LBM

[Cory Duchesne]

When I originally made this thread, I was not aware of Narth as an organization, and I

A reasonable argument I think a person could possibly make against the views espoused by this forum, would appeal to what psychologist Louis Berman, in this interview, calls low brain masculinization.

He's basically arguing that when humans are highly masculinized, they tend to function too aggressively, lacking the ability to cooperate, and tend to prefer harems of submitting woman which they dominate, as opposed to cooperating more intelligently with a female in raising a family. Berman suggests, for example, that the psychological polarization existing between males and females in the world of gorillas, is a much more intense one than we see in human populations. Evidence suggests that the brains of male Gorillas are far more masculinized than your average male human, and likewise, the brains of female Gorillas are far more bereft of masculinization than your typical female human.

Berman is arguing that low brain masculinization in males became a useful and gradually selected trait, largely because a father that, instead of being dominant and pugnacious (too male), was more protective and nurturant (less masculinized), and thus increased the chances of his children's survival. This is of course because the mother is totally occupied with her infant, it is so helpless at birth, that she is totally taxed by the baby, it consumes all it's mothers energy, hence making it evolutionarily advantageous to have a father who will be protective and nurturing. If she is impregnated by a mate that is too philandering, aggressive, uncaring (too masculine), then her children have less chance of surviving.

Berman seems to be suggesting that a paradigm shift occured, where, instead of a highly masculinized polygamous male dominating a harem without any sensitivity, a new type of male emerged that was more tolerant or desirous of monogamy, engaging more in teamwork and cooperation, thus creating the conditions for further intelligence to emerge. In Berman's words, Low brain masculinization transformed males from bullies to team players, and from harem chiefs to partners in parenthood. Low masculinization is what makes teamwork possible among males, and cooperation between male and female mates.

Berman argues, somewhat compellingly, at least on the surface, that we developed into greater intelligence and civilization, because the average brain masculinization was lowered, making teamwork manifest, which begot civilization, and this created conditions for further selection, making the human brain the organ that it is. Berman think this this lowering in masculinization made it possible for the human species to produce poets and philosophers, scientists and engineers, saints and scholars, dreamers as well as men of action.

Edit:

After further research, the findings of Baron Cohen seemingly contradict Berman, as he says that traits displayed by those with Autism and Aspergers are an expression of extreme brain masculinization. In hindsight, I find it entirely unreasonable to use testosterone levels in Gorillas as any kind of filter through which to understand the masculine mind.

[cat10542]

Thank you

[Matt Gregory]

The only reasonable argument I think a person could possibly make against the feminine denying views of this forum, would appeal to what psychologist Louis Berman, in this interview, calls low brain masculinization.

He's basically arguing that when humans are highly masculinized, they tend to function too aggressively, lacking the ability to cooperate, and tend to prefer harems of submitting woman which they dominate, as opposed to cooperating more intelligently with a female in raising a family.

Except for the feminine destroying ideas of this forum are used to enlighten people and open their minds to wisdom, not create a competitive species, so it would be a fallacious to apply Berman's argument here, like a category error or something.

[cat10542]

Except the fact that this forum tends not to address the problems of masculinity (ya know the normal person definition- implusive, agressive, domineering, fearlessness, toughness, physically strength, etc).

I have no problems with people addressing the problems of femininity. I just disagree when they don't address the problems with the opposite extreme (or admit the positive aspects).

Of course the QRS response would be something like, 'masculine' macho men actually have feminine minds.

This would be due to the fact that they think feminine means unconscious and masculine means conscious, which I disagree with, because it makes no sense to me to redefine words.

However, I think this article actually could explain why the QRS came up with this. Natural selection led to low brain masculinization in men, so then more men were logical and conscious, compared to women if low brain femininization was not selected in women. But by changing the definition, don't you just obscure the meaning, and make it harder to explain what you mean. I know it took me a while to figure out what people were talking about here. I would say that conscious is conscious and unconscious is unconscious, why associate it directly to gender?

And there are good traits that women have, caring, cooperation, etc which when not used blindly are quite beneficial to thought.

My opinion is that mainly you should try to stay away from extremes, whether masculine or feminine (normal people definitions) and try to be human and aware of both.

