Food for thought. Differences between sexes: https://www.chess.com/players
Men and women
Food for thought. Differences between sexes: https://www.chess.com/players
I don’t enjoy playing chess. It’s corny to me.
You're more of a Puzzle Pirates broad?Originally Posted by one
Well I guess. Chess is just black and white. In Puzzle Pirates even the puzzles have multiple colors and patterns on the board.
Board games are only fun for me when I can cheat in them.
Resist extrapolating that to relationships with men.
If you don't understand what chess means in both metaphorical and cultural way, well, I'm sorry do you have male brains cuz you don't sound scientific.
It's crazy. It's like the more ugly you are, the more talent you have. Maybe that's why women usually don't have any talents, because they're pretty as hell.
I don’t enjoy board games very much. I’ve always wanted to learn more about them but I always tend to lose interest in them once I start learning. I guess I’m a woman. If I were reborn as a woman, I’d want my name to be Skittle-Tits
Are they that pretty though?
The majority are. when you are born a pretty face is like you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, they don't get an urge, especially a social urge, to be good at anything.
Yes, you're correct on this one.
Yet, I'd argue that most women look like dog shit.
Yet... You have people like Anne, the soprano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=362Ud5Cb5SY
She's both beautiful and talented. At least, in my narrow understanding.
Some female brains:
Ada Lovelace
Hedy Lamarr
I'd rather be learning how to fix things like engines, auto repair, over playing chess. Which is something I'm currently learning, I refuse to get scammed by any repair shop, they are always onto something.
women and men cannot be friends, I'll give my full explanation later.
women and men are designed to have sex, not to be fucking friends. you don't have to give a full explanation, biology already have
I’m assuming you mean straight/bi men + straight/bi women? I’m a guy but I’m gay, and I only have female friendsThen again, I’m barely a man
I’m assuming you mean straight/bi men + straight/bi women? I’m a guy but I’m gay, and I only have female friends
Correct, I understand that homosexuality is the exception because this is when the sex dynamics don't apply at all, because there is no behaviors with the intent to appeal to the opposite sex for instinctual reasons.
What am I to you?!
Sometimes people let their feelings get in the way of what is factual. This is a prime example.
Funny enough, women's dating lives in finding their ideal man is much easier once they cut off all of their straight/bi male friends. Heck, even the presence of a woman elevates a man's status and ego. A man reacts differently when a woman smiles at him, than when a man does.
Even having a nerfed EQ, stale at expression or understanding of how other people feel, not feminine enough, I still find myself surrounded by men my age who compliment me and ask to walk me home, etc.
At this point, a woman could just exist and be decent looking and there will be a guy eyeing her.
Idk, you tell me.
Your best friend, obviously.
literally the way nature works. not a feeling at all. maybe get out of the house more or study the basics of biology and there you'll have it.
...I'll just take the woman stereotype
I think you can always be attracted to an opposite sex friend but not do anything about it, we are that civilized. Lust is not a big deal for people who are level-headed.
Yeah, people underestimate the power of the mind to “lose” attraction to a person. I willfully lost my attraction to my male friends just to make things easier for myself, when I was a horny teenager.
Edit: I should also mention that perhaps this isn’t possible for everyone. But it’s certainly possible for some people.
Here's a great video from a fellow self-admitted INTJ/ILI:
Men and women are different. @kuno I bet this will shed a great deal of light on what you went through BTW. They lacked critical levels of "Bad Boy" score and thus you couldn't get attracted to them. Not their fault as Hoe_Math is absolutely correct about what men are told is true vs. what is actually true because, like I've said elsewhere, a critical lesson most people don't ever learn is that other people are not like them and they never will be!
Nobody else is exactly like you. Even other people of the same race, age, sex, ethnicity, religion, nationality, type, sexual orientation, instinct stack, subtype, etc are not like you. Yet most people go through life in a solipsistic mode where they act in ways they would act if they wanted out of themselves what they wanted out of others.
E.g. I want X. I wish other people would give me X. If I wanted X from Y I would act this way so if I do that I should get what I want. After all I'm just like everyone else so if I do that I ought to get what I want out of other people as what I want and what they want must be pretty similar.
