It was like looking in the mirror - the only other person I'd seen do that was my father to me, and I later learned that my father had done the same thing to his first set of kids. Nobody in the BX but me even flinched at this guys behavior - like it was perfectly normal. I guess to the military - it was. That's one of the common threads - at least accepting that kind of behavior even if they do not participate in it.

Well then you were surrounded by a bunch of pussies in that PX (I don't know how you were on a BX, since those are generally in combat areas...and I don't know why you were in a combat area...but maybe I'm wrong about this).

Okay, if you have only put in two weekends, you probably are not indoctrinated yet.

I never said I've only put in two weekends. I went through the whole thing that they do to you to "indoctrinate" you, but now I go part time...one weekend a month.

If you come back from active combat, maybe you will be.

Actually, it seems like the guys that come back from combat are more rebellious than myself. Every enlisted man knows that they are what makes the thing go, and that their job is important, and that the officers or their sergeants can shove it if they are being assholes. The people that come back tend to not put up with any shit. They tend get really sick of the whole discipline game. Most of them skip during our drill times.

Discipline...it IS a game. The ones that play it very well get rewarded by their officers and sergeants with a kind word or an approving look..."good little soldier". Like a pink poodle in a puppy show. Yet that has nothing to do with what they train us for. Basic training isn't about discipline as many people commonly think, it's about training a person to be a warrior. Putting people through very annoying situations and seeing if they snap....like getting no sleep, hiking all day with a huge pack on, etc. Seeing if they persevere through the shit.

I played the disciple game while I was in training, and was the best in my platoon for marksmanship and physical fitness. I won awards, and somehow, the drill sergeant's approval. I almost won a bet to get one of their silly hats...but missed out on it because I wasn't in OSUT. Then I started to see what you've seen, with the general attitude military people have, and I stopped caring. My PT score dropped and I stopped standing so still at attention.

I dated one guy who was in the reserves once, and he had not been in combat at that time. He'd been in the reserves for quite some time, yet he was not indoctrinated like career military.

Yes, the hooah attitude drops off after a month or two doing reserve drills.

I do wish you the best Scott, which includes that if you do have to give up thinking your own first thought in order to survive at some point in the future, that's okay.

I have no idea what that means.

Back to the point of whether which of us thinks before posting, if you'd even thought a little bit, you would have realized that my statements about my father and about higher ranking officers meant I had met people in the military, and you would not have asked if I'd ever met anyone in the military. You were not thinking before posting.

...This is your argument???

Don't try to hide behind the group. You made the statement, you back it up yourself. Pretty ironic that the military man wants other members of the board to fight his battle for him.

Are you just thirsting for some male attention?

I don't want to take the time and read through your posts to point out how you don't think before posting. Say what you want - I'm going to leave it at that.

[sschaula]

E,

I just want to say I have been wrong here. I am trying to stop arguing...it's kind of a habit for me to be argumentative. I want to become a better person...so forgive me for being this way.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Of course Scott. It touched me that you would say this. *cyberhugs*

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I've based my opinion on the fact that the difference in brain structure is largely inconsequential insofar as behavioral differences are concerned. I'll reiterate that no data suggests as much, unless you feel that the differences you've pointed out a priori entail such a difference.

Okay, then we're full circle again. Why do you think the statement "the difference in brain structure is largely inconsequential insofar as behavioral differences are concerned" constitutes a fact? Since you were claiming most behavioral differences are culturally based, I could claim the same thing: that no data suggests this, or that all cultural effects are inconsequential. But I don't claim such, though I do think there's enough evidence to conclude the deeper differences are not merely caused by culture - as if culture wouldn't be also caused by its people anyway.

Differences in brain structure and hormonal system which rules much behavior, as well as historical record, combined with observation should be enough to strengthen this view beyond what I consider reasonable doubt. Since the article we talk about refers to similar research as the book Dan Rowden brought up in his post (about the book Brainsex) why don't you introduce first some different research? It's easier discussing this way if you want the scientific route.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This has leads to misunderstanding in relationships - the woman thinks I need to talk about things, that I am holding back - while actually the emotions are inconsequential to me, and it's quite a bit of work to connect with them, in order to express them verbally.

