I heard today of a study performed by some scientists from some university. It was concerned with our reactions to pain that is inflicted by either a man or a woman. Apparently they have much evidence to back up their claims, and while it all sounded substantial enough, I can't remember the details. Anyway, they have found that it takes more force from a female to illicit the same level of pain percieved when a male is inflicting it. So for example, if a male were to poke you with a stick until you reached your pain threshold, he might have to exert, for arguments sake, 100Lb/SqFt. To illicit the same reaction of your reaching your pain threshold, the female will have to exert perhaps 110Lb/SqFt. They've used various methods to explore this but they've mostly used a thumb-screw with a pressure gague as far as I could tell, and the results across the board are far more than statistically significant.
Now provisionally assuming the veracity of the method and results, the explanations would surely have to be psychological, on a deeply ingrained, completely unconscious level. A level just not consciously accessed by the 'overseer'. They might be hardwired or conditioned but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that this is a measurable effect, an effect that we have been ignorant of until now.
Whilst the philosopher can to an extent re-form their physical brain, perhaps even obviate hidden processes with a higher level 'virus killer', do you think they can overcome the human condition which is ingrained at such an indellible level as that exposed above?
Does the sage consider themselves free of such delusion?
Delusion?
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Delusion?
Dave Toast wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>. . . the explanations would surely have to be psychological, on a deeply ingrained, completely unconscious level.<hr>
The explanations can be conscious too. They don't have to be unconscious.
Quote:Quote:<hr>What matters is that this is a measurable effect, an effect that we have been ignorant of until now.<hr>
I wouldn't say we have been ignorant of it. It may simply be the "macho man" syndrome, or trying to impress women, or trying to make women feel safer by appearing a better protector, etc.
Quote:Quote:<hr>. . . do you think they can overcome the human condition which is ingrained at such an indellible level as that exposed above?<hr>
If something is hardwired in them, it would be very difficult for them to overcome it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Does the sage consider themselves free of such delusion?<hr>
If a sage has delusions (misconceptions as the the nature of Reality), then he is not really a sage.
If a certain response to a certain stimuli is hardwired (like being hit on knee with a hammer, and the reflex reaction), then I wouldn't call that a delusion.
Quote:Quote:<hr>. . . the explanations would surely have to be psychological, on a deeply ingrained, completely unconscious level.<hr>
The explanations can be conscious too. They don't have to be unconscious.
Quote:Quote:<hr>What matters is that this is a measurable effect, an effect that we have been ignorant of until now.<hr>
I wouldn't say we have been ignorant of it. It may simply be the "macho man" syndrome, or trying to impress women, or trying to make women feel safer by appearing a better protector, etc.
Quote:Quote:<hr>. . . do you think they can overcome the human condition which is ingrained at such an indellible level as that exposed above?<hr>
If something is hardwired in them, it would be very difficult for them to overcome it.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Does the sage consider themselves free of such delusion?<hr>
If a sage has delusions (misconceptions as the the nature of Reality), then he is not really a sage.
If a certain response to a certain stimuli is hardwired (like being hit on knee with a hammer, and the reflex reaction), then I wouldn't call that a delusion.
what ails ya?
We dont know whether the one receiving the punishment was man or woman, do we? Could be both were used, and both produced similar results.
Yes, men certainly feel less physically threatened by women than they do by other men. Some reasons: Men (and many women i reckon) dont believe women can be as punishing, or as strong and powerful, as men.
Most men as a matter of course also feel better when women are near to them, or interacting with them. This has the effect of cancelling some of the pain.
Men arnt as disturbed when pained by women, as it doesnt bring up so much of the get-even response. With a reduction in anger their consciousness is stronger and clearer, so they can more effectively mentally-combat the punishment. Mental-combat may include adjustment to pain.
I just dont have time to continue....
Leo
Re: what ails ya?
Interesting.
I think Leo might be correct in saying it is to do with the relative perceived 'power' of women. These is less immediate need for the body to react to the danger, whereas pain given by a male indicates the potential for more severe danger.
I wonder if after a certain threshold on the thumb screw there was no difference, I would imagine so.
I think Leo might be correct in saying it is to do with the relative perceived 'power' of women. These is less immediate need for the body to react to the danger, whereas pain given by a male indicates the potential for more severe danger.
I wonder if after a certain threshold on the thumb screw there was no difference, I would imagine so.
-
WolfsonJakk
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:50 pm
Re: what ails ya?
If some sexy Sheila was screwing me thumbs in a vise, it would take approx. 10% more pressure to overcome my arousal impulses with pain.
Pain and tolerance
It makes sense that male tolerance of the female is much higher.
You can see the males high natural tolerance level for the female in the movies. The man is often in a dangerous situation with a female who just does not understand the dangers and who is constantly jepardising the mission. If a man makes a mistake he is usually killed off in a relatively shorter time. It follows that the female has a naturally high tolerance for children.
Tolerance moves downward.
Man to
Woman to
Child to
Toys
Therefore the principles of the mind are reflected in the body.
If the pain was inflicted secretly it would be a masculine action and the tolerance level would be lower.
If the pain was inflicted publicly it would be a feminine action and the tolerance level would be higher.
So my theory says that if you are fully aware that enough people are aware that you are about to have your finger chopped off the chances are you will hardly feel pain.
A bit like realising you cut yourself after you finished fighting.
If you are conscious that a woman disagrees with your point you might tend to brush it off as of little significance especially when you sense she is trying to be clever. When a man disagrees with you, you might feel that he fully understands and is trying to negate you. It does not matter if he is joking or serious.
You can see the males high natural tolerance level for the female in the movies. The man is often in a dangerous situation with a female who just does not understand the dangers and who is constantly jepardising the mission. If a man makes a mistake he is usually killed off in a relatively shorter time. It follows that the female has a naturally high tolerance for children.
Tolerance moves downward.
Man to
Woman to
Child to
Toys
Therefore the principles of the mind are reflected in the body.
If the pain was inflicted secretly it would be a masculine action and the tolerance level would be lower.
If the pain was inflicted publicly it would be a feminine action and the tolerance level would be higher.
So my theory says that if you are fully aware that enough people are aware that you are about to have your finger chopped off the chances are you will hardly feel pain.
A bit like realising you cut yourself after you finished fighting.
If you are conscious that a woman disagrees with your point you might tend to brush it off as of little significance especially when you sense she is trying to be clever. When a man disagrees with you, you might feel that he fully understands and is trying to negate you. It does not matter if he is joking or serious.
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Delusion?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kev: The explanations can be conscious too. They don't have to be unconscious.<hr>
I don't see why not, but on the gross level, they are surely far more likely and obviously unconscious as I see it.
How would you expand upon these conscious explanations?
Have you ever realised and thought about this specific issue before it was mentioned? (Not that one would necessarilly realise all conscious thought.)
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kev: I wouldn't say we have been ignorant of it. It may simply be the "macho man" syndrome, or trying to impress women, or trying to make women feel safer by appearing a better protector, etc.<hr>
I can see you are expanding somewhat here, but the behaviour in question applies equally to women as it does to men.
You may give yourself away a little here Kevin. Have you heard the one about the female surgeon operating on her daughter?
And please don't say that you stated conscious thought, and you are therefore consistent ;-)
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kev: If something is hardwired in them, it would be very difficult for them to overcome it.<hr>
Indeed.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kev: If a sage has delusions (misconceptions as the the nature of Reality), then he is not really a sage.
If a certain response to a certain stimuli is hardwired (like being hit on knee with a hammer, and the reflex reaction), then I wouldn't call that a delusion.<hr>
Even if the reflex reaction causes a misconception as to the nature of reality?
I don't see why not, but on the gross level, they are surely far more likely and obviously unconscious as I see it.
How would you expand upon these conscious explanations?
Have you ever realised and thought about this specific issue before it was mentioned? (Not that one would necessarilly realise all conscious thought.)
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kev: I wouldn't say we have been ignorant of it. It may simply be the "macho man" syndrome, or trying to impress women, or trying to make women feel safer by appearing a better protector, etc.<hr>
I can see you are expanding somewhat here, but the behaviour in question applies equally to women as it does to men.
You may give yourself away a little here Kevin. Have you heard the one about the female surgeon operating on her daughter?
And please don't say that you stated conscious thought, and you are therefore consistent ;-)
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kev: If something is hardwired in them, it would be very difficult for them to overcome it.<hr>
Indeed.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Kev: If a sage has delusions (misconceptions as the the nature of Reality), then he is not really a sage.
If a certain response to a certain stimuli is hardwired (like being hit on knee with a hammer, and the reflex reaction), then I wouldn't call that a delusion.<hr>
Even if the reflex reaction causes a misconception as to the nature of reality?
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: what ails ya?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Leo: We dont know whether the one receiving the punishment was man or woman, do we? Could be both were used, and both produced similar results.<hr>
This was the case.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Leo: Yes, men certainly feel less physically threatened by women than they do by other men. Some reasons: Men (and many women i reckon) dont believe women can be as punishing, or as strong and powerful, as men.<hr>
I'm just waiting for del to make the link with bondage and tell us how he can take more from his dominatrix than he can ever take from his gimps.
I guess this is so, but did you think that this might extend to the consistently produced results of the above study? And do you think that behaviour patterns suggesting such deeply ingrained causes of misperception are normally identifiable and overcomeable, even by the sage?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Leo: Most men as a matter of course also feel better when women are near to them, or interacting with them. This has the effect of cancelling some of the pain.<hr>
Care to flesh that out?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Leo: Men arnt as disturbed when pained by women, as it doesnt bring up so much of the get-even response. With a reduction in anger their consciousness is stronger and clearer, so they can more effectively mentally-combat the punishment. Mental-combat may include adjustment to pain.<hr>
I can certainly go for that, but only to a certain degree. I say only to a certain degree because I can see situations where men are more pained or disturbed by stimulus from a woman than the same stimulus from a man.
Of course in the case of the sage, this get-even response shouldn't be there, and it offers no explanation for the very same observations in women, unless you think it works that way for them too.(?)
This was the case.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Leo: Yes, men certainly feel less physically threatened by women than they do by other men. Some reasons: Men (and many women i reckon) dont believe women can be as punishing, or as strong and powerful, as men.<hr>
I'm just waiting for del to make the link with bondage and tell us how he can take more from his dominatrix than he can ever take from his gimps.
I guess this is so, but did you think that this might extend to the consistently produced results of the above study? And do you think that behaviour patterns suggesting such deeply ingrained causes of misperception are normally identifiable and overcomeable, even by the sage?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Leo: Most men as a matter of course also feel better when women are near to them, or interacting with them. This has the effect of cancelling some of the pain.<hr>
Care to flesh that out?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Leo: Men arnt as disturbed when pained by women, as it doesnt bring up so much of the get-even response. With a reduction in anger their consciousness is stronger and clearer, so they can more effectively mentally-combat the punishment. Mental-combat may include adjustment to pain.<hr>
I can certainly go for that, but only to a certain degree. I say only to a certain degree because I can see situations where men are more pained or disturbed by stimulus from a woman than the same stimulus from a man.
Of course in the case of the sage, this get-even response shouldn't be there, and it offers no explanation for the very same observations in women, unless you think it works that way for them too.(?)
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Delusion?
Quote:Quote:<hr>Wolf: If some sexy Sheila was screwing me thumbs in a vise, it would take approx. 10% more pressure to overcome my arousal impulses with pain.<hr>
It's so obvious now you say it. It even fits with the approximate (made up) figures :-)
It's so obvious now you say it. It even fits with the approximate (made up) figures :-)
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Pain and tolerance
Quote:Quote:<hr>del: If you are conscious that a woman disagrees with your point you might tend to brush it off as of little significance especially when you sense she is trying to be clever. When a man disagrees with you, you might feel that he fully understands and is trying to negate you. It does not matter if he is joking or serious.<hr>
You are wrong del. This is borne put by the fact that I have never once thought myself negated by anything you've disagreed with on what I've written. My being a man, you can count on the fact that I fully understand and am negating you, seriously.
Here's how your first sentence should have read: If I am conscious that a woman disagrees with my point, I might tend to brush it off as being of little significance, especially when I precieve that she is trying to be clever.
How could we argue with your delusion, and actions thereon. But then you had to go and tar the whole world with your brush.
You are wrong del. This is borne put by the fact that I have never once thought myself negated by anything you've disagreed with on what I've written. My being a man, you can count on the fact that I fully understand and am negating you, seriously.
Here's how your first sentence should have read: If I am conscious that a woman disagrees with my point, I might tend to brush it off as being of little significance, especially when I precieve that she is trying to be clever.
How could we argue with your delusion, and actions thereon. But then you had to go and tar the whole world with your brush.
Re: Pain and tolerance
Quote:Quote:<hr>Dave Toast
How could we argue with your delusion, and actions thereon. <hr>
Because it is irrefutable truth. No?
How could we argue with your delusion, and actions thereon. <hr>
Because it is irrefutable truth. No?
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Pain and tolerance
You make my previous point again by not understanding what I have clearly articulated, and offering no negation thereby.
However, yes it is irrefutable truth, with a lower-case t, according to your delusional definitional context.
However, yes it is irrefutable truth, with a lower-case t, according to your delusional definitional context.
Re: Pain and tolerance
Quote:Quote:<hr>Dave Toast
However, yes it is irrefutable truth, with a lower-case t, according to your delusional definitional context. <hr>
I don't understand what you are saying.
But I feel somehow that it would be of benefit to understand fully what you are saying.
Can you state you are saying even more simply?
However, yes it is irrefutable truth, with a lower-case t, according to your delusional definitional context. <hr>
I don't understand what you are saying.
But I feel somehow that it would be of benefit to understand fully what you are saying.
Can you state you are saying even more simply?
-
suergaz
Re: Pain and tolerance
He's saying it's your truth, not his. And he doesn't want to fight you for it!
(:D)
I will always prefer to be negated (just try it any one of you) with laughter than seriousness , but only for the sake of fairness. My laughter is (as I've heard it called) 'killer'
(:D)
I will always prefer to be negated (just try it any one of you) with laughter than seriousness , but only for the sake of fairness. My laughter is (as I've heard it called) 'killer'
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Pain and tolerance
It wouldn't be much of a fight, were I so inclined.
Still, it's a chance to become a punchline, sick though the joke may be.
What is your address del? Edited by: Dave Toast at: 2/9/04 12:33 am
Still, it's a chance to become a punchline, sick though the joke may be.
What is your address del? Edited by: Dave Toast at: 2/9/04 12:33 am
-
suergaz
Re: Pain and tolerance
I have no idea what the hell you're babbling about being a punchline, but it's sickening.
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Pain and tolerance
You have no idea what I'm saying, but the idea that you don't have is sickening?
Babble.
Babble.
Re: Pain and tolerance
Quote:Quote:<hr>Dave Toast
It wouldn't be much of a fight, were I so inclined.
Still, it's a chance to become a punchline, sick though the joke may be.
What is your address del? <hr>
Come and have a drink in my small bar restaurant if you are in London in Brewer Street W1.
It wouldn't be much of a fight, were I so inclined.
Still, it's a chance to become a punchline, sick though the joke may be.
What is your address del? <hr>
Come and have a drink in my small bar restaurant if you are in London in Brewer Street W1.
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Pain and tolerance
Is that The Glasshouse or The Crown?
Incidentally, am I to presume from your words that you own this place, or are you merely the landlord?
How long have you owned/tended this bar?
Incidentally, am I to presume from your words that you own this place, or are you merely the landlord?
How long have you owned/tended this bar?
-
suergaz
Re: Pain and tolerance
DEL offered you a drink at his bar, a more appropriate question would have been if it will be on the house. What do you to make a living again Dave?
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: Pain and tolerance
I've recently had to start working again to do that.
Appropriate to what?
Appropriate to what?