GENIUS FORUMS

The questions I would to address is what causes a male’s brain to be so drastically different from a females? And what are the major differences in the brain itself pertaining to enlightenment? And how can they be observed in human behavior and why is it only the male brain structure that has just a hope to achieve enlightenment?

First of all, the answer is in the Y chromosome, which only contains 25 genes, and this is quite modest compared to the 1,000 to 1,500 genes in the female X chromosome. So it seems that more is less, as such a small amount of information can cause such a drastic differentiation between the male and female brain. And so the latest theory holds that is it the sex hormone testosterone that causes the drastic changes between male and female brains that occurs within the infant's early development.

I'd now like to explore what these major differences are as a means to understand why the male brain’s architecture is the only suitable candidate to give birth to the odd sage.

1. Imperfection creates an opportunity for a rise to perfection –

If one compares the cortex, which is the right and left hemispheres of males and females, one discovers that the male’s is highly asymmetric, while the female’s is highly symmetric. Furthermore, the communication across the female’s hemispheres is far more homogeneous, whereas communication across the males is rather heterogeneous.

So how does this relate into behavior? First of all, the fact that the male’s hemisphere’s are incredibly asymmetrical gives raise to a personality that is very focused, single minded, concise and to the point, whereas a personality that arises from symmetrical hemisphere’s is more all encompassing, nondiscriminatory, and able in absorb large amounts of information without any discretion. The superior connection between the female's hemispheres gives her much faster processing speeds, and from a young age, females are much quicker at absorbing information, and doing well on memorization, whereas a male psyche ends up being a slower thinker, that needs tougher challenges, with longer time limits. This is why small boys score lower in schools because women teachers are testing them according to how women enjoy being tested.

The disjointed hemispheres also create a deep feeling of inferiority in males, and aggression can easily result if they cannot clear up their confusion. Males feel inferior in the company of both other males and females, but such a discontent is the only condition that can give birth to a sage. In comparison, a woman is born believing that she is already mentally perfect because her psyche is structured so that she feels she is has no inner work to do. And a deluded man feels the need to compulsively prove himself to her because his deep discontent meets her contentment with an envious bewilderment, and he creates all sorts of lies, mental blocks and so on just be able to stand her company.

2. A wider distribution pattern and spatial ability matters.

The intelligence processing area for women in a small section of the brain’s frontal lobes, while the gray matter driving a male's intellectual performance is distributed throughout the brain in a much more wider area. And research shows that the interior parietal lobule, which is significantly larger in men than women has been attributed to advanced mathematical and spatial ability. The brain of Einstein was reported to have an enlarged interior parietal lobule than average males.

What does this mean as far as behavior is concerned? Women have a much smaller intellectual space in the brain for thinking to occur, whereas men have a much wider area, and I suspect a sages brain space changes to grow even wider still than the typical male. And so it makes sense that a larger intellectual space in the brain gives raise to a slower, but more intelligent thinker, whereas a smaller intellectual space gives rise to a much more busy, quick thinker, that doesn’t fully understand what she is thinking.

And so my position is that it is only a male that has just a remote chance to experience emptiness, and this can only occur with in a brain that has a wide distribution pattern as far as intellectual activity is concerned, and it can only occur in a brain that has a asymmetrical cortex, with uneven hemispheres, which creates a deep discontent necessary for growth, which she doesn't feel.

I think the capacity for wisdom boils down to memory and that everything else like testosterone is just means to develop the memory. If you have an exceptional memory then you can naturally see when you fall into contradiction, which is enough to push you towards truth. Whereas people with poor memories can't see contradiction. I think all the natural sages, the ones who didn't need a teacher like Weininger and Ramakrishna, had exceptionally good memories.

Matt Gregory wrote:I think the capacity for wisdom boils down to memory and that everything else like testosterone is just means to develop the memory. If you have an exceptional memory then you can naturally see when you fall into contradiction, which is enough to push you towards truth. Whereas people with poor memories can't see contradiction. I think all the natural sages, the ones who didn't need a teacher like Weininger and Ramakrishna, had exceptionally good memories.

Do you think it's as simple as just being able to remember a large quantity of things that you experience or does it have more to do with how things are memorized and what priority each memory is given?

