Originally Posted by Bethanyclaire
Why do you revert to ad hominem? Explain your point and win the argument.
Why do you revert to ad hominem? Explain your point and win the argument.
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
There are real sex differences in our modes of intelligence (not degree) it's just that whatever the IQ point study mentioned doesn't even come close to it
There's no respect for feminine intelligence anymore since only the masculine one is valued (e.g. that over reliance on facts and Modern Science and left brain, of only valuing linear progression and constancy, that fear of the chaotic, irrational, and shadow-side, and decay and death, the lack of trust for instinctual beginnings and intuition...)
(I think most women can relate to feeling infuriated by those men who are so intelligent and completely correct by the books, yet still so... wrong. But we've been stripped of the language to verbalize it.)
I don't know what you mean by the last part. What language has been stripped away from you?
If someone is wrong it will be possible to describe in words how they are wrong. Even if it just feels wrong... you can say that. However, if you really can't describe exactly how a person is wrong there's a chance that they aren't wrong.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 04-06-2024 at 07:34 PM.
Because he’s a coward.
As I've said before, there is no substance to your posts, there is nothing worth saying in response... If you said something interesting I probably would respond, but you don't really have much to say. I don't know why you are so desperate for me to respond to you, anyway.
Keep trying
I guess i will describe my experience of knowing something is "wrong", yet failing to know what precisely it is.. I've been described before as Canary-in-the-goldmine... I'm basically a very fine-tuned sensor that spits out only raw, unprocessed data: extremely sensitive to when something's off, especially relationally and in all those things invisible, yet i've found that when i try to draw assumptions on what precisely is wrong, i'll get it kind of wrong.
So for example, in the past year I've had some fluxes in certain close relationships where I learned that it's actually better for me to bring something up not by saying what I'm inclined to conclude is the issue, but just by offering the fact that something is wrong to begin with. and going from there accordingly.
Usually when I have a swell of distress or upset, the only way I can communicate it is through art. And people tell me my art really touches them. What does it touch? Their mind? No, their hearts.
What concretizes things into words? For me it's either the slow march of Time (time will eventually crystallize everything) or, more efficiently, by being/talking with my SLE. I find that SLE's strength is getting right to the root of what something is. And then suddenly everything makes sense. On the flipside SLE's weakness includes knowing when something in life is subtly starting to veer off-course. Once they know, though, they're incredible at concretizing/pinpointing the issue and fixing it.
To make this broader than just a type-specific/me thing, I do want to assert that a big portion of experience is preverbal. Rollo May in his book Love and Will (i don't have it on hand) said something to the effect of scientists only catch up with describing the moods of society decades after the fact, and then they find out that the artists/neurotics already described it long ago.. just not in their "language".
So yeah. Thank you if you read all of that.
Tl;dr I disagree that in order for someone to correctly sense something, they need to be able to explain it, at least at first.
In response to the first part, when you asked about What Language. If you're actually curious I'd like to point you to Sylvia Brinton Perera's work, it's really amazing. I don't know how I could say it better than she does. It hits extremely deep. I've shown it to female friends of mine and it's extremely enlightening material. It's called Descent to the Goddess. I plan on reading Irish Bull God next. Some people find her hard to read/inactionable but I think it's quite the opposite. But then again she is heavily Ni/IEI so it's kind of my language.
No idea what my type is, people are free to type me however they wish though.
I wouldn't expect people to always be able to explain how something is wrong at first - infact usually it takes time and introspection to figure out exactly why something is wrong, or to verbalize something... and people who are good with words have usually been introspecting about various topics for years. However, given the time and introspection you can pinpoint the crux of the issue, and you can explain it. It's not that the words have been stripped away, as if there are no actual words, you just have to spend time digging for them. What I would object to here is considering instinct in itself sufficient evidence that you are correct. Your first instincts can also be incorrect, and until you do the digging to clearly detail them... the possibility of you being wrong remains. The process of finding the words to explain something isn't merely a verbal one, it's a process of thought and also one of discovery. And you may also come to find that your instinct was partly correct, but after fleshing out the details there was something you overlooked that rounds out your initial impression.
As far as art - well art is mainly emotion, and no one would deny that you experienced that emotion, or that others can relate to it. Still, the mere experience of an emotion is not proof of ones correctness with regard to some topic. Now I haven't seen your art, and I'm sure it's great... but I would say most successful artists in modern society produce terrible art full of all kinds of emotional baggage and dysfunctional attitudes. Ugly, obscene and depressing / shitty art is the norm in modern society. I guess this could say something true about modern society, that it sucks... I mean, an emotion is always true in the sense that the person experienced it. But I don't think just any emotion is good or justified. People must have some agency over their emotions... when a killer has an urge to kill we expect him to control that emotion. And how do we interpret art or emotion? There's no clear standard. For example, if a person is miserable I could take it to mean that society at large sucks, or I could take it as an expression of self loathing. I could see them as a victim or I could see them as weak and undisciplined. I could see them as guilty and blaming others for their failures, or I could see them as deserving empathy...
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 04-07-2024 at 07:32 PM.
So Bethany had posted that before my previous post, but she deleted and reposted it just to make sure I saw it and would respond to it. Even though I'm ignoring it because it's useless.
You try to act like you don't care Bethany but you are completely desperate for me to respond to you. I do not know why that is...
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 04-07-2024 at 12:07 AM.
I think we agree but in slightly different.. fonts?
As for the bolded, I want to specify that it's not a right/wrong thing, but an issue of interpretation. Instinct always has something real to say, it's just that it's usually when someone's "instinct was wrong", they listened to it incorrectly.
In enneagram the instinctual knowledge is one third, mental knowledge another. And it's sequential: mind builds on emotion builds on instinct.
Current society seems to over-rely on mental knowledge as the only "true" way of knowing things though
(This is a byproduct of rather warped masculine mode of thinking dominating)
https://www.skillbasedart.com/the-at...t-century.html
https://www.artrenewal.org/Article/T...losophy-of-arc
It's not clear what we mean by instinct... like are you referring to perception? i.e. sense perceptions / unconscious imagery? Or are you referring to something built in?
For example, when a person is born they may have certain predispositions selected for via billions of years of evolution. Like if you're a male crab you're going to be inclined to fight other crabs and win the accolades of the female crabs, and that's not a behavior you learned from the environment, the crab didn't perceive something to make it want to do that, it's something already built in. It's more like the very groundwork of the crabs cognition. I'm not even sure you can really claim this is part of the cognitive process itself, it precedes and permeates all of cognition. Maybe it's meta-cognitive.
On the other hand, in cognition perception feeds into processing, and this eventually feeds back into perception. In cognition 'raw perception' does not really occur. When we perceive we filter out the vast majority of the sense information and focus on just the particular things.. the thing that's focused on is based on the value structure. The value structure is something that is built up and calibrated over time by the whole conscious process, which includes rationale and emotional processes, among other things. And part of the value structure is inherited.
So what are we talking about? I don't think you can easily claim there is a starting point of conscious processes. Consciousness is also just a universal property and a very irrational one.
Empiricism leaves little open for dispute... in society it is only natural that what we can clearly explain is going to dominate the conversation and the culture... the most available way of people relating is through their shared sense perceptions, i.e. empirical fact. So I don't think the widespread adoption of this standard is some imposition of the evil patriarchy, it is just inevitable and a natural process. Infact there is a heavy dose of religion at the foundation of Western culture, usually people claim it's patriarchal... but it is certainly not empirical or mentalized. Religion was the inspiration for the legal system and was practiced by the vast majority of the population at the countries founding... but belief in religion is not something everyone shares, therefor it's not as easy to relate to others through religious conviction, and for this reason the legal system maintains a separation of church and state. And it'd be controversial if I tried to assert my religious belief as true, there'd be plenty of people willing to disagree. I think that is just inevitable given the nature of the issue.
Again it's not clear what we mean by the instincts... there's your sense perceptions, there's the dopamine system, there's unconscious or subconscious imagery, there's your value system and intuitions based on that, there's built-in instincts... there's fear and anxiety and a variety of other emotions that can be instinctively triggered... there's gut feelings. Instinct is a very loaded term.
Anyway, I actually do think instinct can get derailed and be "wrong". For reasons explained earlier, interpretation is an inseparable part of these instincts, I don't think they exist in isolation - i.e. "raw perception" is not part of the cognitive process. Perception or cognition automatically implies some subject being involved.
But let's take a drug addict - over time their drug use rewires their brain, their brain sends them signals for craving their drug... the drug hijacks the instincts. I don't think instinct is wrong in a factual sense, but it is wrong in that it has a purpose and isn't fulfilling it since it's been hijacked - it's wrong in what it compels a person to do - to destroy themselves.
You could say their initial addiction was related some deeper instinctual longing they had, so in this sense their instinct was justified they just responded to it incorrectly... perhaps - there's also just the raw temptation of the drug / excitement of doing it. But certainly as time went on their instinct did become derailed.
Of course if you're schizophrenic your perceptions are just wrong.
A person can be walking down a poorly lit alleyway and see a shadow, experience an immediate jolt of fear, only to find out that it was just a shadow.
A person may sense there is some widespread oppression of blacks by the police... This sense could be based on the vague impressions they gathered from political propaganda ... If asked they may estimate that 1000s of unarmed blacks are shot a year by police... but they may then learn that there are only 20 unarmed blacks shot by police in the US a year, and most of them were charging at police. And this in turn may change their entire intuition regarding the situation.
One person may intuit that God exists while another intuits God does not exist... one person is wrong.
So no, I think many of these "instincts" can be wrong.
No, I don't think we agree.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 04-07-2024 at 05:44 AM.
@DogOfDanger
Yeah i guess we have some fundamental disagreements of the nature of things (i do not believe in Empiricism as the ultimate arbiter)
well, i added what i wanted to to the thread and i stand by it. i appreciate the effort you put into your response (i do). it's interesting seeing the reaction someone could have to my perspective. for one i see that i'm rather vague/non-concrete with my definitions and statements, probably too slippery for most, given my conviction. i guess what i mean by instinct is "sensation", though i don't mean it in the biological nor the Jungian way, but the Gurdjieffian way.
(I'd wager you're ILI. I think you have have comparable Ni to mine, just as strong Ti, and are Fe devaluing. Plus you remind me of the couple male ILIs in my life.)
Well my point isn't that empiricism is an ultimate arbiter, but that it is just naturally adopted as a standard by a secular society due to the inherent difficulty in agreeing on most other things. Beliefs are not so easy for masses to agree upon, but that which two people can both perceive can be agreed upon easily. Point is really that this standard was not imposed onto us by some patriarchal force. But for an impression to be correct there must be some correspondence between what is in your mind and what exists. So existential logic is an arbiter. As you get deeper into existentialism the lines separating the subject & object can begin to blur... the mind and reality aren't completely separable, your mind has its own sort of existence but it's corresponding with the broader reality.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree, that's fine.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 04-13-2024 at 08:05 AM.
That’s fine.
ILI, C or D
? beth this isn't a good look on you... step away from the forum for a bit & take care of yourself
when i was younger felt like women are in a secret club thati mnot invinted in. < this is weir wording from me? anw u say or do smth wrong but u dont know why and they get mad at u without telling u and mistreat u. tho thats with the normies in general too. ofc what u do may not be wrong, it may be their misinterpretation, and infuised with perosnal biases, experiences and manipualtion and blindness and issues. i knew how to treat them well superficially but also part bc of my strain too much, the superficial part would get old and id feel like they are so fake vapid and shallow (maybe most really are tho) ofc i think part of it is some rudimentary way of developing borders, learning how to feel valued and whats ok or not. but the part of not saying things may be related to cattiness and entitlement too, female intuition, protecting themeslves from humiliation/embarassment and idk if this translates to, or is caused by, or its complicated, to using very harsh words/emotionally charged and criticism that they dont back down from as much as men.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
What? Women are not all the same. Get out more...
Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel!
-Raskolnikov
i didnt say they were, but theres also a secret club, jsut like there's things that men do that women dont know about or understand, and i wish women did more research about them too, bc of how women tend to act on average is be defensive about their integrity, ego, borders and identity, like arguably or not you are right now, hence the memes about how women attempt to always be right in arguements. when people give general ctiticisms to men, i myself give the same ones, and have issues with men too, so i feel confident saying "yes most men are like that in those bad ways", same thing i can say for women too. its just how it is. im also aware that bc someone says "men do this" "women be like" it doesnt necessarily mean that the person in particular believes the same for any indiidual of the group, projects it on them and mistreats them based on the projections. worst comes to worst some people actually directly do w hat someone accuses them about yet act oblivious, self righteous and keep doing the bad things while denying them simultaneously. this can also often be seen in cluster Bs, but idk if you hacve to be a cluster B necessarily nor that a cluster B themselves will be technically right. when it comes to psychology it involves theory of mind ande genuine understanding of the other person to ttreat them fairly bc both can throw garbage at each other, or only one but bc they THINK they are right theres no progress or reconciliation. its up to the other person to figure out and treat u fairly, not for u to convince them bc u can do everything and they can stil lrefuse iin the end.
also ironically some of the different women dont go out or hide anyway, hence i had ot meet them online
Last edited by VewyScawwyNawcissist; 04-13-2024 at 08:12 AM.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
There are more men on both extremes of the intelligence spectrum. The only thing we have over women across the board is audacity and decisiveness
its implied that's how they used to think, not anymore
its a unique style of writing they have, takes extra to understand
Library because this site has become sort of an idiocracy
what type of women are you usually interacting with?
women who are indecisive, impressionable, overthink every little thing, contradict themselves, bend their own standards for the right dick, and expect their men to be surrogate father figures
the solution could be right in their faces but they either want to stick to what’s comfortable or don’t really want anything to change deep down. They’d rather bitch and moan about a toxic ex than admit that they like that shit
Last edited by Averroes; 05-03-2024 at 12:37 AM.
i ***nder if single mom association to bad children compared to single dads (which idk if true at all) cna be related to women being respected for no reason, or disrespected for no reason. while men can be considred creepy, unreliable, dangerous esp if not LSE or super basic boring or vapid eprson who thinks too highly of themselves and bc of how basic they are ppl just treat them in a very basic superficially warm way so they never develop higher awareness or personality. but what i mean is if ur aware of boundaries and get mistreated and forcede to think so much about why someone (women) are mad at u and twist urself so much to manipulate some codependent antisocial selfish losers to not be afraid of u WHILE also making them think about u and how to be respectful, not in the sense of im a fucking netitled narcissist respect me or else. but treating another living being with integrity, genuine consideration and not BUT I LUUVV U WHY DONT U APPRECIATE MY HELPPP??? *starts mistreating you, diverting your attention, invalidating you, nagging you, telling you what to do, criticizing you for things thy dont understand, doesnt have the patience to even communicate from ur view point and explain things to u properly, attempts to make u feel like an idiot, a creep, a loser, ur not allowed to yell at her but shes yelling at u and piercing ur brain with the high pitched voice and insane hysterical or entitled emotional charge*
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
I guess we win! We have autistic Ni base types with more points and who enjoy looking at a board for 8-12 hours a day for decades. Checkmate, women! You cannot compete with male hyperfixation on niche hobbies with very repetitive elements. Pawn to e4, millions of times in a single life. What an achievement.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ung-s-subjects
women who havent been socialized with women act more like men and if a man has the knowledge that socialized women have and the unsocialized woman mistreats the man bc shes not been socialized and doesnt have the knowledge, she may herself act like a victim about it and act like the man did smth wrong, where as if the man did the same to socialized women, he'd be cut off even if he didnt act like a victim and self righteous, with no explanation as to why they did it, and if he did go so far as to act like a vicitm and self rigthteous (without even it being about not being provided context or not knownig), like the unsocliazed woman would do to him, he'd be considered an abuser.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
