User Tag List

First 24323334353644 Last

Results 331 to 340 of 485

  1. #331
    Seriously Delirious Udog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INfp
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp None
    Posts
    5,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    But the remaining 5 or 6 brain cells are like super smart and stuff.

  2. #332
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    I'm okay with that, if this is what broken feels like I'ma gonna break more shit!

  3. #333
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    I'm okay with that, if this is what broken feels like I'ma gonna break more shit!
    That's exactly what it feels like!

    *marinades in estrogen, has intact brain, feels like shit*
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #334
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Too much testosterone can kill brain cells
    Apoptosis is an important thing for the brain -- the brain needs to weed out some of the cells. But when it happens too frequently, you lose too many cells and causes problems.
    As for whether men are "broken" women, well, I don't think that is a neutral way of saying something, but I suppose it is right in some sense. My breasts and mammary glands have been broken, my vagina is in terrible shape, I don't know what the fuck happened to my ovaries or uterus.... Such a mess! In all seriousness, this perhaps sums it up

    If you have a complex system that is capable in a general sense, and you retool it to specialize, you lose some of that general capability. In other words, you have damaged the ability of that system to generalize.
    Why not say men are "specialized" women? :P

    Edit:

    I have an interesting thought, and tell me what you think about this...

    Some studies of IQ have found that, while the average IQ between men and women is roughly equal, the variance among men is significantly higher than the variance among women. Thus, we will have more men of greatness, but also more violent dullards. Where am I going with this? Stay tuned...

    Sex differences in central tendency, variability, and numbers of high scores on mental tests have been extensively studied. Research has not always seemed to yield consistent results, partly because most studies have not used representative samples of national populations. An analysis of mental test scores from six studies that used national probability samples provided evidence that although average sex differences have been generally small and stable over time, the test scores of males consistently have larger variance. Except in tests of reading comprehension, perceptual speed, and associative memory, males typically outnumber females substantially among high-scoring individuals.
    Early in embryonic development in females, one of the two X chromosomes is randomly and permanently inactivated in cells other than egg cells. This phenomenon is called X-inactivation or Lyonization. X-inactivation ensures that females, like males, have one functional copy of the X chromosome in each body cell. Because X-inactivation is random, in normal females the X chromosome inherited from the mother is active in some cells, and the X chromosome inherited from the father is active in other cells.
    A new look at the human Y chromosome has overturned longstanding ideas about its evolutionary history. Far from being in a state of decay, the Y chromosome is the fastest-changing part of the human genome and is constantly renewing itself.
    Let these three quotes sink in. To the extent that men have a healthy X chromosome, the fact that they don't have another one in the mix to potentially offset the problems inherent in the first one is immaterial. In some sense, they don't hedge their bets. Couple this with the fact that the Y chromosome is evolving much faster than other genes (evolution often doesn't produce favorable results in the short term), and you have a recipe for a great degree of divergence in males. Some will be much "better" than their female counterparts, and some will be much "worse".

    Thoughts?
    @Zarathustra @DiscoBiscuit @SmileyMan @Nicodemus @ygolo
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #335
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Claiming the Y chromosome is "broken" is as ridiculous as creationists claiming they've found evidence of intelligent design. When a genetic trait is as common as the Y chromosome is in nature, there must have been an evolutionary advantage. People should be embarrassed for starting with their conclusions, then cherry picking facts to fit that conclusion. But these people aren't embarrassed because ideology is more important to them than truth.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #336
    FigerPuppet
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    I have an interesting thought, and tell me what you think about this...

    Some studies of IQ have found that, while the average IQ between men and women is roughly equal, the variance among men is significantly higher than the variance among women. Thus, we will have more men of greatness, but also more violent dullards. Where am I going with this? Stay tuned...

    Let these three quotes sink in. To the extent that men have a healthy X chromosome, the fact that they don't have another one in the mix to potentially offset the problems inherent in the first one is immaterial. In some sense, they don't hedge their bets. Couple this with the fact that the Y chromosome is evolving much faster than other genes (evolution often doesn't produce favorable results in the short term), and you have a recipe for a great degree of divergence in males. Some will be much "better" than their female counterparts, and some will be much "worse".

    Thoughts?
    @Zarathustra @DiscoBiscuit @SmileyMan @Nicodemus @ygolo
    This is certainly interesting. I didn't know about X-inactivation. While I cautiously agree with your conclusion - and only cautiously because of my inability to evaluate the strength of your premise regarding the characteristic expressions of the chromosomes, and especially the first quotation - you will have a very difficult time arguing from biology against radical feminists simply because the feminist movement, and society in general, has made a lot of progress smearing that line of thought as un-enlightened, to say the least. It paves the way for a true, biological justification for the difference in numbers when it comes to men and women in positions of power, since a man is more likely to be "great" than a woman: There are more men of greatness in the world than there are women of greatness.

    I am eagerly awaiting Salomé's response!

  7. #337
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    This reminds me of a lecture I watched on youtube a while back that correlated high testosterone with lower IQ. I wonder if I can find it again..