I think if someone's memory is strong enough, the mind will naturally prioritize things towards truth. I think consciousness has a natural tendency to complete itself but it gets short-circuited by attachments, but I think the function of memory counters that. It allows us to look further in the future, for example.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:I think the capacity for wisdom boils down to memory and that everything else like testosterone is just means to develop the memory. If you have an exceptional memory then you can naturally see when you fall into contradiction, which is enough to push you towards truth. Whereas people with poor memories can't see contradiction. I think all the natural sages, the ones who didn't need a teacher like Weininger and Ramakrishna, had exceptionally good memories.

Do you think it's as simple as just being able to remember a large quantity of things that you experience or does it have more to do with how things are memorized and what priority each memory is given?

I agree, it's not so much 'what' the brain thinks, it's 'how' the brain thinks.

Matt wrote:I think if someone's memory is strong enough, the mind will naturally prioritize things towards truth.

There have been children and women with fantastic, prodigious memories - freaks of nature, really. But that alone doesn't mean very much.

What I think is most important it to have thoughts that are more than mere words and numbers. 'Thought forms' can be very visual and multi-dimensional - begetting a gift for analogy, a gift for dealing with paradox, producing metaphor, irony, great theories, etc.

The most mundane thinkers always seem to be very attached to words, as if the words and definitions are literally the thing being observed. They are poor observers and don't have much connection with perceivable reality. A mind that is in touch with reality tires to fashion his thoughts in a way that mirror the topography of what he sees, with the awareness that what he sees is ultimately unknowable.

You're typical bigoted Christian can't accept this. He has all the answers - all the words, all the beliefs. It all makes perfect sense to him. He knows.

Yeah, well I think most people use memory in a very constrained way, like the strictly verbal thinkers and the fact reiterators. Their memory is selective. They weren't trained to remember every friggin' thing that occurs in the mind. Most people ignore most of their minds, that's why people are so blind to their very own thoughts. I think people are genuinely afraid of their own minds. They are afraid that they'll end up in a world of their own and they won't be able to escape, condemned by society to the role of "freak" or something.

But I think the person with exceptional memory can't help but remember everything within themselves and that's the difference.

Matt Gregory wrote:Yeah, well I think most people use memory in a very constrained way, like the strictly verbal thinkers and the fact reiterators. Their memory is selective.

It'd be nice to determine how much of this is due to limitations in brain structure, and how much is due to the environment oppressing and crippling the brain structure.

Most people ignore most of their minds, that's why people are so blind to their very own thoughts. I think people are genuinely afraid of their own minds.

Yes, no doubt about that. And this raises the question of courage and cowardice. What degree are these innate? It's pretty much unknowable; however, we can say that approximately, men seem disposed to have a certain recklessness, boldness and chaos that seems important in this regard.

They are afraid that they'll end up in a world of their own and they won't be able to escape, condemned by society to the role of "freak" or something.

Yep, pretty much. Can't get much pussy or a wedding being a freak.

Overall, I think there are three things to emphasis here:

1) Memory
2) Character
3) Ability to perceive (to have wild, profound, vast thoughts)


I don't believe memory dictates one's ability to perceive. I think there is some sort of physiological process, a muscle, horsepower, something which allows a person to have a thought process that is encompassing, vast, profound, however you want to put it.

I don't believe memory alone determines how well one can do this. I think character(courageousness) has a lot to do with it - but I think one can be very fearless and courageous, yet be very stupid. One can also have a good memory and yet be very stupid.

One can also be incredibly gifted at having vast, profound, ironic, genius thought processes, yet one may have a poor memory when it comes to putting these insights into language and recalling exactly what happened inwardly. One may also have low courage and kill oneself or have a nervous breakdown.

So I think each of the three factors has their own brain process, and the greater the genius, the greater these 3 factors are working respectively.

Ryan, you(or others) apparently haven't studied the brains or genetics etc of these men who you think have experienced subjective enlightenment so all you're doing is some very loose theorizing - at best. (You still haven't named these men either.)

There was an attempt on explaining genius from a physiological perspective in Schopenhauer's 'On genius'. I vaguely remember that part though. Might wanna look into that as it is an insightful, concise work.