This is not the case and betrays another tragic truth/hard lesson. Most people aren't very highly developed psychologically. To even have a lesson as simple as "Other people have needs just as deep and vital as my own and I must respect that fact and give to them something they truly need from me to get something I truly need out of them in order to establish a true mutually beneficial relationship" fully internalized and acted upon every day on a visceral level puts you in the top 50 percent of humanity. Most people don't have that as a "visceral" aspect of their existence. Place and culture forces them to act like they do, but they really don't.
Last edited by End; 02-14-2024 at 01:54 AM.
Even if you do something about it, try to hit on the person, it shouldn't be a big deal. I don't think most people can live up to much of an ideal though. It's a minority of people who care about things like "being civilized." Most people go along with whatever the ruling ideas of the day are on the surface, but do whatever they want without shame when they think they can get away with it.
Sexuality especially causes people to act cruelly to the other sex. Most relationships don't seem held together by real affection; the "love" I hear people claiming to have for their partners seems like a lie. People follow their own desire and call that love and generosity on behalf of someone else. Unusually introspective or sensitive people have spread the rumor that "love" is good; everyone else doesn't know or care about anything like this, but want to keep their sexual partner, so they lie to themselves and their partner for as long as they want to keep their partner. And so breakups between "loving" partners is common. I don't think I've ever known a couple whose "love" I've believed.
And aside from a specific partner, the entire opposite sex becomes suspicious. You're out to use them and they might want to use you. The SLEs in this thread explained this. There's no room for bonds of kindness, respect, or curiosity; men and women should just fuck and fling shit at each other like monkeys. Ancient people might have believed Eros was a god, but we know better now: there's nothing particularly beautiful or noble about sexuality. @coquette wasn't touched by the offers to walk her home but knew that they were just attempts to use her. If she pleases and thinks she can get something from it, maybe she'll accept an offer someday, but God forbid her heart be touched sometime, because that means she'll just end up deceived and being used instead of deceiving and using someone else.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 02-14-2024 at 02:28 AM.
There are some exceptions. The ones I've seen are female logical types. I'm close with a handful of them (LSI, ILE , LIE) with genuinely strictly platonic guy friends, who are also logical types.
But yeah personally, absolutely impossible for me to have a male friend. The only one was gay. It took me some time to accept it.
Edit: I can't be friends with men because they often end up being attracted to me. If they're not, they don't want to befriend me. I don't know the exact psychology behind it, a man would have to explain it
Last edited by persimmonism; 02-14-2024 at 03:42 AM.
Edit : * Disclaimer : The point of view of the post is based on an article I've read in a website dedicated to Psychology (probably of Freudian Obedience) some years ago.
I think I've said it before but I realized* that there is a Mature way of loving and an Immature way of loving when I was around 41 years old.
The mature way of loving is to "love" as adults should understand it. It is to acknowledge that sexual desire is the implicit and legitimate part of love dynamics between two adults. To me that translate as the following : when an adult say that he or she is in love with another it means that he or she wants (or wants to continue) to have sex with him/her. To me the implications of that realisation were huge. I was so naive (even If at that point I already experienced real passionate romance like in the movies but what I thought to be special was in fact true "adult" love).
The immature way of loving is the "romantic love" i.e. the kind of love that does not imply sexual fantasies or actual sexual desire towards the other person. It's a longing "innocent" and "pure" love in which sex is like a stain. I think it's the kind of love kids have in their schoolyards.
I was a romantic immature in matters of love until my conscious awareness of the state of fact (or is it ?) mentioned above. I don't know why it took me so long to understand that, I had read Freud and all kinds of books about that thing at that point and yet I missed that essential distinction. I think it has to do with my own trauma and psychology but I digress.
Anyway, I think it is wise to let go of certain negative preconception about sexuality. Although it is a basic human need, having sex with a partner you don't love passionately or even conceptualizing sexuality as a purely animalistic instinct is like eating raw meat, carrots and onions, swallow it all down with a sip of red wine, while believing you ate boeuf bourguignon...
PS. Although I've used it a lot here, Irl the word "Love" is a taboo word to me. I just almost never overtly use it when I talk because it's kinda embarrassing. I prefer to substitute it with the word "like"..
Last edited by godslave; 02-17-2024 at 11:29 PM.
