Pop-culture analysis: Spock (Men=Vulcan, Women=Human)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

In another thread:
(edit to add full quote)

Excuse my pop-culture reference, but Spock, for example, on Star Trek, would be a perfect example of an utterly left-brained person; his artistic ability is the only thing they totally 'got wrong' (he would be completely devoid of humour, creativity, intuition, or randomness; music is entirely right-brained, from the ability to hear it and create it, even though the left side creates the rules and supplies words---Spock would be able to play an instrument yet he'd be unable to create any original piece), plus he would be intensely talkative, object-fixated, worrysome, and he would not be very good at chess since that requires spatial perception and intuitive (thinking "moves ahead"), abstract thinking. Otherwise, he's perfectly suited for an intellectual life in a box (or floating box, as the case might be); stick him out in the wilderness without technology, and he's lost.

Dead, really. He would not survive because as some many-toothed alien beast charged at his face, he'd been cycling logical courses of action to avoid being eaten---and he'd be lunch before he finished. Natural life works faster than words and does not obey logic---as we saw from Spock's troubles on that planet with large, hairy proto-humanoids (in the epidsode, "The Galieo Seven," if memory serves); he applied logic, over-thought things, and damn near got everyone killed. (It was the act at the end of that episode, the desperate and illogical burning off of the fuel reserves right away as a signal rather than logically using it all to stay alive as long as possible, which saved them---meaning that Captain Logic is a really bad commander in a crisis; he needs some nutty, wild ideas, and instincts, to properly lead.)

When confronted with anything but logic, an overly logical mind collapses inevitably. As long as everything's fine and operating within logical parameters (and devoid of humour or even sarcasm, which the left brain has trouble with), logic works great.

But nothing was ever created with logic; no one ever used a rational system to invent something.

Also, the left brain is perpetually consumed with details, which is why very logical people and intellectuals often miss the "bigger picture." Over-analysis happens always with details---which I think is why women tend to pick apart some minor point during a conversation instead of remaining focused on the subject in its entirity; and it's not just women, since I have seen many men do it and I have caught myself doing it here and there (I did it here in another thread: lost perspective, due to anger over something I misunderstood, and began circling one small point like a shark, until I finally left it, stepped back and returned to in a different frame of mind).

*****************

Excuse my pop-culture reference, but Spock, for example, on Star Trek, would be a perfect example of an utterly left-brained person; his artistic ability is the only thing they totally 'got wrong'

No, Spock was emotional and creative - he simply repressed that both because he was raised to believe that was wrong, that real Vulcans were not like that, and that there was something wrong with him because he was half human. He made himself more "Vulcan" than Vulcans because he was overcompensating for his half-human heritage. Although he was quite logical and his natural tendancy was to take the logical approach, he suppressed even the Vulcan level of things that were considered human-like.

In that way, he was a good representation of what guys are, if you equate the value of "being a man" with being Vulcan, and "being a girl" with being human. Being a man (Vulcan) meant being strong of mind, body, and spirit. Being a woman (human) was being weak (you fight like a girl), emotional (you're weeping like a woman), not wanting to deal with "icky" stuff (be a man and pick up the dog poop), etc. Even on things that both genders have to do, it gets phrased differently for boys and girls (take your medicine like a man vs take your medicine like a big girl).

Star Trek was good at making social commentary while disguising it behind alien cultures. They showed prejudice more clearly with the episode where some people were black on the left and others were white on the left, but they also had a running commentary about the prejudice of men against women by men. Vulcans clearly thought they were superior to humans, and in many ways they were - just as there is no denying that men are stronger than women, there was no denying that Vulcans were stronger than humans. Yet, Spock's father married a human female and loved her - but displayed a level of prejudice against his own son for his humanness.

I see similarities between the QRS definition of masculinity and Star Trek Vulcan ideals and the QRS "Woman" and Star Trek humans. I also see a lot of the regulars here, including QRS themselves, like Spock in trying to suppress their human heritage to overcompensate into the Vulcan/"QRS masculine" myth. Like with Spock, the reality is somewhat overlooked in the blinding light of the myth.

[David Quinn]

Yes, the reference to Spock is flawed because Spock could only attain his calmness and clear-sighted rationality by repressing his irrational/emotional side. He wasn't logical enough to realize that he should be doing everything possible to eliminate the irrational/emotional side altogether.

The fully-enlightened spiritual person doesn't have to engage in repression because the thing which could possibly need repressing - i.e. the human/emotional/irrational/violent side of him - is no longer there. As a result, he can be perfectly spontaneous and free in everything that he does, without any risk of ethically transgressing.

-

Nordicvs wrote:

When confronted with anything but logic, an overly logical mind collapses inevitably. As long as everything's fine and operating within logical parameters (and devoid of humour or even sarcasm, which the left brain has trouble with), logic works great.

If a person's mindset is causing him to have difficulties dealing with real-life experiences, then he is not being very logical.

But nothing was ever created with logic; no one ever used a rational system to invent something.

Your analysis is too simplistic. Some of the greatest things even invented - namely, the various wise spiritual and philosophical texts of history - were the result of a perfect fusion of rationality and creativity.

Increases in rationality never come at the expense of intuition and creativity. That is merely a myth perpetuated by irrational people. Rather, all three aspects grow together.

A person who strives to fully develop his logical skills without also developing his intuition and creativity can only remain an autistic person, or an academic, at best. And even here he can't succeed, as his logical skills will be severely hampered by his lack of intuition and creativity.

Also, the left brain is perpetually consumed with details, which is why very logical people and intellectuals often miss the "bigger picture."

Again, people who miss the bigger picture are not very logical.

You need to rethink what being logical means, because at the moment you are being taken in by a myth that has been perpetuated by illogical people.

-

[Tharan]

Nordicvs wrote,

...He would not survive because as some many-toothed alien beast charged at his face, he'd been cycling logical courses of action to avoid being eaten---and he'd be lunch before he finished. Natural life works faster than words and does not obey logic---as we saw from Spock's troubles on that planet with large, hairy proto-humanoids (in the epidsode, "The Galieo Seven," if memory serves); he applied logic, over-thought things, and damn near got everyone killed. (It was the act at the end of that episode, the desperate and illogical burning off of the fuel reserves right away as a signal rather than logically using it all to stay alive as long as possible, which saved them---meaning that Captain Logic is a really bad commander in a crisis; he needs some nutty, wild ideas, and instincts, to properly lead.)

This is not reflective of any flaw in logic, but rather slow processing speed and/or foresight by logical projection. A "true" Spock would recognize this limitation and pre-determine 1 or 2 options under such a condition. He would then only choose perhaps two when some fanged beast was approaching, decreasing his processing time before action. One of the best options would be to flee, thereby giving time to further process a larger list of inputs and options to determine a higher percentage for an advantageous outcome. But that doesn't sell well to advertisers unless you add a green chick for Kirk to makeout with.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

But nothing was ever created with logic; no one ever used a rational system to invent something.

Your analysis is too simplistic. Some of the greatest things even invented - namely, the various wise spiritual and philosophical texts of history - were the result of a perfect fusion of rationality and creativity.

I agree - and if Nordicvs was referring to something more concrete, I would say that the adage that necessity is the mother of invention would be a true representation of how most things were invented. There was a need, and logic showed the way to meet that need.

Increases in rationality never come at the expense of intuition and creativity.

If anything, they necessitate it. Low latent inhibition can be a serious handicap for people of lower intelligence and rationality, but it is the spark of creativity in the person of higher intelligence. The distinction between a madman and a creative genius is sufficient intelligence and rationality to direct the creativity.
.

[Nordicvs]

Well, I'm not sure what this thread is about exactly---you've taken something and twisted its meaning (180 degrees); I used Spock as an example of a perfect left-brain-dominated person---essentially what women, not men, might be if they'd done their own thinking (adapting, struggling, suffering) over the last few thousand years. Still, I view the Spock character as what men are becoming (in terms of logic and rationale, organized ad nauseum---a sterile, uncreative mind devoid of humour, passion, intuition, or any instinct whatsoever---when nature is obliterated from the surface of this planet, when feminization is complete, we'll all be spocks); he's modern man's postmodern archtype, I'd say.

Anyway, let's see what you've got here...

No, Spock was emotional and creative - he simply repressed that both because he was raised to believe that was wrong, that real Vulcans were not like that, and that there was something wrong with him because he was half human. He made himself more "Vulcan" than Vulcans because he was overcompensating for his half-human heritage. Although he was quite logical and his natural tendancy was to take the logical approach, he suppressed even the Vulcan level of things that were considered human-like.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about "Spock the Vulcan"---I was using his character and the portrayal of his mental attributes in terms of humans today, specifically regarding the left hemispheres of our brains. And his "Vulcan-side" served as a fantastic example of total left-brain dominance. (What I mentioned "they got wrong" were traits that would not be visible in totally left-brain-dominated people---his ability in chess and his music).

In that way, he was a good representation of what guys are, if you equate the value of "being a man" with being Vulcan, and "being a girl" with being human. Being a man (Vulcan) meant being strong of mind, body, and spirit. Being a woman (human) was being weak (you fight like a girl), emotional (you're weeping like a woman), not wanting to deal with "icky" stuff (be a man and pick up the dog poop), etc. Even on things that both genders have to do, it gets phrased differently for boys and girls (take your medicine like a man vs take your medicine like a big girl).

No, I equate it with not "being a man" but being a "civilized-feminized-domesticated she-male." The "value" of modern man depends on how well he acts female, right down to his worth today as a person in terms of financial worth (that which is an object is valued---that which is intangible, abstract, such as 'his word,' his honour, his character, his mind, or his spirit...is not).

It's been steadily getting this way for a few thousand years now; before that, when men were actually masculine, men were completely different. So different that today we view them as aliens, when we (men) are the aliens---yanked out of our natural environment and domesticated: bred for serving female desires, wants rationalized as needs.

Once more yet again, there is nothing masculine about modern man, the same way there is nothing wolfly about dogs except for appearance, in some cases, and a few latent instincts, mostly biological, genetic shit regarding procreation. Both were captured, domesticated, and enslaved---and taught tricks (dogs: "sit and roll over;" men: "work, provide, and pay;" dogs: "speak and play dead;" men: "be strong and silent and die in the wars"---dogs and men: "chase a ball instead of what you used to chase; your prey"). We are, in effect, a new species from ten millennia ago: from pans masculus to homo "sapiens" (or homo feminus).

We seem to be on two differing pages here, you and I---you're looking at modern man and modern women as if this is some natural state for man; I'm looking at the cultural evolution of the male gender over the last ten thousand years, and this isn't a natural state for man. Not at all. It's a more natural state for woman ('more' because woman seemed semi-domesticated even before the farming uprise in Mesopotamia---sitting around the "home," the cave or tent or teepee or yurt or igloo or whatever, is by definition being "domesticated"---and what is the home but a symbol of the feminine?---what is a city but a large home?---what is civilization but a massive city?).

Women are the "Vulcans" in this context----men are dogs, domesticated and trained protectors; working pets.

Star Trek was good at making social commentary while disguising it behind alien cultures. They showed prejudice more clearly with the episode where some people were black on the left and others were white on the left, but they also had a running commentary about the prejudice of men against women by men. Vulcans clearly thought they were superior to humans, and in many ways they were - just as there is no denying that men are stronger than women, there was no denying that Vulcans were stronger than humans. Yet, Spock's father married a human female and loved her - but displayed a level of prejudice against his own son for his humanness.

I see similarities between the QRS definition of masculinity and Star Trek Vulcan ideals and the QRS "Woman" and Star Trek humans. I also see a lot of the regulars here, including QRS themselves, like Spock in trying to suppress their human heritage to overcompensate into the Vulcan/"QRS masculine" myth. Like with Spock, the reality is somewhat overlooked in the blinding light of the myth.

Hmm. Not sure---I don't know what you mean by 'QRS Woman.'

Yes, the reference to Spock is flawed because Spock could only attain his calmness and clear-sighted rationality by repressing his irrational/emotional side. He wasn't logical enough to realize that he should be doing everything possible to eliminate the irrational/emotional side altogether.

I'm not sure what you mean by "emotional side." The right brain has feelings and the left brain has emotions---both hemispheres have them, only on one side they are shallow and numerous and on the other they are fewer, deeper, and more intense. And all the really primal, base ones exist in the reptile brain---so all three of the human brains possess either feelings or emotions.

My reference might seem flawed because the context has been shifted radically for this thread---as I mention above, its original intent was to make a point about the left brain and how logic can't do much with the illogical (i.e. Spock sucks at being a captain).

The fully-enlightened spiritual person doesn't have to engage in repression because the thing which could possibly need repressing - i.e. the human/emotional/irrational/violent side of him - is no longer there. As a result, he can be perfectly spontaneous and free in everything that he does, without any risk of ethically transgressing.