In the first place, the bell curve ends are clipped for women, and some of them are able to use the connectiveness between the hemispheres to succeed in the transnational business more than most men, perhaps all men.

This business of wisdom, sagacity, and smarts is culturally driven to some considerable degree. The very words we use, 'wisdom', 'sage', 'arrange', 'judge', or in other languages- regina, raja, aregon (lat, skt, grk) all trace back to original Aryan root words that were all *female*.

There is no original Aryan word for 'king'. The only word JP Mallory can find for authority is "raj". Which turns out to mean a FEMALE tribal leader of great wisdom and mana. In the Native European tradition, "Sophia" is the Goddess of wisdom. There is no god of wisdom. When you trace back the words which related to writing to the orginal Aryan, you find out they are gifts of the "Birch Goddess". Not god.

Wherefore do we get this idea that only men are wise? We get it with the rise of the warrior class in the late bronze age when writing had advanced enough to handle the logistics of supplying and moving great armies. What has passed for "philosophy" has always pandered to the alpha male power structure. How girls grow to organize their brains in a matriarchic culture results in a very different distribution of what passes for wisdom and business acumen.

Cory wrote:

So I think each of the three factors has their own brain process, and the greater the genius, the greater these 3 factors are working respectively.

I don’t follow you here, each of the three factors has their own brain process? It seems like there’s more than just one primary process going on. For example: Weaknesses in character seems to be related to the extent of one’s physiological shortcomings. Moreover, It seems to be a combination of having a less than ideal brain structure, and having many types of hormonal/chemical imbalances that cause one to value worldly things, and circumvent truth.

For instance: Individuals with extreme high levels of testosterone usually have a difficult time not valuing the sexual experience, and not valuing violent solutions to world conflicts….

Just because these anabolic steroids control their cognitive activity to such a large extent.

Jason wrote:

Ryan, you(or others) apparently haven't studied the brains or genetics etc of these men who you think have experienced subjective enlightenment so all you're doing is some very loose theorizing - at best. (You still haven't named these men either.)

I'm not going to name drop as a means to convince you to become interested in wisdom.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory wrote:

So I think each of the three factors has their own brain process, and the greater the genius, the greater these 3 factors are working respectively.

I don’t follow you here, each of the three factors has their own brain process? It seems like there’s more than just one primary process going on.

That's why I focused on three major ones, as opposed to one.

For example: Weaknesses in character seems to be related to the extent of one’s physiological shortcomings. Moreover, It seems to be a combination of having a less than ideal brain structure, and having many types of hormonal/chemical imbalances that cause one to value worldly things, and circumvent truth.

For instance: Individuals with extreme high levels of testosterone usually have a difficult time not valuing the sexual experience, and not valuing violent solutions to world conflicts….

I'm not sure how what you are saying contradicts with what I said. For instance, memory likely correspond with some unique feature in the brain. Imagination(perceptive ability) might correspond with a different feature. Character, which is a bit more complex, is like wise rooted in unique physiological features. Of course, all three of these things are very connected to each other, and when one of these factors is deficient, the rest get pulled down with it. This is obviously the case with memory. One's ability to consider many different thoughts at once, unify them, and extrapolate into the future with great foresight is an act of perception, which requires good memory, courage, and a degree of freedom from sexual and violent impulses. Perhaps the greater the degree, the greater the thoughts.

Cory wrote:

I'm not sure how what you are saying contradicts with what I said. For instance, memory likely correspond with some unique feature in the brain. Imagination(perceptive ability) might correspond with a different feature. Character, which is a bit more complex, is like wise rooted in unique physiological features. Of course, all three of these things are dependent on each other, and when one of these factors is deficient, perhaps the rest get pulled down with it.

Oh, I see what your saying now, I misunderstood. yes I agree.

And I think a major disadvantage to enlightenment for most males is that their major strength – spatial talents, which causes them to invest too much of their neurological resources into perfecting outward talents for society. Moreover, as one perfects a spatial skill, a huge amount of brain space is devoted to that task, which could be devoted to further develop their ability to use language. Because I suspect that the better one’s understanding of language becomes, the more organized and efficient the memory centers become as well. This is true because by working on the language center in the brain, more neurons are dedicated to that function, and more connections are being made between the neurons, which strengthens the overall stability of the memory as well, as these two parts are closely related.