Despite what I just said, I don't know that the kind of love you're calling "immature" is wrong.
I don't think there is an "immature" love for the opposite sex that's free from eros. One of Freud's discoveries was that children had sexual desires of a kind. They're not "innocent" with respect to sexuality or violence except that they aren't fully aware yet of what they want, have less ability to get it, and have less understanding of what it will cost to pursue their desires.
"Pure" though, maybe. Children can have a clarity of intention adults don't because they're free to be selfish. When you're an adult you have to make all kinds of compromises every single day. Maybe you have a spark of kindness in you. But your husband seems cold to you, so you resent him, and you don't want to extend that kindness. But you want to be desired and approved of, and even more, you really like the lifestyle he gives you. So you say you "love" him in order to receive "love" from him, while finding ways to subtly belittle him to get your revenge.
Children don't really do this so much. If they're angry they're angry and if they're loving they're loving. Maybe this changes often, but they don't really have the ability to balance so many desires at once. So if you're kind to a child, he'll recognize that and simply love you. They're simple in that way, and it helps that they tend to be innately trusting of adults. But if you're kind to a woman -- well, good luck. You might have better luck by insulting her.
Jesus said that little children were the way to the kingdom of heaven. Being loving in this childlike way doesn't seem so bad to me. Maybe that's colored by my type which has the same erotic style as yours. The Se and Ni people in this thread seem to like the idea of sex and love as competitive struggles anyway. But in any case, you'd have to be very generous and forgiving. To the extent that you keep grudges and resentments, you aren't able to love or feel loved.
I forgot to mention that it was something I read in a psychology site, sorry about that. Did I say "Immature" love is wrong though ?
Well, I would not go as far as calling Freud's ideas "discoveries", indeed you are touching on fundamental concepts of the Freudian Philosophy but as we all know, much of the Freudian principles are considered as obsolete by modern Mental Health pro, heck even Jung didn't agree with some of Freud's Ideas. Is there a reason why we should consider Freud's work as some kind of sacred scriptures ?I don't think there is an "immature" love for the opposite sex that's free from eros. One of Freud's discoveries was that children had sexual desires of a kind. They're not "innocent" with respect to sexuality or violence except that they aren't fully aware yet of what they want, have less ability to get it, and have less understanding of what it will cost to pursue their desires.
"Pure" though, maybe. Children can have a clarity of intention adults don't because they're free to be selfish. When you're an adult you have to make all kinds of compromises every single day. Maybe you have a spark of kindness in you. But your husband seems cold to you, so you resent him, and you don't want to extend that kindness. But you want to be desired and approved of, and even more, you really like the lifestyle he gives you. So you say you "love" him in order to receive "love" from him, while finding ways to subtly belittle him to get your revenge.Well, children have to build up there super ego as it were. As for the bold part I find that funny, but we both know that romantic relationships can not be generalized in such caricatured manner.
Children, toddlers in this case, get attached to adults. I think that the concept of love is still foreign to them at this point. As for women, if we had to learn only one thing from typology is that there is a dual for each person. Yes, even that nice guy has a dual type, it takes all sorts to make a world. I suspect that pop culture and social media emphasised the " bad b...h" archetype as the ultimate Anima. It's of course a distorted view, but it made its way in the incel culture as well as in the red pill movements and the like.Children don't really do this so much. If they're angry they're angry and if they're loving they're loving. Maybe this changes often, but they don't really have the ability to balance so many desires at once. So if you're kind to a child, he'll recognize that and simply love you. They're simple in that way, and it helps that they tend to be innately trusting of adults. But if you're kind to a woman -- well, good luck. You might have better luck by insulting her.
Indeed, competing over resources is a basic truth of the human condition, even if we eradicate war, we could never eradicate passion. Jealousy and possessiveness will always be strong drives allowing basic instincts to come to the surface, regardless of the model of society. There will always be people willing to kill for "love".Jesus said that little children were the way to the kingdom of heaven. Being loving in this childlike way doesn't seem so bad to me. Maybe that's colored by my type which has the same erotic style as yours.[??] The Se and Ni people in this thread seem to like the idea of sex and love as competitive struggles anyway. But in any case, you'd have to be very generous and forgiving. To the extent that you keep grudges and resentments, you aren't able to love or feel loved.
I'd say I'm pretty aware that other people aren't like me. But how to give them what they want I don't know, and I don't know that I'd be willing to give it.
For example, I have a tendency to say things obliquely when I don't want to say them outright, for instance because I think they'd be distasteful. Usually this comes across as a joke, or something "random." Sometimes people have gotten angry at me because they think I'm making light of what they're saying, when I'm really trying to respond seriously to what they said. I can recognize that this problem wouldn't happen if I were to be more direct, but directness would either lead to a conflict which I'd want to avoid, or I'd have to not say anything at all. On some level I can recognize that trying to communicate in this way is genuinely bizarre, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect a normal person not on my wavelength to "get" it. But I don't know what else to do while also indulging my own selfishness (the desire to say something and be heard). Also, I somewhat feel that there are cases in which it's valuable to say something in this way so that the other person is free to draw his own conclusions.
Anyway. I think just the awareness that you're different from others isn't enough to establish a relationship.
I also wonder if people are more aware of this than you might think. You and I have very bad Se and Fe. Personally, I've thought a lot about other people and their differences, but I don't really think it's something that other people have to think about. I realized a lot of very basic things pretty late, and I wonder if that's true for you too. If so, those things might be more natural to other types.
It seemed like you were implying it, by calling it "immature" and yourself naive.
No reason. But he was intelligent and perceptive, and you had brought him up. Anyway, I don't think "mental health pros'" reasons for saying Freud is "obsolete" has to do with the fact that they've proven most of his theories wrong (the problem they usually bring up in the first place is that people like Freud and Jung are practically unfalsifiable) so much as A) psychology and modern thought in general moves in a different way these days, and B) his ideas were and are disturbing. Especially to people who see their work's purpose as making people not disturbed.Well, I would not go as far as calling Freud's ideas "discoveries", indeed you are touching on fundamental concepts of the Freudian Philosophy but as we all know, much of the Freudian principles are considered as obsolete by modern Mental Health pro, heck even Jung didn't agree with some of Freud's Ideas. Is there a reason why we should consider Freud's work as some kind of sacred scriptures ?
They can't be? I don't know that, no!
What's the difference between love and "attachment" then?Children, toddlers in this case, get attached to adults. I think that the concept of love is still foreign to them at this point. As for women, if we had to learn only one thing from typology is that there is a dual for each person. Yes, even that nice guy has a dual type, it takes all sorts to make a world. I suspect that pop culture and social media emphasised the " bad b...h" archetype as the ultimate Anima. It's of course a distorted view, but it made its way in the incel culture as well as in the red pill movements and the like.
"Distorted?" There's no shortage of women like that in the world.
You bolded what I said about erotic styles. I mean that being Ne egos we have the "infantile" erotic style. Si egos are "caregivers", Ni "victims," Se "aggressors".Indeed, competing over resources is a basic truth of the human condition, even if we eradicate war, we could never eradicate passion. Jealousy and possessiveness will always be strong drives allowing basic instincts to come to the surface, regardless of the model of society. There will always be people willing to kill for "love".
True, I also emitted an interrogation about all this mature/immature thing in these terms " (or is it ?) " But fair enough !
The problem of unfalsifiability is indeed inherent to all those psychological paradigms, you have a very good point. As for the disturbness of his ideas, well I would say that the most disturbing thing is that he universalised his subjective "neurosis". I mean I'm not going to expose all the Freudian concepts but "primitive parricide"etc.. my God ! Side note : I honestly was a Freud fan (not believer, but absolutely fascinated by his work) until I read some books (especially Michel Onfray' Le Crépuscule d'une idole" ('Twilight of an Idol")) that revealed another side of the father of psychoanalysis...No reason. But he was intelligent and perceptive, and you had brought him up. Anyway, I don't think "mental health pros'" reasons for saying Freud is "obsolete" has to do with the fact that they've proven most of his theories wrong (the problem they usually bring up in the first place is that people like Freud and Jung are practically unfalsifiable) so much as A) psychology and modern thought in general moves in a different way these days, and B) his ideas were and are disturbing. Especially to people who see their work's purpose as making people not disturbed.