Perfectly spontaneous? That requires some right brained randomness, I expect, not what you're saying here. Even "free" hardly fits. The drive to control, manipulate, organize, rationalize, logicize, structurize (make "not free"---submit to rules and regulations; systems), and generally think and not act, talk about and not do---these are classic left-brain characteristics.

There's no creativity, no impulsiveness (spontaneity!), randomness, humour, whackiness, intuition----all in the right hemisphere. The left brain by far dominates in most people (overwhelmingly in females), to such an extent that thirty years back they considered the right hemisphere nearly "redundant" or even "retarded" (because we barely understood what goes on in there and even now we don't know very much---let alone value it, for it really is redundant in civilization...who needs instinct when we have the internet?---who needs to do anything when we have machines and working class males?---who needs nature when we have zoos?--- ....perfectly logical to have animals closer rather than risk life and limb to go so far to see them in the wild, and it helps local economies). No wonder! It contains all the shit modern humans no longer use (no longer DO and now do virtually, on computers), everything we've (well, some men) been trying for centuries to get back into; masculinity, our bloody lost nature.

Its last resurgence was during the Frontier period during the exploration and conquering of the New World---no surprise many men and women dream of that simplier time, and why many men identify with the "cowboy" types. And now that there is no frontier left on earth, nothing left to explore, the walls of civilization being logically constructed around us...the next resurgence might not be until we head off into space---screw intelligent life: I just hope there are some trees out there---if we survive.

If a person's mindset is causing him to have difficulties dealing with real-life experiences, then he is not being very logical.

Logical people have no difficulties with real-life experiences?

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with difficulties---they pose challenges which stimulate both sides of our brains/minds. Growth never occurs otherwise. If one can work through them logically, great; I prefer feeling and sensing my way through, since in my experiences I can often arrive exactly where I would have arrived using logic, and this way my right hemisphere gets some much-needed exercise and the result is the same: problem solved.

Your analysis is too simplistic. Some of the greatest things even invented - namely, the various wise spiritual and philosophical texts of history - were the result of a perfect fusion of rationality and creativity.

Right---that's basically what I said. Logic alone is nearly useless, unless facing something logical.

Our latest example of male genius (Einstein) proves what you mention about fusion: both "math sections" of his brain were equally malformed and lacking the creases (or wrinkles) normal to that region of the brain in either hemisphere (which is generally agreed to speed up processes---as does an enlarged corpus callosum, speeding up the rate at which one switches back and forth between right-left functioning, and Einstein also possessed an enlarged corpus callosum); the right side, with its spatial perception, 3D-ness, non-linear thinking, imagination and creativity...perfectly fused with the left side's logic, strength with letters and symbols and numbers, and of course the sequential stuff and problem-solving necessary to figure out math equations.

Increases in rationality never come at the expense of intuition and creativity. That is merely a myth perpetuated by irrational people. Rather, all three aspects grow together.

A person who strives to fully develop his logical skills without also developing his intuition and creativity can only remain an autistic person, or an academic, at best. And even here he can't succeed, as his logical skills will be severely hampered by his lack of intuition and creativity.

Couldn't agree more.

Again, people who miss the bigger picture are not very logical.

You need to rethink what being logical means, because at the moment you are being taken in by a myth that has been perpetuated by illogical people.

Well, I'll rethink it for its own sake (I tend to rethink almost everything periodically), but I've never heard these myths you're talking about.

Myself, I've been called extremely logical and always have been, and I was proud of being rational and logical...until I began arriving at answers "out of the blue" and sometimes "just knew" stuff without any logical deduction; things just fit, I sensed they did, instinctively, and there was no logical reason for it...but there it was. This happened more frequently when intoxicated with marijuana---which enhances the right brain and retards the left---and so I began researching the brain and proved a bunch of stuff I already knew (already realized---in its illogical spendlor---in the very half of the brain I was researching).

I've come to see I was too logical, too rational---I had no more creative spark, my intuition was dull, and my instincts, which I'd always trusted, were rusty as hell. The solution was focusing on my weaker mind, everyone's weaker mind, our right "sides," our masculine sides (if not a "side" per se than clearly the home of where the masculine resides in humans). If dual-brain theory is on the right track, then each hemisphere has its own consciousness---the bulb in my right side was getting dim; feminized. Too civilized. Like a muscle, it was subject to atrophy.

This is not reflective of any flaw in logic, but rather slow processing speed and/or foresight by logical projection. A "true" Spock would recognize this limitation and pre-determine 1 or 2 options under such a condition. He would then only choose perhaps two when some fanged beast was approaching, decreasing his processing time before action. One of the best options would be to flee, thereby giving time to further process a larger list of inputs and options to determine a higher percentage for an advantageous outcome. But that doesn't sell well to advertisers unless you add a green chick for Kirk to makeout with.

And here is an example of what I said in the other thread about focusing on details and missing the bigger picture---yes, it is not reflective of any flaw in logic. You're absolutely correct---it's reflective of using logic where logic has no place.

The time it took you to think and type that (in essence, think it out properly), you'd be dead. That was the whole point of what I was saying---nature moves too fast for thought, and logic takes time. A natural creature will act before thinking; a right brained human will act faster than you can think out which action is appropriate.

Ever go hunting? Play sports? Well, even watching sports will do. Check out how the guys move and perform a task together, all without either verbal communication or logical deduction. Hockey, for example; it's swift, split-second reactions----they do ten times more than the commentator can comment on---and instincts, intuition.

Logic can't keep up with action, and that's why Spock sucked at leading in a crisis: it requires the "human" instincts, gut feelings---irrationality.

[Tharan]

I think the "gut feelings" can be quantified, and thus are not actually irrational.

[Nordicvs]

Not sure how---knowing something, getting a feeling regarding something, based on no evidence whatsoever, purely on a hunch or whatever...seems not based in reason, logic, or any rational method of (left-brained) thought.

If that is not irrational, then perhaps non-rational describes it.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well, I'm not sure what this thread is about exactly---you've taken something and twisted its meaning (180 degrees);

I wrote to what I saw, and I did disagree with you. I thought the "No" at the begining of my post would be sufficient to indicate that.

I used Spock as an example of a perfect left-brain-dominated person

Well, it was a bit of a stretch to take Spock - who would probably be as close to a perfect left-brain dominated character - and use him as an example when you were trying to make an argument as if the right brain had been removed.

---essentially what women, not men, might be if they'd done their own thinking (adapting, struggling, suffering) over the last few thousand years.

Here is an example of what you noted later. We are on two different pages - I deal with what is, and you are dealing with "what if" and "if only." To me, "if" is okay for the future as it can be a useful preparation tool. I see little use for the "if" in the past because the past is done. There are some uses for the past "if" for reasons of deduction, but little else.

Still, I view the Spock character as what men are becoming (in terms of logic and rationale, organized ad nauseum---a sterile, uncreative mind devoid of humour, passion, intuition, or any instinct whatsoever---when nature is obliterated from the surface of this planet, when feminization is complete, we'll all be spocks); he's modern man's postmodern archtype, I'd say.

I'd say that logic, rationality, and a sterile environment is closer to what the QRS are touting as masculine - but I personally see these things as neither masculine nor feminine, but rather pristine.

No, Spock was emotional and creative - he simply repressed that both because he was raised to believe that was wrong, that real Vulcans were not like that, and that there was something wrong with him because he was half human. He made himself more "Vulcan" than Vulcans because he was overcompensating for his half-human heritage. Although he was quite logical and his natural tendancy was to take the logical approach, he suppressed even the Vulcan level of things that were considered human-like.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about "Spock the Vulcan"---I was using his character and the portrayal of his mental attributes in terms of humans today, specifically regarding the left hemispheres of our brains. And his "Vulcan-side" served as a fantastic example of total left-brain dominance. (What I mentioned "they got wrong" were traits that would not be visible in totally left-brain-dominated people---his ability in chess and his music).

Again, there's a difference between left brain dominated and right brain-ectomy.

In that way, he was a good representation of what guys are, if you equate the value of "being a man" with being Vulcan, and "being a girl" with being human. Being a man (Vulcan) meant being strong of mind, body, and spirit. Being a woman (human) was being weak (you fight like a girl), emotional (you're weeping like a woman), not wanting to deal with "icky" stuff (be a man and pick up the dog poop), etc. Even on things that both genders have to do, it gets phrased differently for boys and girls (take your medicine like a man vs take your medicine like a big girl).

No, I equate it with not "being a man" but being a "civilized-feminized-domesticated she-male."

Again, I was not providing an interpretation of what you said, but stating my own thoughts. My thoughts were in contradiction to yours. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point, as I don't believe it is worth a brow-beating over.

The "value" of modern man depends on how well he acts female, right down to his worth today as a person in terms of financial worth (that which is an object is valued---that which is intangible, abstract, such as 'his word,' his honour, his character, his mind, or his spirit...is not).

It's been steadily getting this way for a few thousand years now; before that, when men were actually masculine, men were completely different. So different that today we view them as aliens, when we (men) are the aliens---yanked out of our natural environment and domesticated: bred for serving female desires, wants rationalized as needs.

Is there a point here, or are you just moaning?

Once more yet again, there is nothing masculine about modern man, the same way there is nothing wolfly about dogs except for appearance, in some cases, and a few latent instincts, mostly biological, genetic shit regarding procreation. Both were captured, domesticated, and enslaved---and taught tricks (dogs: "sit and roll over;" men: "work, provide, and pay;" dogs: "speak and play dead;" men: "be strong and silent and die in the wars"---dogs and men: "chase a ball instead of what you used to chase; your prey"). We are, in effect, a new species from ten millennia ago: from pans masculus to homo "sapiens" (or homo feminus).

I believe in being honest, so I will put it to you this way. I've already typed out about 500 posts on how females got a raw deal too - and I don't feel like repeating myself. The summary is that guys got one raw deal and females got another raw deal. Please read the old posts for the longer version.

If you need to moan some more before getting on to the real point of what to do at this point, go ahead - but I expect my old posts to stand for themselves.

We seem to be on two differing pages here, you and I

Yes, previously addressed.

---you're looking at modern man and modern women as if this is some natural state for man;

What's natural? Do you feel like giving up your computer, chucking your clothes, and running around the forest?

I'm looking at the cultural evolution of the male gender over the last ten thousand years, and this isn't a natural state for man. Not at all. It's a more natural state for woman ('more' because woman seemed semi-domesticated even before the farming uprise in Mesopotamia---sitting around the "home," the cave or tent or teepee or yurt or igloo or whatever, is by definition being "domesticated"---and what is the home but a symbol of the feminine?---what is a city but a large home?---what is civilization but a massive city?).

If you don't like it, leave.

Women are the "Vulcans" in this context

I'll take that as a compliment, even though you didn't mean it that way.

----men are dogs, domesticated and trained protectors; working pets.

Hmmm, should I be nasty and mention that men were born with a leash attached....I'm tired of going over how women were considered property.

Hmm. Not sure---I don't know what you mean by 'QRS Woman.'

Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind by David Quinn

Ever go hunting? Play sports? Well, even watching sports will do. Check out how the guys move and perform a task together, all without either verbal communication or logical deduction. Hockey, for example; it's swift, split-second reactions----they do ten times more than the commentator can comment on---and instincts, intuition.

Logic can't keep up with action, and that's why Spock sucked at leading in a crisis: it requires the "human" instincts, gut feelings---irrationality.

In high school, I was quite good at soccor. The other team could never figure out how I always got the ball. The coach started yelling at them to communicate with the guy to tell him I was coming, but he still could never see me until after I had the ball. After awhile, every time I started my approach, everyone would start chanting "ghost, ghost, ghost" because no matter what, the guy with the ball could never see me. It was all logic. I realized that a person could see me coming if I jumped into their field of peripheral vision, and they would be able to move away - but if I intentionally got in that back angle of their peripheral vision where a person does not have depth perception and intentionally moved in where he could in fact see me the whole time but could not tell how far away I was, it achieved the same effect as if he did not see me at all. It worked every time - and all on logic.
.

[Nordicvs]

I wrote to what I saw, and I did disagree with you. I thought the "No" at the begining of my post would be sufficient to indicate that.

Well, it wasn't. You pasted part of a post, with no context or even a link included, and then---yes---said "No," followed by a bunch of random info on Spock that I've known since I was six or seven years old. Yes, I know what Spock is like---but what exactly do you disagree with? My selection of characters worthy of analogy? Are you a Trekkie that's just being anal? Or do you feel Spock best resembles this QRS definition of masculinity? Well, that's hardly a disagreement with me since I don't know what "QRS" means and am only now going to check it out.

I honestly do not know what you're disagreeing with. What it seems to be is "anything posted by Nordicvs." Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, it was a bit of a stretch to take Spock - who would probably be as close to a perfect left-brain dominated character - and use him as an example when you were trying to make an argument as if the right brain had been removed.