This is why I proposed the theory how my left-handedness was a major cause in my pursuit of truth, it was a theory I was holding onto for awhile because I knew how inferior my outward spatial skills were compared to my brother, as I’m totally useless with spatial tasks that involve using tools with a focused coordination for long periods of time.

Whenever I worked construction, I always ended up with tasks that required no spatial skills at all such as passing tools, cleaning up, or carrying heavy weight. Essentially the more skilled laborers used me as how women and blacks are typically used. Its funny too because my old boss Jason M (your cousin) actually called me the ‘black princess’ for awhile.

I can totally understand why left handed people were killed in large numbers because we are totally useless to as far as conventional practicality is concerned. And I can also understand why so many left-handers would self-destruct because if they didn’t turn inward to wisdom, the feelings of inferiority would tear them into pieces.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Cory wrote:

I'm not sure how what you are saying contradicts with what I said. For instance, memory likely correspond with some unique feature in the brain. Imagination(perceptive ability) might correspond with a different feature. Character, which is a bit more complex, is like wise rooted in unique physiological features. Of course, all three of these things are dependent on each other, and when one of these factors is deficient, perhaps the rest get pulled down with it.

Oh, I see what your saying now, I misunderstood. yes I agree.

And I think a major disadvantage to enlightenment for most males is that their major strength – spatial talents, which causes them to invest too much of their neurological resources into perfecting outward talents for society. Moreover, as one perfects a spatial skill, a huge amount of brain space is devoted to that task, which could be devoted to further develop their ability to use language. Because I suspect that the better one’s understanding of language becomes, the more organized and efficient the memory centers become as well. This is true because by working on the language center in the brain, more neurons are dedicated to that function, and more connections are being made between the neurons, which strengthens the overall stability of the memory as well, as these two parts are closely related. This is why I proposed the theory how my left-handedness was a major cause in my pursuit of truth, it was a theory I was holding onto for awhile because I knew how inferior my outward spatial skills were compared to my brother, as I’m totally useless with spatial tasks that involve using tools with a focused coordination for long periods of time.

Well, if you put it that way, then it's reasonable.

I agree that people who are totally invested in doing instead of thinking, tend to not be very conscious of the whole picture, and thus are a danger to survival. On the other hand, people who are totally devoted to thinking and not doing, are pretty useless when it comes to survival as well. So it's pretty funny in that regard.

Perhaps the thinkers will one day coax the doers into helping them manufacture robots that render the doers obsolete.

Whenever I worked construction, I always ended up with tasks that required no spatial skills at all such as passing tools, cleaning up, or carrying heavy weight. Essentially the more skilled laborers used me as how women and blacks are typically used. Its funny too because Jason M (your cousin) actually called me the ‘black princess’ for awhile.

hahaha. What a prick. :)

Daybrown,

This business of wisdom, sagacity, and smarts is culturally driven to some considerable degree. The very words we use, 'wisdom', 'sage', 'arrange', 'judge', or in other languages- regina, raja, aregon (lat, skt, grk) all trace back to original Aryan root words that were all *female*.

Making these words female makes sense because these are things to be pursued. Wisdom definitely doesn't chase after us. So the acknowledgment of that fact is cultural.

Jason: Ryan, you(or others) apparently haven't studied the brains or genetics etc of these men who you think have experienced subjective enlightenment so all you're doing is some very loose theorizing - at best. (You still haven't named these men either.)

Ryan: I'm not going to name drop as a means to convince you to become interested in wisdom.

I don't know how you got the bizarre idea that by telling me who they were you'd somehow convince me to become interested in wisdom. Or are you joking or messing with me? Trust me, I don't need any help to become interested in philosophy and ultimate reality and truth, if that's what you mean by "wisdom". The funny thing is, you're always talking about grand plans to lead the human race towards wisdom and yet you refuse to offer me a few paltry names, whilst at the same time believing that doing so might help me to become interested in wisdom. Odd, no?

Are members of this forum some of the men who you think have experienced this "subjective enlightened"? It wouldn't surprise me if one of the reasons you declined to name names is because it would embarass you to give the names of these forum members. Anyway, my original intent was to ask you how you know these men have experienced "subjective enlightenment" in the first place.