    I think we're all scared of biology in some way. Biology represents the most frightening reality of our fears because it laughs in the face of our reason and snorts at our attempts to deride it's influence, when it is that very influence that defines us so strongly in many ways.

    Of course this is meant in a way free from the childish trappings of our own perceptual biases and social constructs.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  8. #338
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    FTR, the only correlation I´ve seen around is an inverted U-shape with testosterone levels on the X axis and spatial reasoning on the Y axis, so that higher levels of T produce progressively decreasing marginal returns.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  9. #339
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    I have an interesting thought, and tell me what you think about this...

    Some studies of IQ have found that, while the average IQ between men and women is roughly equal, the variance among men is significantly higher than the variance among women. Thus, we will have more men of greatness, but also more violent dullards. Where am I going with this? Stay tuned...

    Let these three quotes sink in. To the extent that men have a healthy X chromosome, the fact that they don't have another one in the mix to potentially offset the problems inherent in the first one is immaterial. In some sense, they don't hedge their bets. Couple this with the fact that the Y chromosome is evolving much faster than other genes (evolution often doesn't produce favorable results in the short term), and you have a recipe for a great degree of divergence in males. Some will be much "better" than their female counterparts, and some will be much "worse".
    I agree men have more of a propensity to cluster around the edges of the bell curve, to be more extreme. Transsexuals (who are, lets face it, the only people qualified to judge) will also tell you that they have more extreme and less nuanced emotions as a man than as a woman.

    I don't think the playing field has been levelled enough (or for long enough) for us to draw any conclusions about whether women are inherently less "great". Only time will tell. After all, it was only last century that men were saying the smaller size of women's brains meant they were "naturally" retards and also that their wombs floated about in their bodies making them prone to hysteria and therefore incapable of rational thought... Men say a lot of stupid stuff. Probably because their brains are broken.

    Your conclusions attributing this to a faster evolving Y chromosome are just wrong, however.
    I recommend Matt Ridley's Genome and The Red Queen as a good layman's introduction to the subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    FTR, the only correlation I´ve seen around is an inverted U-shape with testosterone levels on the X axis and spatial reasoning on the Y axis, so that higher levels of T produce progressively decreasing marginal returns.
    I have seen this too. Too much is bad, too little is bad. Kind of a Goldilocks story.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  10. #340
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    masculine ideals are just as fucked up as feminine ideals. and the developmental and socialization processes do very little to match the expectations they purport to set. the relation is what is out of balance.

    most of our society skips all the middle steps when it comes to expectations. it creates more and more high risk games that allow the people with the most resources to protect what they have. women taking more jobs from a marketplace that is not expanding its middle class possibilities and magnetically bringing the top and bottom closer together, while under pressure from heavy development of workers in job markets that can easily transition to ours, makes it more difficult for males. many of the relational skills that are useful in the service sector have clear advantages to women. being more consistent, cognitively mature human beings earlier in their development helps them get through school and manage themselves socially and emotionally far better. (there's also a far higher percentage of males that are sx types that verticalizes the male game far more drastically than the female game. it changes the expectations and creates such a strong i need a harem mentality, gotta be a king/mogul, more risk, more intense failure, more absurd expectations, more power without real pleasure in the paths of life on their own terms).

    meanwhile, the T slant towards masculinity is also more out of balance than ever. to win the top games, being a sociopath helps. who see having women in the workforce, and having many of them in lower middle class service jobs, and seeing them as peasant workers who can't really do anything but be hospitable and keep the group smiling, while the (real) men do the real work, and not having a legitimate domestic life apart from extremely mediated social expectations, and not having a mother they love and respect, and not really having the "strong woman behind every strong man" foundation that has been a great axiom for basically focusing on STRONG F nurtures HEALTHY T, rather than just opting for control, just shows that we have no checks and balances between T and F in our society. nowhere is F respected, honored, cherished, protected, and served. especially the T males at the top. even in the managerial and executive positions of companies. control without vision, and definitely without listening. we've systematically destroyed the F units that provide the structure for shared social existence, for belonging, for relatively stable social identities, for family, for identifications with others who are US rather than just being a market demographic of such and such semantic value, ideas negotiated by social alignments and the power of mass-mediation to skew those ideas. we're killing feeling all the time. feeling, the beliefs that bind us together as selves and higher selves, as communities, as families. its being systematically controlled. that protect our relations and the selfhood that must be defined relationally, that will either tear us apart or bind us together, that will abandon us or that will fortify us. we become fucked up, monstrous.