Okay, so it is the choice of analogy... (better double-check, as well---I may have spelled a word or two incorrectly, so...just a friendly warning that you might need to create a whole new thread for that).

Tell me, then, a more fitting analogy that serves my purpose, since you're acting as though you're the authority here in this matter.

Here is an example of what you noted later. We are on two different pages - I deal with what is, and you are dealing with "what if" and "if only." To me, "if" is okay for the future as it can be a useful preparation tool. I see little use for the "if" in the past because the past is done. There are some uses for the past "if" for reasons of deduction, but little else.

What's happened, well, happened---that is what is, or at least what has been. The state of male and females of which I speak, that it is also what is. I deal with what is, what was, what will be, what wasn't, what could be and what couldn't be. And some what ifs, too. Although I don't recall too many of those here.

We are on different pages---I know what page I'm on (and you think you do but can't get on the same one despite this alleged knowledge), and you might know what page you're on, but I don't.

I'd say that logic, rationality, and a sterile environment is closer to what the QRS are touting as masculine - but I personally see these things as neither masculine nor feminine, but rather pristine.

Okay.

Again, there's a difference between left brain dominated and right brain-ectomy.

Which is...?

(I know there's a difference; I'd like to hear your ideas about what it might be.)

Again, I was not providing an interpretation of what you said, but stating my own thoughts. My thoughts were in contradiction to yours. We may just have to agree to disagree on this point, as I don't believe it is worth a brow-beating over.

Alright.

I'm not quite sure why you mention "brow-beating"---is that what you think I'm doing? I admit I got worked up in a previous thread/discussion with you, but I have no ill feelings regarding you (I don't even know you). It just seems like you're really defensive here, as if picking up where we left off in some other thread. I've been told I have a quite aggressive, passionate style of writing, especially regarding things I feel strongly about, but I'm like that all the time, with everyone, even friends online I've known for years (usually people pick up on that after they get to know me a bit better, but I am fairly new here still and so this might explain some things).

Your thoughts are in contradiction to mine---alrighty: perhaps you'd like to share those? For example, please tell me what you think is "masculine..." and why it is not similar to what resides in the right hemisphere...which I assume---by contradiction---means that you feel women are more right brained (more creative, humourous, not much into worrying, not great with words, more comfortable doing than talking about doing, better with abstract concepts and not prone to like objects, especially very shiny ones, et cetera).

Is there a point here, or are you just moaning?

Moaning? About what? That 'sounded' like complaining or something? Weird, I was stating some historical info to help make a point, which you missed, dismissed as having no point, and then decided it's whining. Okay, next...

I believe in being honest, so I will put it to you this way. I've already typed out about 500 posts on how females got a raw deal too - and I don't feel like repeating myself. The summary is that guys got one raw deal and females got another raw deal. Please read the old posts for the longer version.

Ah, okay, I think I'm getting this now----you thought I mentioned all that as some way of saying "poor us, look at what happened to us men! whaaa!"---probably adding a "and all because of those damned females!!1" with that. Heh. Pretty funny.

No, I don't think men got a "raw deal"---things got fucked up, which all sense (not to mention basic economics) points to when humans stopped roaming and settled into farming communities---it's no one's fault, no one's to blame, it just happened.

I don't like what it's done to men or women, but it's more this planet I care about (actually, if I discovered that humanity was to go extinct tomorrow, but that no other species would...I'd sleep soundly during my final night on this globe). It's certainly not a bitch-and-moan-fest about the state of men----it's about what was lost, it's about masculinity or "right brain retardation," and it's mainly about the destruction of the natural world, and gender hasn't got much to do with it.

Anyway, if you care to drop a link to one or two of those posts (I'm not about to sift through all 1000+ posts and threads of yours---sorry, you seem interesting, but not that interesting), I'll give em a read.

If you need to moan some more before getting on to the real point of what to do at this point, go ahead - but I expect my old posts to stand for themselves.

Is it your goal here to provoke some sort of reaction out of me, or is this pretty typical debating tactics for you---a metaphorical subtle jab in the ribs, to which you can respond, if questioned, with the equivalent of, "Oh, I was just stretching?"

C'mon. I'm trying to have a discussion here, and I really don't want to take that previous shit to the next immature level, so if you want a serious discussion as well, without the bullshit, let me know, so I won't have to type out three paragraphs of not-easily-found words all to have it poo-poohed by you as "moaning." Which is actually quite rude---I'm sure even enlightened people have basic manners.

Unless you're a nihilist, in which case nevermind...

What's natural? Do you feel like giving up your computer, chucking your clothes, and running around the forest?

Actually, yes; except that the computer is coming with me to the mountains. And I'm taking a few bits of clothing---being warm in alpine regions helps survival, which is good, or so I've been told.

If you don't like it, leave.

(You left out "...leave, hippy." Also, "dirty commie" fits that love it or leave it stuff. Oh, tell me you're not an American---and a Republican---please don't, I'll die laughing.)

See, this is what I'm talking about---is this really fucking necessary? What's behind that?---more than a contradiction in ideas, I expect.

I'd like to have a civil discussion or debate here, but you're tempting me into turning it ugly. Do you do this with everyone, or am I something special? I know a few flaming forums we can go off to and whack each other about mindlessly with insults, if that's what blows your hair back---but frankly, I'm really rather bored with that shit and prefer some intelligent, on-topic discourse.

If you have some sort of personal beef with me, PM me and let's discuss like adults, okay? Or in a thread, whichever.

I'll take that as a compliment, even though you didn't mean it that way.

Sure. No, I didn't mean it as a compliment, but it is something I wouldn't mind seeing (the majority of women more Spock-like, compared to how they are currently). So, it's not officially an insult either.

Hmmm, should I be nasty and mention that men were born with a leash attached....I'm tired of going over how women were considered property.

Hmmm. Should I be rational and post more historical data to support the fact that men have changed (rather dramatically, in evolutionary terms) since the dawn of civilization, all due to farming, goddess-worshipping folk in ancient Mesopotamia, and that this change has resulted---repeating a pattern in varying degrees from Sumer to Babylon to Egypt to Greece to Rome to England to America---in exponential poverty in men's former natural, masculine state, corresponding uncannily with the destruction of natural habitats across the globe, in an effort to show what was "man's nature" that has ceased to exist, explaining that we cannot discuss civilized man's nature due to his adopted feminine nature all those centuries ago, in accordance with this "left-brain-dominance," and as such all this apparent moaning is necessary to establish a (pre-)historical basis for actual masculinity, since what is apparent today is as synthetic as the environments we've constructed to encapsulate ourselves... all so you can attempt another insult and call me a moaner?

Nope. Pointless.

Woman: An Exposition for the Advanced Mind by David Quinn.

Thanks for the link.

In high school, I was quite good at soccor. The other team could never figure out how I always got the ball. The coach started yelling at them to communicate with the guy to tell him I was coming, but he still could never see me until after I had the ball. After awhile, every time I started my approach, everyone would start chanting "ghost, ghost, ghost" because no matter what, the guy with the ball could never see me. It was all logic. I realized that a person could see me coming if I jumped into their field of peripheral vision, and they would be able to move away - but if I intentionally got in that back angle of their peripheral vision where a person does not have depth perception and intentionally moved in where he could in fact see me the whole time but could not tell how far away I was, it achieved the same effect as if he did not see me at all. It worked every time - and all on logic.

You missed the point---you're talking about strategy. None of that went through your head in the few seconds it took to carry out the act (there's no time). And when you ran in alone and were in the clear to score a goal...did you stop and get out a sheet of paper to analyze logically what angle might be geometrically auspicious for a goal?

Or did you just bloody do it?---improvise, without thinking, without talking, intuitively, instinctually?

There are moments in sports when you have time to contemplate, just like hunting, but that's not what I mean. I'm talking about action, when you're moving around and things are happening faster than you can think through them, when you draw upon your instincts---when logic doesn't and can't work. Like in a crisis; like being chased by a German Shepherd with its crimson jaws snapping at your ass.

Clearly not just hunting or sports, how about when you're scared, blood flooding adrenaline through your brain---logic doesn't work here; or when your car slams into something while you're backing up---logic doesn't work here either. The left brain freezes while the right brain is way ahead of it, getting your limbs moving; doing.

Or when you're trying to create a portrait of a banana's virginity, or writing some free-thought prose about a loved one morphing into a frozen teardrop...nope, logic is no good for these either.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Link to full original post - per what I perceive as your request

Much of the above doesn't need a point-by-point rebuttal, especially since it looked like you "got it" on several points partway through your post., so if I miss anything significant, please let me know.

I did not, and do not, take a position for or against an individual based on previous experiences with an individual. I respond to the thoughts and words in front of me, and only make adjustments to how I frame a response or even if I respond based on my perception of if/how the person will understand it. I noticed that you have an aggressive style, so that is how you got an aggressive style back. Nothing personal, really. Using that tone to point out what looked like moaning to me was merely a reflection of the style I saw.

Since our previous clash seems important enough to you to bring it up again in this thread, and because some of the same theme seems to be arising, I will address it briefly in hopes that this will answer pertinant questions you seem to have about me. You mentioned that you believe that the majority of women are monsters. You may enjoy Kevin's web page. I have had significant personal experiences of men behaving monsterously, and since arriving at this website, I have seen plenty of evidence that such things as violence and lying are predominant in the psyches of most men. I was raised to believe that all men were right and women were meaningless pieces of property, but through experience I learned that there are more than a few a-holes out there. Since coming here, I have heard everything from the male belief that women deserve to be raped and women like to be abused, through all women are abusive, to all women are mindless idiots thouroughly dependant on men. From seeing how men regard women, including the ones that put on a civilized face, I have learned that most men are a-holes and the rest have a monster, most of which are yea close to getting unleashed without much provocation. From experience, I know that it is the males who have either a disregard or a poor regard of women whose monsters are most likely to get unleashed - and on anybody who looks weak, not just the one provoking him. Actually more often on a female who looks weak than on who or whatever is provoking him because the antagonist could most likely whoop him. I did develop a louder bark from this knowledge. I realize now that being nice is what painted the target on my head for all these predators, so I no longer value being nice. If you want to think of me as a monster, that does not bother me. I'd rather be thought of as a monster than be thought of as prey.

I started a separate thread because I felt it was a worthwhile topic of exploration. That I saw things differently than you did was not a personal attack. I do not do personal attacks, and even if I make an overall judgment of disapproval of someone, I both still listen for possible worthwhile thoughts, and unless the person is a serious threat (such as likely to kill me or seriously mess up my life, or to do those things to others and I am unable to rectify that), the judgment is not final. A good example of that is Kevin - for the longest time I did not approve of him, but I continued to regard each of his thoughts and actions separately, and at this point I have developed a level of respect for him.

As something that might be helpful to you, I suggest that you at least consider making the thought that something is a personal attack be your thought of last resort.Although some people make personal attacks, most people are trying to make a point - even those who are making personal attacks. Taking something as a personal attack tends to shut down the ability to see the point - and it is seeing the point that gets to the bottom of the issue.

Clearly not just hunting or sports, how about when you're scared, blood flooding adrenaline through your brain---logic doesn't work here

Logic does not function there, but the outcome would be improved if it did. I'll admit that when my father pointed his rifle at me in the living room, my logic did not function. If it had, I would have run out the front door. It did not, so I ran to my room and ended up standing in the corner at gunpoint. My mind further shut off to the point that I didn't understand language, so even though I knew it was very important that I do whatever he was telling me, as hard as I tried to understand his words, I could not. Again, logic could have been helpful in that moment.

Although it may look like it, I am not missing your point. I know that you are referring to the reflexive response that bipasses thinking parts of the brain, causing a faster reaction than possible by thinking things through. Although it is rational to have a pre-programmed routine in place, that does not subtract from the important role logic takes in the programming phase - or as an available alternative if something unusual arises. If someone throws a baseball at your head, you duck - why? A kid throws a toy at a toddler, the toddler does not duck - he gets hit and cries. Sooner or later, logic tells the kid that if something comes flying at his head, he should duck. As an adult, you probably forgot the first time or so you got hit in the head, but now you have this reflex that your logic programmed into you.

The pro athletes may not be thinking too much at the moment they take a shot, but that's only because the programming was already done in practice. The really big fish can think on their feet though in addition to having muscle memory. Sometimes stuff comes up that never came up before - and only logic can handle that. Rationality involves using all the tools available - including clueing in on when to figure out something new, and when an old and tested routine will work.

What you seem to be referring to is as if everything were always encountered for the first time. That's illogical. A logical response would be to check the memory for a similar situation and use the technique that has proven to work well in that situation. The pro-athletes are still thinking out there, but usually just enough to tell them which memory to re-enact. All this is programing - not instinct.

Art: Good art requires logic, too - but even with bad art, a logical person can tell the difference between how much logic was in the head of the painter. There was an article once showing the art painted by an ape and art with similar colors and a similar number of strokes done by a human. Placed side by side, I could tell which was done by who. Having a logical and rational mind always improves results - even in the worst of art.

tell me you're not an American---and a Republican---please don't, I'll die laughing.