That's a tough question, I'll try to answer it in freestyle. I would say that attachment is primarily instinctive in the sense that it's more like a reflex. Indeed, the first sign of attachment is the baby's recognition of the caregiver's smell (usually the biological mother). The more the baby acquires a certain awareness of the environment the more he will have an instinctive desire to explore it. We can imagine the attachment as some kind of link between the baby and his caregiver, when he faces some difficulties in his exploration he will emit a signal (like crying) that the attachment figure will answer and secure the baby. The repetition of that behavior will contribute to enhance the strength of that link. Love on the other hand implies a certain development of consciousness. First, self-awareness and second the conscious representation of the existence of the other (the object of love). That's my two cents on it, but of course you can find a much more elaborated and sensical answer if you ask google.What's the difference between love and "attachment" then?
"Distorted?" There's no shortage of women like that in the world.
May I ask you what type do you think I have ?You bolded what I said about erotic styles. I mean that being Ne egos we have the "infantile" erotic style. Si egos are "caregivers", Ni "victims," Se "aggressors".You suggested IEE for me a while ago, but maybe you have changed opinion since (??)
Anyway, thank you for your time.
Oh, I'd thought you typed yourself IEE. Sorry. Do you type as something else?True, I also emitted an interrogation about all this mature/immature thing in these terms " (or is it ?) " But fair enough !
The problem of unfalsifiability is indeed inherent to all those psychological paradigms, you have a very good point. As for the disturbness of his ideas, well I would say that the most disturbing thing is that he universalised his subjective "neurosis". I mean I'm not going to expose all the Freudian concepts but "primitive parricide"etc.. my God ! Side note : I honestly was a Freud fan (not believer, but absolutely fascinated by his work) until I read some books (especially Michel Onfray' Le Crépuscule d'une idole" ('Twilight of an Idol")) that revealed another side of the father of psychoanalysis...
That's a tough question, I'll try to answer it in freestyle. I would say that attachment is primarily instinctive in the sense that it's more like a reflex. Indeed, the first sign of attachment is the baby's recognition of the caregiver's smell (usually the biological mother). The more the baby acquires a certain awareness of the environment the more he will have an instinctive desire to explore it. We can imagine the attachment as some kind of link between the baby and his caregiver, when he faces some difficulties in his exploration he will emit a signal (like crying) that the attachment figure will answer and secure the baby. The repetition of that behavior will contribute to enhance the strength of that link. Love on the other hand implies a certain development of consciousness. First, self-awareness and second the conscious representation of the existence of the other (the object of love). That's my two cents on it, but of course you can find a much more elaborated and sensical answer if you ask google.
May I ask you what type do you think I have ?
Anyway, thank you for your time.
As for attachment, the Betas have been saying that we're just animals. You yourself said that what romantic love means is wanting to fuck, right? I don't know that that needs consciousness, nor anything else called "love." It's not clear to me that love isn't instinctual. I think my dog loves me, and I don't think she's more consciously developed than a 3-year-old; I also don't know that her loving me because I give her food is different from loving a person because they're sexually appealing.
Freud seems to attract a lot of strong emotion both for and against him. I personally think the way he abandoned "seduction theory" was disgusting. His clients of course were the German elite and their children. He found that a shocking number of them had been sexually abused, and the more he probed the more disturbed he became, to the point of questioning many of his "findings" re. infantile sexuality, essentially wondering if the fixation on sex he'd found had been caused less by innate factors and more by the prevalence of child sexual abuse (I believe he generalized his findings to everyone rather than consider the economic background of his clients). But he gave up this disturbing theory by proclaiming that "children be lying." Jeffrey Masson has written a lot on this -- incidentally, what English-language Wikipedia calls "recent Freudian scholarship" on its page for seduction theory, to the effect that Freud never had concrete evidence for child sexual abuse, Masson argues is an attempt by Freudians to suppress history (pretty convincingly IMO because he can point to actual documentation of accounts), that's done because taking these accounts seriously would be absolutely disastrous to Freud's legacy.
Do you like Onfray's work generally?
I have more open views now but before I really think that once they become friends they can’t cross romantic category anymore lol. I keep arguing about this with some friends of mine, one loves friends-to-lovers route which I said doesn’t make sense, the other one also told me you need to befriend them first then you go to the next stage. Honestly I still think that relationship between friends are different between lovers and romantic connection is not a stage higher than friendship. They are crazy in my book lol being friends with someone is such a big lust and love killer! I can’t stop thinking of them as siblings.