Oftentimes, when people hold their emotions back, they all come spurting out at some rather inappropriate time and to a degree that is vastly mismatched to the situation. I don't think it's gender specific, but I do think that the way the emotional control gets lost is more polarized in the genders (although not exclusive). I have seen women become psychotically violent for not appearant reason, and on very rare occasions I have seen men burst out in tears, and two guys I've known actually ran screaming across a room and curled up in a ball until somone would kill a spider for them ( I seriously thought they were joking at first - but those were actual reactions). Most often though it's the women who will burst out in tears, and the men who yell and become violent.

man with too many cats

Women are more nurturing, so they may be more inclined to try to coax feelings out of a guy before they explode - or it may be a fear response, being afraid that the guy will explode if he does not release his emotions. It is misunderstanding between people as a result of people not being honest with each other that prompts misguided behavior like trying to coax out feelings that are not there, leading to annoying the other person.

Sometimes it is the paradigm of being given a particular preconceived notion about what is "normal" that can slant a person's world-view as well. Some people were raised to believe that behavior like that of the cat-guy I just linked to is normal behavior for a guy - just like some people are raised to believe that women are idiots. If men think it's normal or acceptable to yell and scream abusive language (like cat-guy must believe or he would not have put a video of himself doing that on YouTube), they will not try to improve their behavior. Similarly, if women think it's expected of them to be idiots, it might not even occur to them to use their minds.

Although determinism has its place as far as acceptance of others despite their behavior, there is still a value to recognizing that some behavior is just not okay, telling people of both genders to grow up, and take personal responsibility for their actions or inactions. IMO, that would be a cause for improved behavior in both genders.

[sschaula]

Was that video not supposed to be funny?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Was that video not supposed to be funny?

"Supposed to be" is probably the key phrase here. The thing is that there are some guys who do act like that a lot, a lot of white trash that act like that 3-5 times a day, and plenty of guys who act like that sometimes. That's probably a component of the humor - that although it is wrong, it is recognizable.

[Iolaus]

It also explains and how I have had times of my body having an emotional meltdown but inside my mind was merely mildly disgusted with the stupid, uncontollable waterworks and thinking rationally. Any females out there - have you also had experiences where you found yourself crying and wondering who this sniveling mess was that you were stuck inside? That the tears had nothing to do with "you" but it was more like a leak in the plumbing system?

Sure.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sorry for the delay David, somehow I missed your post earlier.

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: I'm not sure that I can find any meaning in your conception of love. What exactly do you mean by love? What is its distinguishing characteristic?

E: In defining this term, I will be forced to use some imprecise phrasing that may seem contradictory, but in fact will not contradict but indicate the parameters of love. In defining any term, the precise meaning can not be expressed with other terms, or the term itself would be redundant.

In its broadest, most watered down sense, love is a purely positive regard combined with a surge of adrenaline. Purity in this sense means that the aspect of regard that is combined with adrenaline is only of a positive nature. Other feelings may exist, but the only associated condition with the adrenalin must be positive regard. Adrenaline with a negative regard would be hatred, and adrenaline with either a neutral or ambivalent regard would be fear.

What is the purpose of triggering these surges of adrenalin? Apart from being a chemical which aids action in threatening situations, adrenalin is a pleasure-causing hormone. Is your valuing of love is, in effect, a love of hedonistic pleasure?

For me, the adrenaline is a physical defect. I have a severe form of PTSD. There is a lot more adrenaline flowing through me than through most people. I have a strong, rational mind, so I have a good perception of what is happening and I can make wise decisions about what to do with what I have. I can control where the flow of adrenaline goes, and sometimes I can slow the flow down, but if I do not assign an emotional component to it, ugly things happen. I can not make it normal any more than a severe diabetic can just start producing insulin again. That part of my brain is broken, and I’m doing really well to just be able to stay off psyc meds most of the time. Actually, all things considered, I’m doing really well to not be in a facility somewhere… and I attribute that to my vicious hold on logic.

Now, given that the condition will be an excessive adrenaline flow, the most logical thing to do with it is to explore the realms of love with it. There is such thing as logical love, but one must reason one’s self into it. One must recognize that true love is unselfish, and the rest follows naturally.

Also, do you strive to love all things in the Universe, without exception? Or do you confine your loving attitude towards human beings only?

It is not confined to human beings only, but I weigh what is logical to love, hate, or fear – and I try to keep an open mind about all things universally. Take deception for example – that was one thing that I’ve hated, but I have kept an open mind, and recognize that there are some times when deception should be loved.

I do strive harder to love all people, but that is more of a function of the fact that people trigger more of an adrenaline response in me than inanimate objects or innocuous concepts such as math.

E: All people are lovable if you understand them well enough, but that does not mean that one would necessarily want close contact with all those they love. Loving from a distance is another type of love.

DQ: If being repulsed by a person is "another form of love", then what behaviour or attitude isn't a form of love?

E: Loving from a distance is not the same as being repulsed by the person. It is an acknowledgement of the illusion, in the conditions of either knowing that there are some characteristics that one would not find lovable, but from a distance those characteristics are not observable or insufficiently observable to be bothersome, or of knowing that one has insufficient knowledge of the other person to judge whether she would have the same feelings if she knew him better – and being sated with the quantity of love she feels from a distance.

So in other words, you only love those things which happen to please you ....?

No. Take Kevin for example. Kevin does not please me at all, yet when you and he suddenly stopped posting a little while after I got here, I was just as worried about Kevin as I was about you. That is a form of love.

If Kevin and I were out on a walk together and a group of thugs were to attack us, I would defend Kevin to the death if need be. That is a matter of loving Kevin more than the unethical behavior of thugs – despite that Kevin does not please me.

The acknowledgement of the illusion that contributes to the desire to keep distance from that which may not be lovable up close is a desire to maximize love rather than permit fear or hatred to set in. For example, I can only love my ex-husband from a distance. He has psychologically tortured me, physically injured me, expressed to me and to his psychiatrist plans to kill me, and directly made a rather convincing threat to have me killed. It is very difficult to love a man like that, and it is only possible to do so from a distance (and the more distance, the better).

E: Furthermore, understanding another is a key to love

DQ: Does this involve understanding what causes a person to behave like he does, thus viewing him as an innocent child, as it were, who had no real choice but to follow his lot in life?

E: Yes David, it most certainly does. And forgiveness is tremendously easy for one who loves – even one who loves rationally enough to see the flaws.

Are you saying that you have to mentally turn people into little babies before you can love them? Isn't this a case of engaging in mental trickery in order to support the illusion that you are loving all people spiritually?

No, I was taking your caveat “as it were” to mean that you did not mean “children” in a literal sense, but as in perhaps “child of the universe” under the lack of full responsibility that determinism illustrates. David, if you expect me to not take everything you say literally, you can not jump so fluidly from speaking literally to speaking figuratively as it suits your desire to twist a meaning.

I have a different kind of love for those whom I must view as defective or underdeveloped than those I view as mature adults. Who is who is dependent on my current understanding of their current condition. A spiritual love is an appropriate love for each individual. It would not be appropriate to have a passionate love for a child, but it would be appropriate to have a nurturing love for a child. It would not be appropriate to love a child as one would a friend (unless one is also a child) because it would be damaging to the child – but it would be alright to sometimes love a friend as one would a child because in friendship, some times and in some ways, one friend may be stronger than the other, but at other times or in other ways, the other friend will be stronger. That is how two friends are stronger than two individuals because the pair can rely on the strengths between them to help each other. No individual is strong in all ways at all times – and with friends, when one becomes weak as a child, that friend can rely on the other’s strength – and the roles will reverse from time to time. A wise enough friend will figure out how to nurture the weakened friend in such a way that the friend becomes stronger more consistently – and ideally both friends will achieve a state of lasting strength they can enjoy together.

You changed the term from “children” to “babies” – and that digresses the meaning even further from the truth. Only babies are babies and only babies should be treated as babies. Coddling, as one would do to a baby, does nothing to strengthen another – and is far different from the nurturing that is appropriate for either children or friends.

.

[sschaula]

E,

"Supposed to be" is probably the key phrase here. The thing is that there are some guys who do act like that a lot, a lot of white trash that act like that 3-5 times a day, and plenty of guys who act like that sometimes. That's probably a component of the humor - that although it is wrong, it is recognizable.

I think you misunderstood me. I said "not supposed to be funny". I couldn't help laughing...even though I recognize that it was mean and nothing was funny about it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I understood you Scott.

There was just a thread on here (I spent a little time looking for it) on the difference between what males find funny and what females find funny - and one of the examples given was The Three Stooges. Like most females, I never found that funny.

I know you said that you recognize that the cat video was not funny, and that is good - that shows you are brighter about emotional issues than most men. I'm going to expound on the point anyway just to explain my confusion about why any guy would think it was funny, or why even an intelligent guy like yourself would burst out laughing despite knowing it is not funny.

As for the video, whether it strikes the male funny bone or not, terrorizing cats is not funny. That first grey cat didn't seem to care too much - but the other cats looked and acted terrified.

The guy has a whole series out, so I guess he does think it's funny and that there's nothing wrong with it, but I also find it wrong in a non-funny way that he is calling himself "Tourettes Guy." He is not portraying Tourettes, he is portraying an anger management problem. One of my best friends has Tourettes, and I once had a client who has Tourettes - and it is not like what this guy is portraying at all. He is portraying a cultural misconception of a stereotype which is actually damaging to people who actually have Tourette's because the disorder is triggered by such things as anxiety about not being accepted because of their disorder, or that their disorder would get them into trouble (again).

This guy is ignorant and not really thinking at all - and I wouldn't be surprised if he actually acted like that to some extent. He might think it's funny all the time - not just when he is on camera.

What's more, allowing anger free reign like that on a regular basis escalates the expression of anger. As it was "for humor" he yelled "I'm going to rape you" at one of the cats. What kind of a mind would even have thought of that as a line in a skit? Probably one that doesn't see anything wrong with "smacking the little woman around a little, but only when she really deserves it." Even cats don't deserve to be yelled at like that, and some of them reacted like they expected that the yelling would be followed by some hitting.

What is it that would make a guy laugh at something like that? Is it entirely the physical difference in the brain structure as described in the other thread? Or can it at least partially be explained by a thought process?

[sschaula]

First of all, I have to say you probably just need to loosen up. Sometimes humor shouldn't be taken so seriously. It's not something you should think about in order to laugh about - that is called "wit".

Secondly, why guys think something like that video is funny I guess is just because it's so random.

For instance, watch this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-gFqRjp ... ed&search=

When he says "fuck salt" that is seriously funny to me. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Absolute randomness. The cat video was the same way. Just because it was so absurd, I couldn't help laughing.

I don't think it was wrong to laugh at that...the cats may be momentarily scared, but it's not actually hurting them. Even when he says he will rape the cat...big deal? It's not as if he's actually raping a cat or as if the cat actually understands what the word "rape" means.

Cats are annoying, anyway. Probably my least favorite creature.

Thirdly, people with tourettes do sometimes act like that. I've seen a guy at my family's church that couldn't stop cussing nonsensibly. It's not just a stereotype...although this guy is most likely just an imitator.

[sschaula]

I should also add: I think it's the brain structure, as you do. I think women don't have an advanced enough brain structure to understand why it's funny. However, I'm sure many women would say men are just retarded and that's why they laugh. That women are too intelligent for such jokes.

They'd say it as they're putting on make up and high heels, doing their hair so they can go out to the bars to look pretty for the retards.