Jason wrote:

Jason: Ryan, you(or others) apparently haven't studied the brains or genetics etc of these men who you think have experienced subjective enlightenment so all you're doing is some very loose theorizing - at best. (You still haven't named these men either.)

Ryan: I'm not going to name drop as a means to convince you to become interested in wisdom.

I don't know how or why you got the idea that by telling me who they were you'd somehow convince me to become interested in wisdom. Or are you joking or messing with me?

I thought the opening post was pretty funny. It was a series of assertions not only without supportive documentation, but it was a guy pontificating about the superiority of males while repeatedly using faulty grammar. Unfortunately, anyone who didn't catch the faulty grammar or know that supportive documentation for things that are not common knowledge also would not have caught the humor, and might even take those words seriously.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I thought the opening post was pretty funny. It was a series of assertions not only without supportive documentation, but it was a guy pontificating about the superiority of males while repeatedly using faulty grammar. Unfortunately, anyone who didn't catch the faulty grammar or know that supportive documentation for things that are not common knowledge also would not have caught the humor, and might even take those words seriously.

Science's understanding of the brain and how it relates to psychology and the mind is still pretty basic, and while I don't have a great deal of knowledge in these areas, just from what I do know I find it extremely hard to believe that statements like:
"The disjointed hemispheres also create a deep feeling of inferiority in males, and aggression can easily result if they cannot clear up their confusion." (and many of the similar things that Ryan has written in this thread and elsewhere) have any decent modern scientific backing.

Basically I think he's pulling a lot of it out of his arse. That's one of the reasons why I challenged him in another thread, and he went on to create this one as a response I believe. But it just seems the more he expands on and attempts to justify his ideas, the more layers of absurdity he adds.

Elizabeth wrote:

I thought the opening post was pretty funny. It was a series of assertions not only without supportive documentation, but it was a guy pontificating about the superiority of males while repeatedly using faulty grammar. Unfortunately, anyone who didn't catch the faulty grammar or know that supportive documentation for things that are not common knowledge also would not have caught the humor, and might even take those words seriously.

Grammar is simply the rules of language, and it’s not all that significant as far as wisdom is concerned. Women are gifted at picking out errors in details; while men are gifted at systematically explaining how structures work. And when they do this as it pertains to the psyche, then an enlightened individual is born. However, this is very rare, as most men use their gifts in spatial relationships to secure themselves both financially and sexually.

Jason wrote:

Basically I think he's pulling a lot of it out of his arse. That's one of the reasons why I challenged him in another thread, and he went on to create this one as a response I believe. But it just seems the more he expands on and attempts to justify his ideas, the more layers of absurdity he adds.

You’re correct, they are just theories, I’m merely speculating on the relationship between masculine brain structure and outward psychological behaviors.

And you’re quite welcome to criticize some of these relationships, but it would be more productive if you actually offered an alternative theory, instead of just stating, “oh he’s just talking out his arse”….

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I thought the opening post was pretty funny. It was a series of assertions not only without supportive documentation, but it was a guy pontificating about the superiority of males while repeatedly using faulty grammar. Unfortunately, anyone who didn't catch the faulty grammar or know that supportive documentation for things that are not common knowledge also would not have caught the humor, and might even take those words seriously.

LOL.

She nailed it.

Man, you're so full of shit, Ryan!

Given that grammar is precisely a (linguistic) structure related to explanation, what is the essential difference between this:

picking out errors in details

And this:

explaining how structures work

Do you take seriously a plan to meaningfully explain the structure of the psyche in the presence of errors in detail?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Do you take seriously a plan to meaningfully explain the structure of the psyche in the presence of errors in detail?

My point is that perfect grammar is not a necessary condition for enlightenment. Elizabeth is trying to discredit the value of my entire argument by pointing to something rather trivial, namely errors in grammar. A wise thinker knows what details are important and which ones are not.

Male Brain 4% faster

I wonder if this is some sort of partial catch up for the increased size of the highways between the frontal lobes that women have? Nah, probably just something males evolved as a result of the requirements for successful hunting, or is an outcome of increased testosterone (or some other hormone) levels.

Ryan - I also mentioned the lack of supporting documentation. That's just a polite way of saying that you were talking out of your ass.