    i think the different waves of feminism show huge differences. you have F feminism and you have T feminism. T feminism, and especially sx, aggressive types, who themselves are in an understandably difficult position because they feel like they cannot be themselves and the female gender games are made to constrain them so they don't unbalance the conditions that the group as a whole needs to protect, all those sp and so f women whose relational intelligence does not best fit the incredibly harsh T games that rule business, have created a kind of mirror image of male caricature. driven, control, domineering, high risk venture, rights-driven rather than responsibilities-driven, etc. who try to undermine all social ties in order to create rules that they can beat. but the social expectations, the binders of socio-emotional groups, protect the conditions that we need as aggregations to thrive or to find balance. F feminism, by contrast, is about informing and listening. it's about sharing values and exploring them holistically without trying to define or win or control. it's about the power of affect rather than simply effect. that the female gender has shifted to be less affective and more effective has substantially unwoven the basic balance between T and F that has characterized gender relations socio-historically. rather than empowering F, they have simply allowed T to take over as well in that space. and we are getting more T women who fight the socialization games that have enabled them to be more relationally skilled than their T male counterparts, proclaiming that such games are simply essentialistic, historically constructed and thus arbitrary (and full of contradictions rather than also perhaps being functional on some level even if not in their own unique best interest), are WRONG and CONTROLLING. so they undermine the legitimacy of the socialization practices that produce relational intelligence from both T and F perspectives (i don't know how to contextualize this, because i'm pretty sure sorority houses are the most terrifying social reality that has ever existed. i can ever see the heils and the little hitler mustaches on all the here's how you be a good middle class woman who can attract an insurance agent accent touches).

    the female pay problem reflects the fact that females have so profoundly taken over sectors of the job market by underselling men of a certain class. we often just make it so that it is men vs women. it's not. by working against the unionization of males at one scale and getting rid of the prejudicial binding that kept that strong enough to protect certain conditions for that group against the upper class. as we have done that, we have done nothing to renegotiate conditions for the relationship between class scales and we have not begun to consider how we can create work to support an economy in which everyone needs to produce 40-50 hrs per week of work (which seems totally fucking backwards from what would make sense, where we all work less and do higher value work that is less automatable and dehumanizing, and totally shows that we do not fucking value family or child-rearing and that the only ways we measure success are in terms of taking over a certain space and/or having the money to prove that we are valuable because our relationships simply are not strong enough to stamp the truth onto us in a way that feels real and right).

    there's really not that much blame to go around. the lack of social skills for males also has to do with generational gaps and expectations that are more and more absurd. sure they have to do with types of entertainment, but, really, if you don't like sports, you're not in a band, and you don't like crowded bars, what are you really to do in middle america during your college years? meanwhile, finding balance in terms of who you think you are and who you are supposed to be is incredibly difficult. you can imagine yourself against what ideas of masculinity that make sense? you are convinced that those ideas are what win in all contexts (so why even bother trying?). you are supposed to aim for something "better" than you are aiming. you do not really have the social skills to win big in organizational settings, which are still so influenced by "athletic" and socio-sexual factors. and you don't really find that much value in anything, because you don't have very many passions, your imagination is in a straight jacket, the social cogs, the extroverts, don't really seem to have the sense to invest in less obvious social games that could make use of other human talents. and the social spaces are so codified in most cases and so regulated by specific groups of people who define themselves demographically and try to maintain their hold on those kinds of tastes. any scene gets taken over pretty quickly for its image, and the grounding of it is gone, the only thing that is left is the ghost of authenticity.

    so who has it worse? how can it be made better? you think jerking off to internet porn and playing video games is a recipe for stable, empowering self-esteem? you think it is simply a sign of weakness? is that really any way to entice men/boys to feel understood? how will they understand your position if you do not understand theirs? why should they care about yours if you don't about theirs? if they feel more understood by other males, more supported, stuck in a game that the only thing you give them is a weekly "allowance" or your vagina on occasion when you're both drunk, it doesn't really seem like you have much of an OFFER to make. because that's where we're at. if you want a relationship, you have to make the offer as much as the males do. because many of them are now in more socially "helpless" situations than women have previously been. you have to step up to the plate and challenge yourself to manage YOUR needs emotionally and be strong for someone else too. they often have less ability to empower themselves based on how they relate to the games they are expected to play and the ways they are expected to play them. they are less hirable in many fields because of their gender and the expectations and the probabilities that surround them and their gender. the job market is competitive but what is most out of balance is the relationship between our expectations and the paths we can realistically take. women can make improvements on the "women's liberation" story whereas men are often falling far short of the family ENTITLEMENT that they were taught they were inheriting, having trouble maintaining the position let alone expanding it. and their own unique life stories are not socially mediated in intelligent ways. because adulthood, self-responsibility, doing the best you can in the face of expectations that require a major re-set requires a great sense of loss to be fully grieved. we don't do this. we don't have any rites of passage. we don't really have effective role models (only the most extreme success stories, ahem, lance armstrong cheaters, tiger woods philanderers, etc, or those that are basically admiring the upper class for being worth celebrating because they are upper class=they deserved it). too much cognitive dissonance, not enough love to make it worth it, to appreciate the aspects of life that come from our relational existence, family, friends, partners, church, etc.

    also, this may sound pessimistic, but i don't think this is intended to show a downward arrow. we have simply shifted problems into another form. redivided the social territories. a new paradigm of learning and mistakes. the onward forward march of life.

Similar Threads

  1. The Demise of Ladies
    By Beorn in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 01-08-2013, 10:46 PM
  2. [INTP] How Can I Win the Love of an INTP Guy?
    By I Never Find Peace in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-04-2012, 02:08 PM
  3. The Demise of Zergling
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 444
    Last Post: 10-25-2011, 07:04 PM
  4. What are you guys feeling about the state of affairs now?
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-31-2009, 02:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO