Tag Archives: equity in human relationship theory

Anatomy of the Female Mind

Image

When I say “the female brain” I am referring to several things: the emergent patterns in the way women as a group behave and make judgments, men that have been indoctrinated into the moral superiority of women, and in a conflict or a relationship the more irrational person or psychopathic person, male or female.

I will give a brief synopsis of my theory on “organic computers”, Neural Myelination is passed on through cellular memory, successful techniques are passed on by people that survived, patterns that were repeated are neural myelinated, this myelination influences the way we perceive reality and make judgments, our judgments were informed by the need to survive of our ancestors, those patterns were created in situations where survival was difficult, those instincts in modern times can be out of touch with reality.

Image

Now, Nature, for lack of a better word compartmentalized functions into male and female functions.  The consideration set of the female mind was edited to be concerned with and for babies, to presuppose an environment created for her in which she could indulge herself in the concern for which her brain was created.  In doing so the female brain makes certain presuppositions and ignores certain factors.  Those concerns which would not be conducive to taking care of a child but would be useful in providing a safe environment for woman and child were the business of the male mind.

Men and women are essentially the same, but compartmentalized by nature to deal with two different concerns and topics in two different ways.  I discovered this when creating my psycholinguistic philosophy.  My philosophy states.

“All narrative is doxography.”

Which seems innocuous at first but it is much deeper than one might expect.  All narrative is point of view, which means that everything said characterizes the person speaking *(assuming you know how I deconstruct narrative).  It wasn’t until I started studying Deborah Tannen‘s research on Male and Female communication patterns that I realized there were two completely different consciousnesses talking to one another.  She refers to this as complimentary schizmogenesis, I think it is more like two alien species that have different values and speak two different languages.

MOTHER

Babies start off as objects, entirely dependent on their mothers, incapable of doing anything for themselves.  They can’t defend themselves, think for themselves, or provide for themselves.  Babies communicate no analytical data and only emotional data, so from the perspective of the female mind emotions have to be valid.  That which has NO value or negative value in the heat of battle is valid to women.  Deborah Tannen refers to the interpretation of the emotional data by these little piss and shit factories as “ventriloquizing”.  Where the woman acts as the pythian oracle to interpret the omens sent to her through the medium of the squirming and whining of the child.

The mother protects the child’s psychosis and aberrations as well as the child.  She doesn’t care if the child is insane, or is capable of dealing with the world at large, that has never been a concern for her, she has a man for that.  She just wants the child to live and be as happy as possible.  This is why historically there was an age or a trial to mark the end of the authority of the mother and the beginning of the training and teaching that would make the child suitable for their transition to the world.

The mother manipulates the child to do things and to think that it was the child’s own idea.  Women use these exact same strategies on men if they can get away with it.  That is just how their brain works.  Women also keep on bringing the attention of the child back to a subject and then communicating emotional data to try to influence the way the child feels about the object.  When women do this to men it is called nagging and whining, or henpecking.  I call it jingling the keys.

SASD

Due to the feminine bias that is innate in the human organism, and due to the nature of superficial, aesthetic, snap decisions coming from the feminine part of the brain.  We judge the flow of negative emotional data as good or bad.  Negative emotional data flows from the child to the mom and from the mom to the dad.  We have a negative reaction to seeing the negative emotional data flowing in the opposite direction.  This patter in collective human judgments creates emergent properties that create disparate impact in favor of unreason, women, and children.  What looks good is not always good for you.

Allow me to illustrate in this way.  The Neural Myelination created over millions of years predisposes us to think that foods that are more densely packed with Macro nutrients are good for us, because that neural myelination was created in an environment in which survival was difficult.  The more packed with positive survival data it is, the better it tastes, to the point where the animal will never eat its natural diet if it has the option.  This makes the horse fat and sickly to the point of death.  Neural Myelination wasn’t created in an environment where survival was easy so our instincts are WRONG!  We as a society redouble our efforts in the wrong direction, compounding the problem because we are not aware of the organism through which we experience life and we are thinking sentimentally instead of analytically and logically.  If you don’t know the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases you can’t keep yourself from making them. 

Horse-Face-Eating-Grain-dreamstime_110698611

*It always annoys me when I tell people that everything said characterizes the person speaking and then they start trying to psychoanalyze me without knowing my method and having NO experience themselves, and never having thought about it until I brought the subject up.  What a bunch of idiots. 

Advertisements

A Priori and Plato’s Philosophy

Image

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms a priori  used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justification, or argument:

  • A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example “All bachelors are unmarried”). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which “you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don’t have to do any science.”;[1]
Now, the interesting question is how do we know that A = A?  If they are exactly identical then they are the same, their is only one A.  So their must be a granting of equivalent value between A and A.  How do we arrive at that?  In science the definition of the word is equal to the word itself.
Image
Here is what i believe to be a correct reduction to Plato’s allegory of the cave.  The golden a represents the uncorrupted form of the celestial “A”  the quintessential A.  The one enslaved by ignorance can’t directly behold the celestial A, because as long as one is ignorant there is no freedom.  All he knows is the shadow of the letter A cast on the wall, the corrupt, perverted, distorted form, the shadow of its actual self, a pale distorted reflection.
Plato is also called the father of religion, as the Hindus he believed that their was a causal world in which all the uncorrupted forms existed.  And every form in this world is a copy of the original.  Aristotle believed that material existence is all that is real and our ideas are outcropping of our experiences here.  He didn’t believe that there was a world of Idea and man descended from it as did Plato.
“men die, but man is immortal.”  ~Plato
I am sure I butchered the quote and it is paraphrased, I couldn’t find the original online, but the idea he is conveying is that while the individual reflections cease to exist the idea continues and the idea, having a subtle existence lasts longer than the actual physical object.
“Philosophy will not die with Plato.”  ~Aristotle
Aristotle was arrogantly suggesting that he was the better philosopher than his teacher.  I feel that an aspect of philosophy did die with Plato as his disciples were afraid.  Aristotle, the father of science threw out anything that could not be proven in the realm of existence, refusing to entertain things that could be conceived of in the realm of thought.  To a certain extent it was an act of theft.
“Epiphenomenalism is the theory in philosophy of mind that mental phenomena are caused by physical processes in the brain or that both are effects of a common cause, as opposed to mental phenomena driving the physical mechanics of the brain. The impression that thoughts, feelings, or sensations cause physical effects, is therefore to be understood as illusory to some extent. For example, it is not the feeling of fear that produces an increase in heart beat, both are symptomatic of a common physiological origin, possibly in response to a legitimate external threat.[1]” ~wikipedia
We lost, in the losing of Plato’s perspective, the art of unlocking the genius behind each child.  He tolerated Aristotle for this reason:
“Never discourage anyone…who continually makes progress, no matter how slow.” 
― Plato
And what we lost in our educational system was this:
“Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.”
― Plato
PlatoAristotle3

SOCIOPATH/PSYCHOPATH DICHOTOMY

Image

In my system I have reappropriated the terms Psychopath and Sociopath in order to make them more clear.  If I may quote myself, “all narrative is doxography.”  all thought and speech is essentially narrative, and that narrative is strung together by a character or a story that the person is creating,  I feel that psychopaths and sociopaths have two completely different mind sets, which I will get into later, right now I would like to explain why I changed things around.

Trained psychologists have trouble distinguishing between psychopaths and sociopaths sometimes, a lot of this has to do with the way in which the terms were created.  As psychologists were discovering anti-social behavior, they began to flesh out the profile of psychopath, at some later point it became increasingly obvious that there was another type of anti-social behavior and the term sociopath was created and it started to come into use.  Sociopaths, if I understand correctly, are a sub-category of psychopaths, all aberrant behavior is psychotic, but we have two different personalities in psychopaths and sociopaths.  Also there seems to be some overlap between the two syndromes and I think I can clear that up although it is possible to have traits from both pathologies in the form of shadow syndromes.  I refer to process, patterns, or behaviors as being either a psychopathic process or a sociopathic process. 

Now, here is the psychopath checklist:

The two factors[edit source]

Factor 1: Interpersonal/Affective

Factor 2: Lifestyle/Antisocial

  • Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
  • Parasitic lifestyle
  • Poor behavioral control
  • Lack of realistic long-term goals
  • Impulsiveness
  • Irresponsibility
  • Juvenile delinquency
  • Early behavior problems
  • Revocation of conditional release
  • Criminal versatility

Traits not correlated with either factor

 

Acquired behavioral sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e., a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist#The_two_factors

This to me points to an over coddled child.  I see the over coddling mother and the child as part of the same mentality, they are comorbid with one another and the mother creates an environment where the child can practice being manipulative and lying and getting away with it.  The psychopaths need a group of people, a herd, in which to socially climb and manipulate others, reputation brokering, strategic communication, rhetoric, passive aggression, etc. 

Image

I found it interesting that in the movie 300, we see the Spartan boy surrounded by images of fire, and attacked by wild animals and having trouble sleeping because of stress, and below we have the sociopathic triad:

The triad links animal crueltyobsession with fire setting, and persistent bedwetting past the age of five to violent behaviors, particularly homicidal behavior.[2] However, other studies have not found statistically significant links between the triad and violent offenders.

 

Further studies have suggested that these behaviors are often the product of parental neglect, cruelty or trauma, and that such events in a person’s childhood can result in “homicidal proneness”.[3] However, the ‘triad’ concept as a particular combination of behaviors may not have any particular validity – it has been called an urban legend.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

From my perspective it is the neglected child, alone in nature and fending for himself that would experience those behaviors. This is more akin to a male mind, alone enduring the war of all against all. 

In the movie PREDATORS it seems to me that the writers were trying to show the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths.  All of the humans were super predators of one manner or another, the dentist was a cereal killer and he concealed this acting like he didn’t know why he was there.  With his own resources he would have been dead in 5 minutes on the planet, he needed to appeal to the sympathy of the others until he was in a place where he could opportunistically take advantage of the situation, and psychopaths are opportunistic.  They don’t fight you when you are strong, they fight you when you can’t defend yourself.  Everybody was more fit for survival than he was.  He concealed his narcissistic narrative and misrepresented himself bypassing everyone’s threat filter, he was a closeted narcissist.  

http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/bypassing-the-threat-filter-definition-by-joxuashivah/

 

Image

Image

Image

Image