[Cory Duchesne]

Yet, I don't necessarily find it unreasonable to interpret Berman's view as evidence for a need to go beyond woman and enter into a species that consciously values producing males over females.

We just need to be careful that masculinization doesn't becomes so excessive that it becomes a hindrance. I think that's the case with femininity, that it has played a useful role, but it's presence has become too concentrated, and so now we need to start moving back toward a more masculine direction. Especially considering that we no longer have gorilla sized brains. It might not be sensible to compare the masculinization of a very primitive brain like a gorilla to the masculinization of a much more advanced human brain. And it kind of seems like that is what Berman is doing. It's like he's saying: "look how brutal and pathetic these gorillas behave when they are pumped full of testosterone!"

Well geese Berman, we aren't exactly gorillas anymore are we?

Maybe we're mature(masculine) enough to handle masculinity this time around....

[Jamesh]

The QRS are infantile, though masculinely so.

What they just can't get a grip on is "zero sum games". They think achievement of X is possible without a loss of Y. This is typical "masculine " blindness, which insane women like Kelly and Sue like to follow. In an absolutely real sense, they are autistic to reality, because they take one side and ignore the other.

You folks really do need to think of the QRS as being autisitic, because the truth is they are. Observe it in the hypocrisy of their words. They are AS FUNDAMENTALISTIC AS AN EDUCATED MUSLIM TERRORIST, and are completely unable to see the middle path. All their efforts are directed against "what is opposite" to them, without repgard to what is "alike to them".

Schoolyard bullies.

[Dan Rowden]

Interesting piece of drivel. What we recognise is where dualistic notions are valid (or helpful to a purpose) and where they are not.

Looking for a girlfriend right now, huh, Jimbo?

[Matt Gregory]

Except the fact that this forum tends not to address the problems of masculinity (ya know the normal person definition- implusive, agressive, domineering, fearlessness, toughness, physically strength, etc).

I have no problems with people addressing the problems of femininity. I just disagree when they don't address the problems with the opposite extreme (or admit the positive aspects).

Of course the QRS response would be something like, 'masculine' macho men actually have feminine minds.

This would be due to the fact that they think feminine means unconscious and masculine means conscious, which I disagree with, because it makes no sense to me to redefine words.

I don't think they are redefining them. I think they're basically using the ordinary definitions of masculine=active and feminine=passive and placing them in a psychological context just due to the nature of the subject matter that they address most of the time. I don't think it's hard to see that consciousness is the result of an active mind and unconsciousness is the result of an inactive mind.

However, I think this article actually could explain why the QRS came up with this. Natural selection led to low brain masculinization in men, so then more men were logical and conscious, compared to women if low brain femininization was not selected in women. But by changing the definition, don't you just obscure the meaning, and make it harder to explain what you mean. I know it took me a while to figure out what people were talking about here. I would say that conscious is conscious and unconscious is unconscious, why associate it directly to gender?

Because it's very fitting and it explains so much about human psychology and why men and women are so different (well, to men anyway).

And there are good traits that women have, caring, cooperation, etc which when not used blindly are quite beneficial to thought.

Well, I think people like to focus on the appearance of auxiliary traits because they don't want to really know about themselves and would rather say to themselves "Oh, look at all these different traits between the sexes! It's just an incoherent mishmash that we'll never understand!" when the reality of it is simple enough to be understood by anyone who wants to understand it.

My opinion is that mainly you should try to stay away from extremes, whether masculine or feminine (normal people definitions) and try to be human and aware of both.

Nah, that's boring. :-)

[Jamesh]

Looking for a girlfriend right now, huh, Jimbo?

Nope, but I am going insane. I seem unable to handle the truth. When I get on the turps, my mind cannot keep my frustrations at bay, and I become verbally agresssive and put other people down. I had an pointless argument with my bosses just after making the above post. The more certain my own views become, the more overtly intolerant of the views and actions of others I become, naturally with negative results.

I've become too habitualised to this forum, time for a short break - see ya's in a month.

[Matt Gregory]

What's a turp?

[sue hindmarsh]

-

To "get on the turps" is Australian slang for boozing.

-

[Shahrazad]

Cat,

Of course the QRS response would be something like, 'masculine' macho men actually have feminine minds.

You have only made ten posts, and already you have figured all this out? You are smart.