Well, I hope you saved up enough for your own funeral expenses so you don't have to be buried on the taxpayer's dollar. ;)


(in my own defense, though - I voted for Kerry in the last election)

[Nordicvs]

Much of the above doesn't need a point-by-point rebuttal, especially since it looked like you "got it" on several points partway through your post., so if I miss anything significant, please let me know.

Sure.

By the way, thanks again for the link---it was a great read, and with most of that I agree fully. Unfortunately, I found nothing relating to your original post:

I see similarities between the QRS definition of masculinity and Star Trek Vulcan ideals and the QRS "Woman" and Star Trek humans. I also see a lot of the regulars here, including QRS themselves, like Spock in trying to suppress their human heritage to overcompensate into the Vulcan/"QRS masculine" myth. Like with Spock, the reality is somewhat overlooked in the blinding light of the myth.

And this one:

I'd say that logic, rationality, and a sterile environment is closer to what the QRS are touting as masculine - but I personally see these things as neither masculine nor feminine, but rather pristine.

1. There is no "QRS" mentioned anywhere. (What exactly does this acronym mean?)
2. There is no "sterile environment" implied anywhere.
3. There are only two instances of "defintion" used and neither refer to masculinity, nor do they refer directly to femininity.

I did not, and do not, take a position for or against an individual based on previous experiences with an individual. I respond to the thoughts and words in front of me, and only make adjustments to how I frame a response or even if I respond based on my perception of if/how the person will understand it. I noticed that you have an aggressive style, so that is how you got an aggressive style back.

Alright, fair enough.

Nothing personal, really. Using that tone to point out what looked like moaning to me was merely a reflection of the style I saw.

Okay.

Since our previous clash seems important enough to you to bring it up again in this thread,

It wasn't why I brought it up---

and because some of the same theme seems to be arising,

---this was why. But no matter; I think we understand one another on this.

I will address it briefly in hopes that this will answer pertinant questions you seem to have about me. You mentioned that you believe that the majority of women are monsters.

The majority of women I've encountered are monsters. Belief has got little to do with it.

You may enjoy Kevin's web page. I have had significant personal experiences of men behaving monsterously, and since arriving at this website, I have seen plenty of evidence that such things as violence and lying are predominant in the psyches of most men. I was raised to believe that all men were right and women were meaningless pieces of property,

(And I was brought up with the notion that women were wonderful innocent little angels, were "mysterious," and that men's duty was to provide for them, work your fingers into bloody stubs for them, treat them as fragile and special, and die defending them and their "honour," and other chivalric-chauvinistic nonsense, else you were not a man.

We were both raised with lies...

Thanks for the link.)

but through experience I learned that there are more than a few a-holes out there. Since coming here, I have heard everything from the male belief that women deserve to be raped and women like to be abused, through all women are abusive, to all women are mindless idiots thouroughly dependant on men. From seeing how men regard women, including the ones that put on a civilized face, I have learned that most men are a-holes and the rest have a monster, most of which are yea close to getting unleashed without much provocation. From experience, I know that it is the males who have either a disregard or a poor regard of women whose monsters are most likely to get unleashed - and on anybody who looks weak, not just the one provoking him. Actually more often on a female who looks weak than on who or whatever is provoking him because the antagonist could most likely whoop him. I did develop a louder bark from this knowledge. I realize now that being nice is what painted the target on my head for all these predators, so I no longer value being nice. (1) If you want to think of me as a monster, that does not bother me. I'd rather be thought of as a monster than be thought of as prey.

Alright, things add up now.

However, (1) I never called you a monster---I spoke of women I've known in my life (and a couple I recall weren't monsters at all), women with whom my friends over the years have gotten involved, et cetera. I don't understand how "most women I've known are monsters" equals "Elizabeth, you are a monster." How could you make that connection...unless you took it personally?

So, your experiences collectively mean for you that women are from Venus and men are from caves?

Damn, did you grow up in some gangland or something? What you describe sounds like a movie about a post-apocalyptic future without law and order or any ethics, not reality---not what I've seen and still see, or heard from others or even read about in regards to other parts of the world. How did you manage to survive this onslaught of savage male fierceness, all those violently grunting, grimacing barbaric male hordes coming at you from all directions, set to rip you to pieces if you showed any weakness? How many times were you hospitalized from being battered and brutalized? Or did you receive death threats that forced you into agonzing silence? Or did you go underground, hiding out in the shadows, your only company the soul-stabbing echoes of all the millions of poor women shreiking in horror and terror, reverberating within your tormented mind...? Did you deal with this eternal misery with herion or alcohol, or did you find a spiritual path or something to remain sane during this inhuman forced suffering, this exsitence of pure dread during every day of your life?

(Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic; the questions are still valid, though. What you describe sounds alien to me. I see men working 50-70-hour weeks to feed their children, even though many never get to see them much, or at all (via divorce), and paying for their wives various whims and desires---but mostly giving their hard-earned money to them in exchange for "love" or just sex. I see young men, who barely knew their fathers (or never did at all), chasing careers they'll end up hating to afford a lifestyle that would make it possible for a woman somewhere to love them. I see men depressed and empty inside, turning to drugs and alcohol to kill the pain from the absence of praise they got addicted to as boys, which they falsely believe will go away once they find women to replace their mommies. I see men of all ages protecting women, fighting each other for the exclusive right to be some chick's hero, because they were raised---largely by their mothers and society---to believe that's what women expect.

And women?---I see them shopping for shoes, skipping along, carefree and hardship-free, through their lives, oblivious to what happens to men as well as being unable to understand them in any way whatsoever---they simply cannot relate. Men and women generally do not relate to one another anymore, hence all this relationship trouble between genders---60% divorce rates, et al. Alienation.

I don't see this horrible world of "predators" you're describing...I've seen male-on-male violence, female-on-female violence, and female-on-male violence---by far more than the other two. I've yet to see a man even hit a woman. But physical violence is only one form of violence.)

If physical aggression, including the insecurity (weakness) that causes posturing and threatening, is your only tangible criterion for being monstrous, then your definition of abuse must be equally limited to merely the blatant and easily observable (a bruise on a female's cheek compared to soaring male suicide rates and unfathomable self-destructive behaviour).

I started a separate thread because I felt it was a worthwhile topic of exploration. That I saw things differently than you did was not a personal attack. I do not do personal attacks, and even if I make an overall judgment of disapproval of someone, I both still listen for possible worthwhile thoughts, and unless the person is a serious threat (such as likely to kill me or seriously mess up my life, or to do those things to others and I am unable to rectify that), the judgment is not final. A good example of that is Kevin - for the longest time I did not approve of him, but I continued to regard each of his thoughts and actions separately, and at this point I have developed a level of respect for him.

Sure.

As something that might be helpful to you, I suggest that you at least consider making the thought that something is a personal attack be your thought of last resort.Although some people make personal attacks, most people are trying to make a point - even those who are making personal attacks. Taking something as a personal attack tends to shut down the ability to see the point - and it is seeing the point that gets to the bottom of the issue.

Well, that is why I asked---to get your side of this and be sure. No biggie...

(2) Logic does not function there, but the outcome would be improved if it did. I'll admit that when my father pointed his rifle at me in the living room, my logic did not function. If it had, I would have run out the front door. It did not, so I ran to my room and ended up standing in the corner at gunpoint. My mind further shut off to the point that I didn't understand language, so even though I knew it was very important that I do whatever he was telling me, as hard as I tried to understand his words, I could not. Again, logic could have been helpful in that moment..

(2) Why would the outcome be improved? It sounds like your instincts did not kick in at all, or that you were fighting them in favour of reason (struggling to think, in other words, rather than acting); else you would have run---the "fight or flight" response is crucial because action is faster than words, reason, or logic. If we'd stopped to think everything over, humanity would have gone exinct a long time ago.

And why the hell would your dad point a gun at you?

Although it may look like it, I am not missing your point. I know that you are referring to the reflexive response that bipasses thinking parts of the brain, causing a faster reaction than possible by thinking things through. Although it is rational to have a pre-programmed routine in place, that does not subtract from the important role logic takes in the programming phase - or as an available alternative if something unusual arises. If someone throws a baseball at your head, you duck - why? A kid throws a toy at a toddler, the toddler does not duck - he gets hit and cries. Sooner or later, logic tells the kid that if something comes flying at his head, he should duck. As an adult, you probably forgot the first time or so you got hit in the head, but now you have this reflex that your logic programmed into you.

You're presuming that logic is responsible for programming a reflex---that's not correct: do simple animals incapable of logical deduction do this?

An ant seems to have pretty basic logic---it is after all just a mechanical entity, an automaton following preset functions which developed over four hundred million years of evolution. It's efficient, and aside from an ongoing war with termites, has a mainly peaceful and sensible approach to existence, and is highly successful as a species.

Yet ants do not have brains and do not think, and when one finds a dead bug, it'll try to bring it back to the colony; it'll try no matter how big or heavy and will not cease trying until it's distracted, threatened, or until another ant follows its chemical trail and helps out. It will stay there all day, tugging, getting no where (like a fly against a pane of glass), even though it's completely futile. This is a loop of its 'basic logic' that gets it nowhere.

It seems, also, that you're giving logic a lot of credit for things---assuming that an apparently logical result has to originate from applied logic.

Despite mans efforts, he has not been able to make a dent in ant populations in rural areas---nothing we do can stop them (and they're more plentiful in spite of our all intelligent attempts to destroy them), no matter how logical our strategies. Example: fire ants colonize a field, and people start getting bitten. So, in comes logic to poison them all---it fails; many ants are killed, and the few that survive continue breeding (reaching greater numbers than before the poisoning), and the offspring are immune to the poison. The ants applied no logic yet "won."

How can that be? Or did the ants actually use logic---which was superior?

The pro athletes may not be thinking too much at the moment they take a shot, but that's only because the programming was already done in practice. The really big fish can think on their feet though in addition to having muscle memory. (3) Sometimes stuff comes up that never came up before - and only logic can handle that. Rationality involves using all the tools available - including clueing in on when to figure out something new, and when an old and tested routine will work.

(3) Why can "only" logic handle that?

I already showed that Spock failed miserably during his first command situation precisely because logic was not applicable (he responded with logic to illogical beings and it got crew members killed). What ultimately saved their lives was his desperation, his illogic---a rare, emotional and impulsive reaction. His logical side was lost, and his human side took a gamble. And afterwards, he rationalized it by saying that, logically, it was futile and thus an illogical solution was required.

Wolves hunt caribou in what you would call a "logical" manner. They span out and begin chasing a herd; as the lead wolf tires, another begins chasing in its place as the first one rests---and so on, a relay, until the weakest caribou succumbs to exhuastion and falls behind and gets eaten. And yet no logic was applied---still, the result can be called logical.

How do you explain that?

(Have you never come to a solution suddenly, for no reason, "out of the blue," and after a while of thinking, you found it fit logically and yet no logic was used? If not, then I can see how this concept troubles you.)

What you seem to be referring to is as if everything were always encountered for the first time. That's illogical. A logical response would be to check the memory for a similar situation and use the technique that has proven to work well in that situation. The pro-athletes are still thinking out there, but usually just enough to tell them which memory to re-enact. All this is programing - not instinct.

I've played hockey for ten years, and every single game something came up which wasn't covered at all in practice---all of us were constantly thinking on our feet, improvising, instinctively, to new situations (example: adjusting to a five-on-three powerplay---ours---which became an odd-man rush for the opposite team...we never went over that in practice, and none of us ever experienced that before, and without talking, we followed one another's lead and instinctively adapted to it without being scored upon; logic played no part in it: because it happened in about 10 seconds!).

Thinking that everything we experience is something we've experienced before---now that is illogical.

(4) Art: Good art requires logic, too - but even with bad art, a logical person can (5) tell the difference between how much logic was in the head of the painter. There was an article once showing the art painted by an ape and art with similar colors and a similar number of strokes done by a human. Placed side by side, I could tell (6) which was done by who. Having a logical and rational mind always improves results - even in the worst of art.

(4) What is "good" art? (And why is it that only non-artistic people know what "good" or "bad" art is?---yes, I can tell you're not an artist.)

What you're saying is that abstract art (opposed to representational art) not only isn't "good," it also requires logic. Picaso would have disagreed.

(5) How can such a person tell? --- (6) How could you tell?

Well, I hope you saved up enough for your own funeral expenses so you don't have to be buried on the taxpayer's dollar. ;)

Heh. Nah, I plan on dying somewhere natural, in a natural or unnatural manner, without a burial---an explosion somewhere remote would be ideal, unfortunately life doesn't always allow one the choice of where and when ;)

(in my own defense, though - I voted for Kerry in the last election)

Well, that's certainly understandable.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

1. There is no "QRS" mentioned anywhere. (What exactly does this acronym mean?)

Oops - sorry - that's something that gets picked up in the threads. QRS = Quinn, Rowden, and Solway (Dan always calls it QSR instead - same thing). Those are the 3 admins on this website. QRS is referred to here and on a few other websites as their particular philosophy, even though the 3 of them have some different beliefs, 3 very different personalities, and manifest their beliefs quite differently. Where their ideals overlap and where they have at least an understanding of definitions that are fairly unique to the rest of society (such as the definition of woman, as described in David's writing) is considered QRS philosophy.

2. There is no "sterile environment" implied anywhere.

Your earlier reference was to Spock's mind being "sterile" - or devoid of emotion. David and Kevin explain the benefits of non-emotionality at great length in their works, and if you go through Dan's posts explaining the characteristics of a sage, you will see that he concurs.

3. There are only two instances of "defintion" used and neither refer to masculinity, nor do they refer directly to femininity.

The entire ebook of David's that I linked for you was the definition of "woman." The definition wasn't in the work - it was the work.

I will address it briefly in hopes that this will answer pertinant questions you seem to have about me. You mentioned that you believe that the majority of women are monsters.

The majority of women I've encountered are monsters. Belief has got little to do with it.

You can not see that this is a belief? Okay, here's an example that won't be so personal to you, so you can see the definition of "belief" better.

I believe that the 3 primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. Some people believe that the moon walk in 1969 was staged on a movie set. These are both beliefs. Truth and belief do not necessarily have anything to do with each other, but they could.

We were both raised with lies...

Most people were raised on many kinds of lies. The thing I like about philosophy is it works to sort out lies from truth.

(1) I never called you a monster---I spoke of women I've known in my life (and a couple I recall weren't monsters at all), women with whom my friends over the years have gotten involved, et cetera. I don't understand how "most women I've known are monsters" equals "Elizabeth, you are a monster." How could you make that connection...unless you took it personally?

I did put in a qualifying "if" - but okay.

So, your experiences collectively mean for you that women are from Venus and men are from caves?

I do not consider that females are angels. I've met more female monsters than I can count - including my own mother.

Damn, did you grow up in some gangland or something?

I grew up in a very abusive household, and I mean that to an extent that most can’t imagine – not just the type of “abuse” that Kelly refers to. People who were abused as children give off subconscious signals that are easily read by predators. Predators know that these are easy targets because they have been conditioned by their childhoods to be good victims. That is how people who were abused as children often end up being revictimized so much throughout their lives. Predators make themselves invisible (more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing) except when they have to reveal themselves during the attack. The prey can not see them until it is too late, and those who are not prey may never see them at all.

How did you manage to survive this onslaught of savage male fierceness, all those violently grunting, grimacing barbaric male hordes coming at you from all directions, set to rip you to pieces if you showed any weakness?

Barely. People with higher IQs are more resistant to PTSD, and usually only get milder cases of it and only after bigger traumas. Despite that my IQ puts me in a genius range, I have severe PTSD. If I were so-called less intelligent, I would have cracked long before experiencing most of what I’ve been through. Staying sane does not sound like the most intelligent option to me.

How many times were you hospitalized from being battered and brutalized?

I was never admitted for that, but I do have a broken ankle that will never heal because I was not taken to the hospital for it, and by the time I got to a doctor for it, other bones had grown around it, so it is inoperable. It's ignorable, and I don't even limp that often. Beyond that, only one hospital visit and one doctor's office visit.

Or did you receive death threats that forced you into agonzing silence?

Only during my marriage.

Or did you go underground, hiding out in the shadows, your only company the soul-stabbing echoes of all the millions of poor women shreiking in horror and terror, reverberating within your tormented mind...?

Does an SN on a message board while being very careful to not reveal identifying details count?

Did you deal with this eternal misery with herion or alcohol, or did you find a spiritual path or something to remain sane during this inhuman forced suffering, this exsitence of pure dread during every day of your life?

When I was younger, I did abuse dextromethorphan rather frequently. The first time I did, I spent some time with my parents. Most of it I don't remember, but I do remember after hours of my mother egging me on and not getting me upset, my mother asked "Why can't you be like this more often?" and I reasoned Why not? I also developed my own religion (which I have since abandoned) revolving around the Great Fairies (hey, just another term for angels, right?)... but I have since decided that I prefer logic.

I don't see this horrible world of "predators" you're describing

Good. I described above how the predators come out. There are probably plenty of predators all around you, but since you are not prey, they keep their civilized faces on.

If physical aggression, including the insecurity (weakness) that causes posturing and threatening, is your only tangible criterion for being monstrous, then your definition of abuse must be equally limited to merely the blatant and easily observable (a bruise on a female's cheek

No. My father was primarily physically abusive, and my mother was primarily emotionally abusive (although it was my mother who broke my ankle, and there were other instances where my mother was physically abusive and my father was emotionally abusive) - but I thoroughly recognize that and how emotional abuse is actually much worse than physical abuse.

compared to soaring male suicide rates and unfathomable self-destructive behaviour).

Lets just say that none of this is exclusive to either gender.

(2) Logic does not function there, but the outcome would be improved if it did. I'll admit that when my father pointed his rifle at me in the living room, my logic did not function. If it had, I would have run out the front door. It did not, so I ran to my room and ended up standing in the corner at gunpoint. My mind further shut off to the point that I didn't understand language, so even though I knew it was very important that I do whatever he was telling me, as hard as I tried to understand his words, I could not. Again, logic could have been helpful in that moment..

(2) Why would the outcome be improved?

I consider it only by chance that he did not shoot me. Although the physical result was equal (I did not get shot) the mental outcome was realizing that I was too stupid to run out the door when someone had a gun on me, and actually cornered myself rather than getting away.

It sounds like your instincts did not kick in at all

Perhaps you are right on this. I had forgotten that I should not use myself as an example when trying to evaluate instincts. I had forgotten that even researchers have found on people who have survived extensive torture that instincts become extinguished.

I still believe there is more to logic than to instinct, even based on the example of throwing something at a toddler's head vs at an adult's head.

And why the hell would your dad point a gun at you?

I had failed to follow proper procedure for unloading the car because one box was too heavy for me to hold and close the car door properly before entering the house. I thought I could set the box down inside and get back out there to get the next load and close the door properly without getting caught, but I was wrong.

When I was a little kid, he would just hit me. As I got older he used what I later learned were military combat techniques on me. When he was old and fragile (he was already 50 when I was born), he probably got scared that I'd fight back, so that is probably why he went for a gun.

You're presuming that logic is responsible for programming a reflex---that's not correct: do simple animals incapable of logical deduction do this?

Logic is the foundation of the Universe. Just because a component of the Universe, such as an ant, may not be able to consciously make a logical deduction like a human could does not mean that logic does not function here. Besides, we were talking about humans and “Vulcans” – not about simple animals.

Why can "only" logic handle that?

Because reflex is too random. Instinct/reflex may be good enough because of similar enough situations that might not register consciously, but untrained reflex is no different than randomness. Your example of a moment in a hockey game illustrates that which happened amongst a bunch of guys that practiced together. I’m rather certain that would not have happened if none of you had practiced together before. I’m positive that would not have happened if I had been in one of those positions because I am a novice skater. Various levels of training had to go in before “instinct” developed.

Wolves hunt caribou in what you would call a "logical" manner. They span out and begin chasing a herd; as the lead wolf tires, another begins chasing in its place as the first one rests---and so on, a relay, until the weakest caribou succumbs to exhuastion and falls behind and gets eaten. And yet no logic was applied---still, the result can be called logical.

How do you explain that

Wild animals are trained by their pack. You can not take a wolf pup, raise it to adulthood amongst humans, reintroduce it to its pack, and expect it to hunt “on instinct.”

Have you never come to a solution suddenly, for no reason, "out of the blue," and after a while of thinking, you found it fit logically and yet no logic was used?

Humans are not designed to be conscious of their every thought – but that does not mean that the brain does not think them logically. Yes, here I am reporting that unconscious and subconscious logic are as possible as conscious logic, and all of that is a function of the underlying logic of the Universe.

What is "good" art? (And why is it that only non-artistic people know what "good" or "bad" art is?---yes, I can tell you're not an artist.)

“Good art” shows balance or purposeful use of imbalance, purpose, and structure. IMO, for art to be truly good, it must also have function, but that is not a requisite of the art community – of which I gather you may be a part.

I took some college-level art courses, and one guest instructor went on for an hour that faeces is not only art, but it is the only art we can truly create for ourselves. He encouraged us to look in the toilet after every bowel movement and appreciate the art we have created. I was amazed that I was the only one of the students who found that to be a truly shitty lecture. The other students thought I wasn’t open-minded enough. If this is standard of what they teach at college level art courses, I don’t mind that you consider that I am not an artist.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Damn, did you grow up in some gangland or something?

Hehe, I guess so. I was trying to look up a supporting link for another thread, and found this page on the city where I grew up.

edit to add: Hmm, and this is where I am now. At least it is much improved, especially in the murder rate category, but everything other than that is still worse than the national average... but still much safer than where I grew up.

And I understand that Austrailian crime rate is even lower than the American national average. I'm trying to imagine what it must be like to grow up and live in such a place. I guess that explains Kelly's definition of abuse... Violence is a comparative concept.

Where are you Nord?
.

[Nordicvs]

Oops - sorry - that's something that gets picked up in the threads. QRS = Quinn, Rowden, and Solway (Dan always calls it QSR instead - same thing). Those are the 3 admins on this website. QRS is referred to here and on a few other websites as their particular philosophy, even though the 3 of them have some different beliefs, 3 very different personalities, and manifest their beliefs quite differently. Where their ideals overlap and where they have at least an understanding of definitions that are fairly unique to the rest of society (such as the definition of woman, as described in David's writing) is considered QRS philosophy.

Ah---gotcha.

Your earlier reference was to Spock's mind being "sterile" - or devoid of emotion. David and Kevin explain the benefits of non-emotionality at great length in their works, and if you go through Dan's posts explaining the characteristics of a sage, you will see that he concurs.

No, no---the environment (a space-going vessel---"floating box"---with artificial air, food, water, climate, et cetera) I said was sterile; nothing to which to adapt except the intellectual and occasionally some physical threat. Realistically, if we ventured out there, it would mostly wandering around obviously, not the every day uber-exciting adventure-n-alien-ridden schlock Trek portrays. (I know, I know, no one would watch it if they were actually doing dull, normal scientific astronaut stuff...)

[The most utterly, completely assinine concept in Trek is the absence of all immune system realities of being in that environment; not only continuing to lose what little natural immunity humans have to Earth-bound disease (unrealistic enough), but also the myriad varities of diseases and organisms that will inevitably be encountered on any world with life forms, whether populated with "intelligent" life or not. Entire tribes and cultures were wiped out when whites landed in the New World---"first contact" with the Vulcans would have resulted in exposure to untold types of micro-organisms. We're barely able to contain the bugs we have on this world, nevermind god-know-what kinds of strains of exo-species.]

However, "sterile" does seem apt for Spock's brain as well. I see the benefits of not being at the whim of emotion---but to pathologically repress, stifle, all feeling and emotions...? That's a ticket to Loonyville, guaranteed, return trip optional. Just like trying to stop REM sleep = insanity. We have these things for a reason (but again, life in a box, motionless, head vastly disproportionate to the remainder of its body's skrawny mass, passionless, solely cerebral, soulless, uncreative...yeah, non-emotionality might be just peachy in this case; I don't think so, but it's possible it could work).

The entire ebook of David's that I linked for you was the definition of "woman." The definition wasn't in the work - it was the work.

Ah.

You can not see that this is a belief? Okay, here's an example that won't be so personal to you, so you can see the definition of "belief" better.

I do not consider that females are angels. I've met more female monsters than I can count - including my own mother.

By that reasoning, yours too is a belief---as was the belief that you were abused, or that the earth is round.

I maintain it's empirical data---my observations of some compared with observations of others. Had I documented every single person I've met who I considered a monster, I'd then have evidence for my "The Majority of Female Persons Nord Has Met Are Monsters" thesis, but of course I haven't done that.

I believe that the 3 primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. Some people believe that the moon walk in 1969 was staged on a movie set. These are both beliefs. Truth and belief do not necessarily have anything to do with each other, but they could.

1. Red, blue, yellow as three primary colours = fact. It is testable in countless ways (all sorts of spectrum tests---from prisms to rainbows to astrological observations of light from stars); every sane person on the planet agrees with this. And---most importantly---no one can conceive of a colour not coming from these primary three; it is not possible. Belief isn't a part of it.

2. This one's trickier because it's possible that it was faked---not bloody likely, but still possible. Short of intense psychological testing (lie-detectors, hypnosis, et cetera) of astronauts still alive who've gone there...how can I prove that men landed on the moon? I was age 2 when the last human stepped foot on the moon. How can I prove it was faked, either? One has to trust the science that gives us the consensus of the truth of these events, and then either agree with them as facts or disagree.

(A person once asked me a silly question: "Do you believe in evolution?" After I stopped laughing, I replied: "Believe in? Once you understand the scientific method, you either agree with the facts or don't agree, hopefully with a sensible counter-argument as to why you disgree. Belief has nothing to do with it." I didn't mention my own personal work with some animals, studying it first-hand, but that made sense as it was.)

Most people were raised on many kinds of lies. The thing I like about philosophy is it works to sort out lies from truth.

Aye.

(1) I grew up in a very abusive household, and I mean that to an extent that most can’t imagine – not just the type of “abuse” that Kelly refers to. (2) People who were abused as children give off subconscious signals that are easily read by predators. Predators know that these are easy targets because they have been conditioned by their childhoods to be good victims. That is how people who were abused as children often end up being revictimized so much throughout their lives. Predators make themselves invisible (more like a wolf in sheep’s clothing) except when they have to reveal themselves during the attack. The prey can not see them until it is too late, and those who are not prey may never see them at all.

(1) Same here. Very abusive.

(2) I think that's true, but I wonder what sort of signals are actually given---the abused child usually "ends up" in more abusive relationships, in what seems like uncanny coincidence, which could be due to "I'm-a-victim signals" or-and "abuse-me-some-more-please-I-need-to-be-a-victim signals." (Four of my first five relationships were with women nearly as---and one much, much more---unbalanced as my mother, who had psychotic episodes until the divorce, when I was 12.

I grew aware of all this in my mid-20s and changed the pattern (and actually had several good relationships later which weren't abusive at all). Anyway, it's important to be aware of what messages you're sending to "predators," who were likely abused, as well, as children, re-living that shit with another and being in the "powerful" role instead of the "powerless" one, which as I'm sure you know creates this "cycle of abuse" thing. These so-called predators recognize weakness in others because it's something with which they have plenty of familiarity.

Barely. People with higher IQs are more resistant to PTSD, and usually only get milder cases of it and only after bigger traumas. Despite that my IQ puts me in a genius range, I have severe PTSD. If I were so-called less intelligent, I would have cracked long before experiencing most of what I’ve been through. Staying sane does not sound like the most intelligent option to me.

I doubt "intelligence"---the IQ variety, which can be increased through mere memorization and isn't a really good indicator of intelligence---is as much a factor here as desensitization. It's the soft shell of an egg that breaks most easily; minds can be tempered, hardened, growing resistant to shock and horror (it's been a personal interest of mine, pretty much a fact in my mind through self-experimentation); it all depends how bad the very first trauma was, perhaps. And I think imagination and adaptability (early independence maybe) play another part, but I've not yet been able to put into words exactly why I think this.

Generally, I go with "the more intelligent, the less sane." Depends on one's defintion of insanity and sanity, though.

Anyway, do you recall how old you were when this began?

I was never admitted for that, but I do have a broken ankle that will never heal because I was not taken to the hospital for it, and by the time I got to a doctor for it, other bones had grown around it, so it is inoperable. It's ignorable, and I don't even limp that often. Beyond that, only one hospital visit and one doctor's office visit.

Oh, okay.

Only during my marriage.

You too, huh? Yeah, those death threats are great; at least the girlfriend of mine, who swore she'd run me over, couldn't get to me because I was in jail at the time, facing phony theft charges she'd invented because I left her; and a year after I got out, she stalked me for another year and then killed herself, so I suppose it all worked out. (No, really; no sarcasm---I don't regret a second of any of it. It was hugely beneficial in ways which took years to comprehend and fully appreciate; often the worst experiences provide you with experiences that help you in many constructive ways over the long run. So, I no longer attach "good" or "bad" to any experience anymore.)

Does an SN on a message board while being very careful to not reveal identifying details count?

Nope, not so much.

When I was younger, I did abuse dextromethorphan rather frequently. The first time I did, I spent some time with my parents. Most of it I don't remember, but I do remember after hours of my mother egging me on and not getting me upset, my mother asked "Why can't you be like this more often?" and I reasoned Why not? I also developed my own religion (which I have since abandoned) revolving around the Great Fairies (hey, just another term for angels, right?)... but I have since decided that I prefer logic.

Well, sure. I'd never say 'delusion is better than logic'---I simply don't dig the idea of having Logic as a substitute religion, because I came close to that (and if there's more than one way to a solution, it's limiting using logic as a crutch), but that's me. Instead I'd say, "Logic isn't everything," but that's an unpopular saying around here ;)

Good. I described above how the predators come out. There are probably plenty of predators all around you, but since you are not prey, they keep their civilized faces on.

Oh, could be---female or male. I look so scruffy and rough these days, I tend to scare most people away; plus, I've been into martial arts (well, not as regularly as I'd like) for a long while, have carried around a knife since my teens (back when I began my survivalist stuff), and really don't fear death anyway, so no worries.

I think young girls should be instructed in martial arts as soon as they can walk---it could teach them so many things (like self-reliance, responsibility, self-discipline, confidence, self-respect, self-awareness), not the least of which being how to not be a victim and how to protect themselves (perhaps the absurd "protector instinct" and this prosaic chivalry crap in men will finally fade away, also).

No. My father was primarily physically abusive, and my mother was primarily emotionally abusive (although it was my mother who broke my ankle, and there were other instances where my mother was physically abusive and my father was emotionally abusive) - but I thoroughly recognize that and how emotional abuse is actually much worse than physical abuse.

Yeah, sounds like the same for me, only in reverse; my mother was the main physically abusive one (her "psychological abuse" consisted of screaming, guilt-trips, shame, mind-games, and random insults---this last three was the extent of my father's "psychological abuse," though in moderation).

I can't say my father was physically "abusive" per se---he was a very strict bastard, his punishments were rather severe, and I hated him for many years, but both of these I never really minded later on (I don't regard them as traumatic---instead, very helpful, assisting my "toughness" which really came in handy later on). I don't have any ill feeling towards either of them anymore; stopped having disturbing dreams involving my mother back when I was 14 or so (we lived with my father after the divorce, thankfully).

The difference between them: my father hit me when I screwed up, punishing me, which didn't work very often but helped me in other ways; my mother hit me when she was angry, or whenever she felt like hurting someone---if she was psychotic or not---sometimes when I messed up (and I was a little trouble-maker, always), but she mostly left the punishments for my father to dish out when he got home from work; her usual drunkenness probably added to her viciousness---far worse than my father, who at least showed restraint.

[Neither of them matched my sister in "psychological abuse, though"---she was a fucking Grand Master at that.]

Lets just say that none of this is exclusive to either gender.

Indeed.

I consider it only by chance that he did not shoot me. Although the physical result was equal (I did not get shot) the mental outcome was realizing that I was too stupid to run out the door when someone had a gun on me, and actually cornered myself rather than getting away.

Huh. Well, I can't say anyone's ever pointed a gun at me---I had the pleasure of being shot when I was 20, but that was an incredibly stupid drunken accident.

Perhaps you are right on this. I had forgotten that I should not use myself as an example when trying to evaluate instincts. I had forgotten that even researchers have found on people who have survived extensive torture that instincts become extinguished.

Really? Interesting. Where did you hear this? Sounds precisely contrary to my own experiments with desensitization-suffering (I'm quite numb to shit that seems to cripple others around me in a crisis---I've been in a few, and I was calm and rational, taking action before I realized what I was doing). Well, there are other factors that might explain that, and as you mention it's not wise to only use yourself as an example.

I still believe there is more to logic than to instinct, even based on the example of throwing something at a toddler's head vs at an adult's head.

Ah, not a bad point. But are you taking into consideration the poor reflexes, under-developed motor skills, and rather slow perceptual processing of the toddler? (Instinct is nothing without the body and mental capacity to carry out action.)

Compare to a newborn gazelle: within a short period, it's fully aware, alert, and able to run. In humans, "natural" instinct is there, like raw material, needing only the body and mind to develop sufficiently to act---compare the toddler to a 6-year-old that's been raised on a farm, for example. Other types of instinct, from repetitive action, causing the deepest creases in our grey matter, develop as we grow.

I had failed to follow proper procedure for unloading the car because one box was too heavy for me to hold and close the car door properly before entering the house. I thought I could set the box down inside and get back out there to get the next load and close the door properly without getting caught, but I was wrong.

When I was a little kid, he would just hit me. As I got older he used what I later learned were military combat techniques on me. When he was old and fragile (he was already 50 when I was born), he probably got scared that I'd fight back, so that is probably why he went for a gun.

What was your father's childhood like?---I gather he was in the US Army as well...?

Logic is the foundation of the Universe. Just because a component of the Universe, such as an ant, may not be able to consciously make a logical deduction like a human could does not mean that logic does not function here. Besides, we were talking about humans and “Vulcans” – not about simple animals.

Hmm---I'll have to dig up the posts I made for this subject in the other thread with Kelly (don't feel like typing all that out again).

Because reflex is too random. Instinct/reflex may be good enough because of similar enough situations that might not register consciously, but untrained reflex is no different than randomness. (*) Your example of a moment in a hockey game illustrates that which happened amongst a bunch of guys that practiced together. I’m rather certain that would not have happened if none of you had practiced together before. I’m positive that would not have happened if I had been in one of those positions because I am a novice skater. Various levels of training had to go in before “instinct” developed.

Actually reflex is different from instinct---reflex is just a physical reaction, a physical effect for a physical cause. Patients in comas (and of course people who are asleep) still maintain their stimulus response (depending on the severity of brain damage, if any at all), but if you toss a ball at their skulls, they won't move out of the way ;)

[Ever see the movie Awakenings? It's quite relevant to this subject in that Dr. Oliver Sacksdid extensive work with patients in the 1960s suffering a "sleepy sickness," and despite the lack of consciousness, the patients displayed normal reflexes. More to it, of course, than just reflex. Not a bad flick, actually, with Robert De Niro and Robin Williams, who plays Dr. Sacks; if you haven't already, check it out sometime, and you'll see what I'm talking about.]

(*) Sure, that played a part---obviously you develop chemistry with players with whom you've played over a period of time (anywhere from a few months to a couple years it usually takes to develop that), but that's part of what I mean, too: it's not spoken, it's intuitive and instinctual, non-verbal, not planned; adapting to them and anticipating how they move and act, every strength and weakness you can depend on or suppliment with your own strengths...a million intangibles (things I've never even thought about before this moment) you pick up and never consciously consider. Logic plays no part in chemistry or instinct.

Plus, we'd have games at the local rink on weekends and there'd always be new guys joining in---hardly ever did you even speak a word to them, let alone practice; we all picked teams randomly and jumped in it and started adapting to each other. I'm not saying logic played absolutely no part in any of this; of course it did, but it was marginal, and usually after a whistle went and you had time to stop and think (hockey's the fastest sport on the planet), or after the game, going over it, or before the game, envisioning what you'll need to do, practicing a move in your mind, and such.

Wild animals are trained by their pack. You can not take a wolf pup, raise it to adulthood amongst humans, reintroduce it to its pack, and expect it to hunt “on instinct.”

1. They are not "trained"---at most, they learn experientially (play is also the basis for future preparation), but not directly how to hunt as a pack. Most reptiles are left at birth, or after a year of being protected by a pod; they have neither training nor experiential knowledge of what to do---they just do it, they know it. (The salmon finding their way up alien rivers is cliched, but it still fits here.)

2. No, you couldn't do that with a wolf pup and expect a fully "adjusted" adult wolf because (a) it will be domesticated, if only in part, and (b) it will not be accepted by any wolf pack because of its human scent, for one thing. They need social play with their pack to develop proper "pack" survival skills. However, while it would not be immediately accepted into any pack (possibly after a while, depending---there are no orphans among wolves), it will still be able to hunt for itself (as a lone wolf); hell, even dogs, having been domesticated for over ten thousand years (since Sumer), can go feral if abandoned in the wild and survive (depending on the breed . . . fluffy poodles?---not so much).

Humans are not designed to be conscious of their every thought – but that does not mean that the brain does not think them logically. Yes, here I am reporting that unconscious and subconscious logic are as possible as conscious logic, and all of that is a function of the underlying logic of the Universe..

It's an interesting notion. I think the will affects each hemisphere differently---the split-brain experiment subjects reveal strong evidence for dual-brain theory as well as dual-consciousness...such as:

Perhaps the most intriguing split brain research was with a patient of another pair of split brain researcher, Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux, who had some limited language facilities in his right brain. This patient show marked preferences in responses from the two hemispheres. When asked, “What do you want to do?” the left hemisphere replied “draftsman”, but the right hemisphere (using scrabble letters) replied “automobile race.”

(I don't have the link handy, but if you search either of those names, you'll find it.) Although it's not that common for the right hemisphere to have much grasp of language (usually only a few words at best), this implies dual-will, also, each hemisphere wanting to do something completely different---: the left: sitting and doing technical work, controlled, detailed (exactly to character); the right? Hop in a fast car and hit the gas---do something, move; action (exactly to character). Two hundred years ago, it might have answered "Ride my horse." Two thousand? "Go hunting?" Hmm.

“Good art” shows balance or purposeful use of imbalance, purpose, and structure. IMO, for art to be truly good, it must also have function, but that is not a requisite of the art community – of which I gather you may be a part.

Well, I guess the only way to prove this would be to have an experiment in which the left hemisphere is impaired and the patient is (an artist) allowed to draw something. Of course, skill-talent and detail itself, are dependent on the left hemisphere. It would need to be something that 'retards' the reasoning ability only.

I think both sides are needed for "good" or "bad" or any type of art; I just maintain that creativity requires little in the way of logic or reason. What I see in my illogical dreams every night proves this---to me---over and over.

As for---"art community – of which I gather you may be a part"---nope. I kinda-sorta was way back when I did representational art (animals and crap; copying), but I moved into watercolour, and then finally black ink/leads and abstract stuff and did my own thing, giving most of it away or losing or destroying the rest. I started making cartoon strips when I was about 6 years old, but I never took a course or anything. Just learned shit on my own.

I took some college-level art courses, and one guest instructor went on for an hour that faeces is not only art, but it is the only art we can truly create for ourselves. He encouraged us to look in the toilet after every bowel movement and appreciate the art we have created. I was amazed that I was the only one of the students who found that to be a truly shitty lecture. The other students thought I wasn’t open-minded enough. If this is standard of what they teach at college level art courses, I don’t mind that you consider that I am not an artist.

Ha! Christ, you have to be joking! (?) Far out anyway. When I was 22, I wrote a short story about an old weird guy who lived in tunnels and kidnapped people, using their blood to paint his masterpieces. Never did finish that one (I ran out of blood!). Frankly, I'd rather use my own blood than my dung.

This instructor didn't happen to carry around a picture of Marquis de Sade, did he? ;)

Well, of course one can be an artist and not be creative---you didn't strike me as a creative type (I might be wrong, I don't know you; it was just a sense)---in fact, uncreative art is by far the norm. I mentioned the not being an artist bit because I've never heard any creative person judging art as good or bad.

Poo art isn't bad art---it's just fucking nasty! =P

[Anyway, as for your last post---yeah, Florida. Damn, you have my sympathies. Me---I'm from Canuckistan, born in Alberta, moving west soon, back to the Coast (BC) in less than two months.]

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

By that reasoning, yours too is a belief---as was the belief that you were abused, or that the earth is round.

Yes.

I maintain it's empirical data---my observations of some compared with observations of others. Had I documented every single person I've met who I considered a monster, I'd then have evidence for my "The Majority of Female Persons Nord Has Met Are Monsters" thesis, but of course I haven't done that.

Perhaps we both need to do more observing. I have come to terms with the fact that a great many more females are idiots than I previously noticed, but I'm also noticing more male idiocy than I previously noticed - and I'm recognizing that it's of a different variety. Differentiate between whether these females you have met are monsters or just a particular variety of idiot.

People with higher IQs are more resistant to PTSD, and usually only get milder cases of it and only after bigger traumas.

I doubt "intelligence"---the IQ variety, which can be increased through mere memorization and isn't a really good indicator of intelligence-

Memorization of vocabulary or mathermatical principles may increase IQ scores slightly, but mostly IQ tests (at least the reputable ones) measure one's ability to think, which is different from rote memory. I remember one IQ test question involved the placement of a number of some kind of object, which I could gather the term meant a certain number of sides, but I did not recall encountering the term before. Not knowing the vocabulary threw me for a moment, but I suddenly realized that it didn't matter exactly how many sides the object had in order to answer the question. The question tested spacial perception, so I just mentally manipulated some many-sided shapes into the form they described to give the answer. They probably intentionally chose vocabulary that most people would not know to test if the person would still think through the problem even with nebulous, but irrelevant data. Differentiatine what is or is not relevant is also a portion of intelligence that rote memorization is not going to alter.

--is as much a factor here as desensitization.

Desensitization is actually the best way to resolve most of the symptoms of PTSD. Nothing cures the startle reflex, though. With some people it goes away with time, with others it does not. I did my practicum at a center for grief and trauma, and I had excellent results using that on clients. I did my research project on desensitization, and the only clinicians who were not successful with using desensitization were basically those who didn't know what they were doing.

What we were talking about though was the original obtainment of PTSD. I was surprised about higher IQs correlating to lower incidents of PTSD too, as I had run across a number of articles on the adjustment difficulties of people with higher IQs - but there is that specific correlation.

Anyway, do you recall how old you were when this began?

Small children have different symptoms of PTSD than teens and adults. I think I was in high school the first time my father yelled at me "Would you cut that out? You're acting like you're in shell-shock!" - which was the WWII term for PTSD, but as I learned more about the different manifestations of PTSD in children, I recognize that I had symptoms much younger than that. I think my father's favorite phrase while I was growing up was "I'll knock you into next Tuesday" and severe physical punishment would be for infractions as small as literally spilling milk (I don't remember how young that was, but I do remember being in a white vinyl booster chair with metal arm rails. Sometimes there is such thing as too good of a memory...).

Yeah, those death threats are great;

Your original question asked about forcing me into silence - there were others that I didn't feel forced into silence over... Like one night getting a friendly call from the police just to make sure I was alright... I had some questions, because the police don't just call people randomly to make sure they're okay. It turned out that his first ex had threatened to kill me (lovely - would someone please notify me of the specifics of these things in the future?), later broke into my house, and drove by the house a lot after that. The police said that due to her extensive psyc history, they couldn't do anything until after she killed me, and even then she would probably only have to spend a month in a mental ward. You can only be scared someone's going to kill you for so long before you adopt the New Hampshire state motto "Live free or die."

Realistically, a few of the things I have said here could get me killed - but I changed my last name with the divorce, and I have not had any further evidence of stalking in 13 months now (and actually he looked thouroughly smug and pleased at the look of stark terror I had when I spotted him across a store about 8 months ago) so I'm probably fairly safe at this point. Besides, when he emailed his old psychiatrist about how he planned to kill me, I got a copy of that and a copy of my timecard to show I was at work when the email was sent, and included a mention of his threat to hire a hit man when I submitted my request for a restraining order to the courts - so if anyone kills me, he will be investigated (and that's the last thing he wants) - so the only way he'd kill me now is a murder-suicide. Although that will never be out of the question (especially because of his unique psychology), the risks are decreasing with time.

I think young girls should be instructed in martial arts as soon as they can walk---it could teach them so many things (like self-reliance, responsibility, self-discipline, confidence, self-respect, self-awareness), not the least of which being how to not be a victim and how to protect themselves (perhaps the absurd "protector instinct" and this prosaic chivalry crap in men will finally fade away, also).

Agreed. My parents sent me to years of ballet to try to cure me of my clumsiness (didn't so a bit of good, but what I lack in grace, I make up for in durability). Martial arts would have been a much better investment, but my parents had this hope of making me "lady-like." Strange hope from a mother who was so disappointed that I was not a boy...

Perhaps you are right on this. I had forgotten that I should not use myself as an example when trying to evaluate instincts. I had forgotten that even researchers have found on people who have survived extensive torture that instincts become extinguished.

Really? Interesting. Where did you hear this?

I have my master's degree in mental health counseling. Terry Gorski taught our addictions course, and when he started a section on people's reactions to abusive treatment, I tried to dispute him, using myself as an example, and he said that only happens in the worst cases of abuse. Our class ended up with a bonus segment on the differences between reactions to abuse and torture.

Sounds precisely contrary to my own experiments with desensitization-suffering (I'm quite numb to shit that seems to cripple others around me in a crisis---I've been in a few, and I was calm and rational, taking action before I realized what I was doing). Well, there are other factors that might explain that, and as you mention it's not wise to only use yourself as an example.

That's more a matter of what you are used to, and training can have an effect there, too. I could list a few dozen examples where I took care of everyithing in various kinds of life-or-death emergencies (fires, someone coding outside of the hospital setting, a nasty accident in the organic chemistry lab where the injured student wandered out to the office where I was working on something rather than going to the emergency showers, various instances of violence at workplaces...) It's amazing what a person can get used to, and even what one does not get used to per se, a person can have more appropriate responses after a bit of practice (the first time aI was there when a patient caught his bedpan on fire, other than being the first to smell smoke and go check out what was going on [even before the smoke detectors went off], I wasn't too useful - but all fires after that I've handled rather well.

I still believe there is more to logic than to instinct, even based on the example of throwing something at a toddler's head vs at an adult's head.

Ah, not a bad point. But are you taking into consideration the poor reflexes, under-developed motor skills, and rather slow perceptual processing of the toddler? (Instinct is nothing without the body and mental capacity to carry out action.)

Compare to a newborn gazelle: within a short period, it's fully aware, alert, and able to run. In humans, "natural" instinct is there, like raw material, needing only the body and mind to develop sufficiently to act---compare the toddler to a 6-year-old that's been raised on a farm, for example. Other types of instinct, from repetitive action, causing the deepest creases in our grey matter, develop as we grow.

A newborn gazelle may be more physically developed at birth than a human infant, but the things we are referring to are of the mind. You can tell how a dog was raised by it's reactions to its environment. A dog that was beaten will cower at any raised hand - even if that hand could not actually hurt it - but a dog that was spoiled as a puppy won't react to even much more extreme forms of punishment. I had a great dane/mastiff that I got for free because it was 90+ pounds and untrained (turned out it wasn't even housebroken yet). The previous owner thought it would be nice to have a big dog that would pull his wheelchair around, but by 90 pounds, the puppy kept knocking the wheelchair over. In a couple of weeks it was 120lbs and substantially more trained, but I had her out at the beach, and she suddenly decided to go after a police dog. Neither yelling nor smacking did any good, and despite that she was on a choke collar, she still managed to drag me 20 yards up the beach. The cop was looking worried, so I finally sucker-punched my dog right between the eyes, and she finally stopped and looked at me like "Yeah? You wanted my attention?" (I was a bit worried about animal abuse charges, but when I looked over, the cop was actually doubled over laughing). This dog had been spoiled, so it had no reflexes about my fist coming at it right between the eyes, whereas a beaten dog would have cowered at a raised hand.

What was your father's childhood like?---I gather he was in the US Army as well...?

My father was "the little man" of the house, was permitted to order his mother around, and he and his father treated each other like equals.

Yes, he was originally in the army air corps before there was an air force, and was one of the original members of the U.S. Air Force.


(regarding woves)

They are not "trained"---at most, they learn experientially

Training pretty much consists of going through the motions. Ever hear of "on the job training?"

I think the will affects each hemisphere differently---the split-brain experiment subjects reveal strong evidence for dual-brain theory as well as dual-consciousness...such as:

Perhaps the most intriguing split brain research was with a patient of another pair of split brain researcher, Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph LeDoux, who had some limited language facilities in his right brain. This patient show marked preferences in responses from the two hemispheres. When asked, “What do you want to do?” the left hemisphere replied “draftsman”, but the right hemisphere (using scrabble letters) replied “automobile race.”

That would be the difference between what do you think you want and what do you want when you are thinking. An easier example to conceptualize the difference by looking at is a dieter. The question could be "Do you want pizza or do you want to be thin?" One is a practical want for good health and ease of movement (what they want when they are thinking), the other is a hedonistic want for something that tastes good and alters the brain chemistry (what they think they want right now, but will regret as soon as their brain chemistry is returned to its usual state).

Christ, you have to be joking! (?)

Not kidding. He wasn't talking about using poo as a medium, he was considering it the finished product. He started off the lecture as explaining to us how everything is art, but he really went into an extended fixation on poo.

--you didn't strike me as a creative type

Congratulations on not only being the first person to say that to me, but also for proving dozens of people wrong who have told me over the years "Well, at least no one can ever accuse you of not being creative." People would pass out laughing at that one. There is a time and place for creativity though, and a message board focused on logic just isn't it.

Poo art isn't bad art---it's just fucking nasty! =P

I'm glad to know that you did not become so open-minded that your brains fell out.
.

[Nordicvs]

Perhaps we both need to do more observing. I have come to terms with the fact that a great many more females are idiots than I previously noticed, but I'm also noticing more male idiocy than I previously noticed - and I'm recognizing that it's of a different variety. Differentiate between whether these females you have met are monsters or just a particular variety of idiot.

Precisely---they are plenty of female and male idiots, but each goes about its idiocy differently.

Memorization of vocabulary or mathermatical principles may increase IQ scores slightly, but mostly IQ tests (at least the reputable ones) measure one's ability to think, which is different from rote memory. I remember one IQ test question involved the placement of a number of some kind of object, which I could gather the term meant a certain number of sides, but I did not recall encountering the term before. Not knowing the vocabulary threw me for a moment, but I suddenly realized that it didn't matter exactly how many sides the object had in order to answer the question. The question tested spacial perception, so I just mentally manipulated some many-sided shapes into the form they described to give the answer. They probably intentionally chose vocabulary that most people would not know to test if the person would still think through the problem even with nebulous, but irrelevant data. Differentiatine what is or is not relevant is also a portion of intelligence that rote memorization is not going to alter.

Well, if an academic analysis gives you pride in yourself or upholds your sense of self-worth, keep it. I don't value it at all---especially since it's a 75% left-brain evaluation, so it's like judging the speed of a vehicle with one flat tire. I've had two girlfriends with IQs more than 30 points above mine, apparently, and neither could beat me at chess or understand half the shit I talked about with them (one was Lutheran, the other agnostic); another guy I knew had an absurdly high IQ and was, it seemed, semi-autistic---his math was unreal, but he had the perception of yam. Hence, after him, and many others, I coined the term: "Intellectuals are inherently stupid."

Small children have different symptoms of PTSD than teens and adults. I think I was in high school the first time my father yelled at me "Would you cut that out? You're acting like you're in shell-shock!" - which was the WWII term for PTSD, but as I learned more about the different manifestations of PTSD in children, I recognize that I had symptoms much younger than that. I think my father's favorite phrase while I was growing up was "I'll knock you into next Tuesday" and severe physical punishment would be for infractions as small as literally spilling milk (I don't remember how young that was, but I do remember being in a white vinyl booster chair with metal arm rails. (*) Sometimes there is such thing as too good of a memory...). .

Ah.

(*) It might seem that way, yet far better it is to know than to blunder around at the whim of some inner, repressed ball of filth, festering away within unbeknownst to you. Un-self-aware people with horrid memories are plastic bags in the wind in regards to their psychical baggage, needing to spend thousands on psychoanalysis in order to even get a peek at it.

Realistically, a few of the things I have said here could get me killed - but I changed my last name with the divorce, and I have not had any further evidence of stalking in 13 months now (and actually he looked thouroughly smug and pleased at the look of stark terror I had when I spotted him across a store about 8 months ago) so I'm probably fairly safe at this point. Besides, when he emailed his old psychiatrist about how he planned to kill me, I got a copy of that and a copy of my timecard to show I was at work when the email was sent, and included a mention of his threat to hire a hit man when I submitted my request for a restraining order to the courts - so if anyone kills me, he will be investigated (and that's the last thing he wants) - so the only way he'd kill me now is a murder-suicide. Although that will never be out of the question (especially because of his unique psychology), the risks are decreasing with time.

Yeah, well, I have had a taste of that (living in fear, which helped me to stop fearing just about everything, including death, though that was more due to facing death a few times), yet I still don't regret it---even the time in jail was a learning experience...I never knew how much I valued freedom before that, always took it for granted. We seem to take much for granted and hardly ever think of it...until something or someone threatens it. I probably owe a lot to that psychotic bitch; I would never have become the person I am otherwise. I'd probably be married, an alcoholic, with some mundane job...

I have my master's degree in mental health counseling. Terry Gorski taught our addictions course, and when he started a section on people's reactions to abusive treatment, I tried to dispute him, using myself as an example, and he said that only happens in the worst cases of abuse. Our class ended up with a bonus segment on the differences between reactions to abuse and torture.

Alright.

A newborn gazelle may be more physically developed at birth than a human infant, but the things we are referring to are of the mind. You can tell how a dog was raised by it's reactions to its environment. A dog that was beaten will cower at any raised hand - even if that hand could not actually hurt it - but a dog that was spoiled as a puppy won't react to even much more extreme forms of punishment. I had a great dane/mastiff that I got for free because it was 90+ pounds and untrained (turned out it wasn't even housebroken yet). The previous owner thought it would be nice to have a big dog that would pull his wheelchair around, but by 90 pounds, the puppy kept knocking the wheelchair over. In a couple of weeks it was 120lbs and substantially more trained, but I had her out at the beach, and she suddenly decided to go after a police dog. Neither yelling nor smacking did any good, and despite that she was on a choke collar, she still managed to drag me 20 yards up the beach. The cop was looking worried, so I finally sucker-punched my dog right between the eyes, and she finally stopped and looked at me like "Yeah? You wanted my attention?" (I was a bit worried about animal abuse charges, but when I looked over, the cop was actually doubled over laughing). This dog had been spoiled, so it had no reflexes about my fist coming at it right between the eyes, whereas a beaten dog would have cowered at a raised hand.

Training pretty much consists of going through the motions. Ever hear of "on the job training?"

No! Never! I've only been ranting about right-brained learning here every few days ;)

Train: "to teach (a person or animal) a particular skill or type of behaviour through regular practice and instruction."

Learn: "to acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) through study or experience or by being taught."

The two are not mutually exclusive. My father never trained me in honesty, integrity, or honour---he never even spoke these words to me, ever; yet I picked them up through mere proximity to him, by subconsciously (never dawning on me until many years later) taking in how he acted with people; I probably learned a lot more from him of which I'm still only marginally aware, if at all.

This is no different with wolves and hunting strategically as a pack, except there's more to it; logic can't cover it (can't explain it anymore than it can explain why salmon know their way up alien streams or why fledging geese, held back, can find their flock thousands of miles away) not merely because logic depends on conscious effort but also because it is dependent on variables, knowing these variables (again, it was logical to presume the world was flat...it looks flat from a limited perspective; it was logical to assume that women created life---we had no microscopes and could neither see sperm cells nor egg cells); logic suggests that a boy can do just fine growing up with a father...but all the intangibles can't be considered. Logic works best in a science lab, where everything is under intelligent control---logic in the face of the illogical, the intengible, the insane or chaotic, is useless. Might it be that's why humans have such things as intuition and imagination and instinct...?---because we actually might need them?---because life doesn't work like the guts of a wristwatch?

Anyway, funny story about the dog there. =)

My father was "the little man" of the house, was permitted to order his mother around, and he and his father treated each other like equals.

Yes, he was originally in the army air corps before there was an air force, and was one of the original members of the U.S. Air Force.

Yeah, that adds up. Personally, I think if they're going to tear these young men apart and put them back together in the form of mechanical killers, they might as well sterilize them while they're at it; only a few are ever lucky enough to readjust or form any real, normal social connections to people, or end up as good parents. Well, most people ought to be sterilized for all sorts of reasons, but military types are created to be psychopaths (just as prisons creates abusers and rapists). Then people find it strange when they start acting like it in society...

That would be the difference between what do you think you want and what do you want when you are thinking. An easier example to conceptualize the difference by looking at is a dieter. The question could be "Do you want pizza or do you want to be thin?" One is a practical want for good health and ease of movement (what they want when they are thinking), the other is a hedonistic want for something that tastes good and alters the brain chemistry (what they think they want right now, but will regret as soon as their brain chemistry is returned to its usual state).

I don't see how you can frivolously tell me 'what it would be' unless you've conducted such experiments yourself or at least examined the data carefully---it reminds me of Creationists who poo-pooh a hundred years of achingly tedious archaeological work and evidence just because they disagree with it, essentially slapping thousands of dedicated scientists in the face and calling them liars. Abyssally smug.

Not kidding. He wasn't talking about using poo as a medium, he was considering it the finished product. He started off the lecture as explaining to us how everything is art, but he really went into an extended fixation on poo.

Wow. I mentioned this to someone and they recalled that my sister took an art course and was told something similar regarding fecal art. I'm more glad than ever that I've never taken any courses. I doubt I've missed a thing.

I'm all for being open-minded and experimenting with different mediums, but come on...

Congratulations on not only being the first person to say that to me, but also for proving dozens of people wrong who have told me over the years "Well, at least no one can ever accuse you of not being creative." People would pass out laughing at that one. There is a time and place for creativity though, and a message board focused on logic just isn't it.

Yeah, well. It was a sense I got, and most around here don't seem very creative either (by that I don't mean just right-brained). Due to your experiences, I think you have the potential to be very creative---it's usually some combination of having suffered greatly (via a horrible childhood or just some terrible event, on simply ongoing pain and misery), intelligence, and right-brainedness, that accounts for history's most creative minds, its artists and writers, et cetera. It's also life experience, age, but not always (Rimbaud was quite young, for example), and that applies more to writing (someone without much life experience isn't going to produce a very deep novel; a writer can only write what he or she knows, and is otherwise just going to ape it).

If you have ten minutes to kill, take this...

It's not great (too few questions, and some just aren't specific enough), certainly nothing definitive, although it gives a general idea. I was thinking of posting it in its own thread and seeing if I'm correct about my presumptions, but I doubt it would be given serious consideration.

[Steven Coyle]

Nor,

Ever heard of Jung's personality theories?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

The scoring was illogical.

You responded as a right brained person to 9 questions, and you responded as a left brained person to 9questions. According to the Hemispheric Dominance test, you use your left brain the most.

If I answered left brained to exactly half of the questions and right brained to exactly half of the questions, that means I'm not dominated by either side. I use my whole brain effectivly, using my right brain for right brained stuff and my left brain for left brained stuff (which makes rational sense). I'm equally strong on both sides, and that is fairly on par with my IQ test results from an online test I took a few months ago.

That would be the difference between what do you think you want and what do you want when you are thinking. An easier example to conceptualize the difference by looking at is a dieter. The question could be "Do you want pizza or do you want to be thin?" One is a practical want for good health and ease of movement (what they want when they are thinking), the other is a hedonistic want for something that tastes good and alters the brain chemistry (what they think they want right now, but will regret as soon as their brain chemistry is returned to its usual state).

I don't see how you can frivolously tell me 'what it would be' unless you've conducted such experiments yourself or at least examined the data carefully---it reminds me of Creationists who poo-pooh a hundred years of achingly tedious archaeological work and evidence just because they disagree with it, essentially slapping thousands of dedicated scientists in the face and calling them liars. Abyssally smug.

I agree with Nordi and he calls me smug. Good grief. Well, what should I expect from someone who spells "abysmally" abysmally. :p
*note to self - do not simplify things for Nordi. Make them as complicated as possible so he will understand better.

[Nordicvs]

Nor,

Ever heard of Jung's personality theories?

I read some of his stuff a while back (1993 or so---Man & His Symbols), but it's a little foggy; psychology is too feminized for my taste, especially Jungian.

Why do you ask?

The scoring was illogical.

Heh.

You responded as a right brained person to 9 questions, and you responded as a left brained person to 9questions. According to the Hemispheric Dominance test, you use your left brain the most.

Same score I got the first time, misunderstanding two questions (the second time was 11 right, 7 left), but mine said I use my right brain more. So, there's some method to it...

If I answered left brained to exactly half of the questions and right brained to exactly half of the questions, that means I'm not dominated by either side. I use my whole brain effectivly, using my right brain for right brained stuff and my left brain for left brained stuff (which makes rational sense). I'm equally strong on both sides, and that is fairly on par with my IQ test results from an online test I took a few months ago.

If we both answer 9-9 and get a different right-left dominance "type," then obviously it's not "illogical"---it just means that some questions are scored differently than others.

There needs to be three times as many questions for any attempt at accuracy though, as well as more choices per question (for example, I could go either way here: "When given the topic “school,” would you prefer to express your feelings through drawings or writing?").

The way the Political Compass is designed is far better (with regards to Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree). As for a feminine/masculine compass, the left-right-brain is insufficient (as left-right is politically); it needs another dimension, but nobody can agree enough on terms to even begin to outline one (plus, it might need a full 3D model).

I agree with Nordi and he calls me smug. Good grief.

Well...hmm. I didn't see that---

That would be the difference between what do you think you want and what do you want when you are thinking.

---as agreeing. The experiment was with a split brain subject; neither hemisphere had a connection to its other half, and each hemisphere expressed very different desires (at the same time), signifying dual-consciousness. It's not a difference between what one---as a whole person---wants or thinks one wants while thinking. (It seemed to me you were dismissing the entire experiment for some reason.)

Well, what should I expect from someone who spells "abysmally" abysmally. :p

I use "abysmally" far too often in my usual writing, so I like to change it up occasionally. =P

*note to self - do not simplify things for Nordi. Make them as complicated as possible so he will understand better.

Ha. Not a bad idea.

Edit:

I'm equally strong on both sides, and that is fairly on par with my IQ test results from an online test I took a few months ago.

Neato. I got 108, again (which was exactly the score from the first one I took in 1991; then 116 a year later, after working on my math, from a grade 6 to a grade 8 level, and my English, from a grade 10 to post-secondary).

I can't see how they can do that without any regard for spatial perception, though, as in the actual tests; that site's method is entirely left-brained. I guess, my left brain probably has an average IQ. (My math is probably horrific now, due to non-use.)

Anyway, interesting.