I know that’s typical but I never see this issue among some groups and I know some people who are close to the point that they lived together during college days. Not sure if we’re just too sociable here and/or maybe because there are also gays in those groups idk. For the latter I think it just opens up people’s horizons more, not being fixated on people’s genders with their presence. Not saying the attraction is not there, but it becomes secondary and later on almost useless. I guess some relationships get developed over time but not all of them. It’s kinda weird because they’re supposed to be friends.
I get how the pull is stronger when the friendship is 1-1 though. Everything can be seen as flirting by lustful minds at that point I guess
Well, that's a 200 dollars (on average !) question. But I digress.
I would say that we are indeed animals but also more than "just animals". Although we are living in a world that is dominated by bacterias, we are among other things the dominant species on earth.As for attachment, the Betas have been saying that we're just animals. You yourself said that what romantic love means is wanting to fuck, right? [nope ! romantic love would allegedly be the "immature" love ] I don't know that that needs consciousness, nor anything else called "love." It's not clear to me that love isn't instinctual. I think my dog loves me, and I don't think she's more consciously developed than a 3-year-old; I also don't know that her loving me because I give her food is different from loving a person because they're sexually appealing.
Now, the example of your dog is interesting. First of all, what you interpret as love might be some kind of projection. We all do that, we think for our pets, translate their "feeling" and we decode their behaviors. Secondly, a dog is in essence genetically conditioned to depend on humans, after all dogs are re-programmed wolves. In the dog world food is supposed to be given to them by humans. Food in this case is the mean by which the attachment of the dog towards its master (?) occurs, it also sets the dominance of the master, the dog sees him/her as the "leader of the pack" as Cesar Millan like to call it. It is interesting to note that people are less prone to doubt about the fidelity of their dogs than that of their lovers. I've never heard "My dog is cheating on me ".
One thing that might distinguish between the attachment of a dog and the sentiments between human lovers, is the notion of taboo. Indeed, a dog might F.. his mother, and the product of that "incestuous" act... I had dogs and that happened. Human will hardly do that but there are exceptions (crazy cases that surface in the media from time to time).
I really have to think about that (without getting spoiled by any philosopher !), it's indeed challenging. That said, humans are capable of unconditional love.
I don't know anything about Jeffrey Masson. That was very instructive though.Freud seems to attract a lot of strong emotion both for and against him. I personally think the way he abandoned "seduction theory" was disgusting. His clients of course were the German elite and their children. He found that a shocking number of them had been sexually abused, and the more he probed the more disturbed he became, to the point of questioning many of his "findings" re. infantile sexuality, essentially wondering if the fixation on sex he'd found had been caused less by innate factors and more by the prevalence of child sexual abuse (I believe he generalized his findings to everyone rather than consider the economic background of his clients). But he gave up this disturbing theory by proclaiming that "children be lying." Jeffrey Masson has written a lot on this -- incidentally, what English-language Wikipedia calls "recent Freudian scholarship" on its page for seduction theory, to the effect that Freud never had concrete evidence for child sexual abuse, Masson argues is an attempt by Freudians to suppress history (pretty convincingly IMO because he can point to actual documentation of accounts), that's done because taking these accounts seriously would be absolutely disastrous to Freud's legacy.
I haven't read all his work (far from it) but I do enjoy his writing yes. He is a bit of an iconoclast, slightly moralistic imho but more often than not I find myself agreeing with (or being convinced by) him. I learned a lot reading him and also listening to his "podcasts" , debates etc..Do you like Onfray's work generally?
Sex is supposed to be intimate, it feels intimate when you aren't desensitized.
However things like hugs, etc, are not considered intimate, but still are.
Overall intimacy is between a man and a woman(or etc if they are gay) in a private room, there is no space for an "it."
A man may want to hold his wife, but the wife doesn't feel like it's intimate when it truly is, simply because she doesn't feel like she's in the mood.
Intimacy is a fact, this is something I learned from my grandaunt. I'd say it made me look at things more maturely and has made me a little more emotionally available.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote