The Rawness

I wouldn’t exactly say that. Some people can just pick up when what they are reading is forced or out of the comfort zone of the person writing it. Write what you know and are passionate about and you’ll sound informed and passionate.

sornie’s last blog post..It was a raucous caucus

well, actually… let me rephrase that a bit.

i do believe that people are much more accepting of “unoriginality” when the unoriginal thought/behavior mirrors their own beliefs and preferences.

however, i don’t think that the exhortation to “be original” is necessarily saying “be like me.” it might be saying “be less like YOU,” though.

hmmm… okay, yeah. in that context, i definitely see what you mean.

As I like to put it, it goes like:

I’M firm, YOU’RE stubborn, HE’S a goddamn sonofabitch.

or

I’M confident, YOU’RE aggressive, HE’S an asshole.

Next rule:
If you want something for somebody else more than they want it for themself, then they own you.

Gregg, Rtother - When I started this I didn’t consider using the comments section for reader suggestions, but this may be a good idea. Keep them coming people.

Related to many of the observations in your post: If you do something for someone, it won’t make him/her love you. On the contrary, it will make you love him/her. Corollary: To encourage someone to love you, ask for small, and increasingly large, favors.

3b is unfortunately very true.

That being said, I’ll probably buy that book now. It looks damn good.

Oh, I see what you meant now. Sorry, my original comment was probably misleading. It should be read Here is the source for James’ comment and you can find other ‘raw truths’ there that you might or might not want to include. Not a native speaker

I wish the writer was wrong, but from what I’ve LEARNT and not been TOLD (two, very different things). I’m afraid it sounds true.

This shits ridiculous.

I have to say that I’m utterly shocked to actually find truth and insight on the Internet.

For a better picture of the complexity of reality I would recommend that you do some reading in the area of the psychology of personality.

So your saying if I read in the area of psychology of personality, I’ll find everything I wrote here debunked? All respected psychology textbooks will claim that people with low self-esteem actually handle and respond to praise and good treatment very well? That there’s no such thing as a Madonna-whore complex that frustrates men? Your advice to read psychology textbooks is quite silly, since many of them say the exact things I said, just in clinical language.

I suspect your real problem is that you conflate something being unpleasant with something being untrue. Maybe that should be the next truth: “Just because something is unpleasant for you to fathom doesn’t automatically make it untrue.”

Rtother:
5) There’s no reward for modesty/humility.
Not everyone is modest because they expect to be rewarded for it by other people.

Opinionated bullshit. One can only pity your family, friends and colleagues.

I have to say that #4 is unfortunately very true. Women want us to just accept that they are just as strong as men, yet when a man wants be sensitive, they tell him that he needs to be more of a man. Thats basically giving women special privileges to be sensitive. Few women will tolerate men that are effeminate, yet women that emasculate themselves are just considered strong and independent women. Its sad, really, the way this happens.

#2 - love it. Goes along with the “lady on the street, freak in the sheets” hip hop axiom that completely amuses me- (we can tell it’s early in the morning when I’m commenting this - I tackle the one that takes the least brainpower). My father-in-law always told his son, “find yourself a church girl. they’re the dirtiest.” Which would suggest that housewife-ho’s DO, in fact exist…delicate balancing act - to be appropriate parts both…especially for a generation of women taught to be neither. ahhh.

I have read your blog and all of the replies and I think that human nature lies somewhere in between the two extremes presented by you and the contrasting rebuttals.

I am currently in a cross cultural psychology masters program and evolutionary psychology is one of the areas that I’m most interested in. You argue that the truth is brutal and not all of us are ready to accept it. However, just because something is crude and brutal, does not necessarily make it 100% true either. You tend to oversimplify and give examples that are a little on the extreme side.

When a layperson attempts to play the role of a therapist and try to save a promiscuous woman that has been abused or smacked around by a crazed stepfather, then it will obviously take years of therapy and cognitive restructuring before that person is able to function in relationships and society in a healthy and stable manner.

In terms of what women expect from men, strength and leadership are indeed important qualities. Evolutionary psychology has taught us however that these are merely traits that help secure resources, which will in turn give women the confidence that those resources will be passed on to their offspring. In studies of virtually all societies on earth, whether they encouraged tranquility and femininity like some Asian cultures, or aggression and masculinity like many western cultures, Women always find money, resources, and the ability of acquiring those resources most desirable in a man. The main problem with your reasoning is that the traits you bring are no longer at the very top of the list. A man that is cultured, intelligent, socially agreeable, and rich is not necessarily the same man that is an aggressive leader. Of course CEO’s of major companies are usually testosterone pumped and aggressive, but for the most part the well educated upper social spheres are more in touch with their emotions. Studies show that couples that stay together the longest are those that are very precise about their communication in the relationship. Im starting to ramble but heres a good example. The man in a lower social sphere should be tough and an honorable fighter for example and it is often that man that will win over a girls heart. In a rich neighborhood with its own set of rules, it is the smartest man that avoids fights in order to not get arrested and keep his resources secure who is the most attractive to a woman. Even if he admits to his woman that he is scared of physical confrontation, he still has his money and upper class mannerisms to fall back on, which are much more important to her, and the communication is much more important for keeping the relationship stable.

I dislike the reasoning in 3b because it seems irrelevant. You are saying that it will blow up in your face if you worship someone with low self esteem. But why either worship them or treat them like shit? Those aren’t the only options available to you. You can work on improving their self esteem and the communication between the two of you rather than looking for a cynical approach of keeping them “in check”.

I’m really interested in all of what you had to say, and would greatly appreciate feedback, especially if you disagree with what I had to say or find any loopholes in my arguments, I like to have my views challenged. Furthermore I would like to see if what I learn in psychology stands up to practical reasoning and street smarts, and how to resolve any discrepancies between the two.

Take care - Matt

Matt - very good comment, but I’ll have to respond to you in-depth later because of the depth.

Brie - The fact that traits exist on a continuum is addressed by the “almost” part of the statement. For example, “he’s stupid, but he knows that he is stupid, and that ALMOST makes him smart.” The “almost” shows that his self-awareness makes him not quite totally stupid, yet not quite totally smart either, meaning he is now somewhere in the middle, which is the “continuum” you speak of. Reread the statement and you’ll see it’s actually not a black or white, either-or statement.

6) You are going to die one day.

Matt:

I am currently in a cross cultural psychology masters program and evolutionary psychology is one of the areas that I’m most interested in. You argue that the truth is brutal and not all of us are ready to accept it. However, just because something is crude and brutal, does not necessarily make it 100% true either.

Totally true, and something I try to stay aware of. It is very easy to fall into the trap that just because the truth is often brutal and unsympathetic, then the reverse is also truth and everything brutal and unsympathetic is always true. This fallacy is something I’m addressing right now in my Blacks and IQ posts.

You tend to oversimplify and give examples that are a little on the extreme side.

Yes, I do. I like to make it as straightforward and nonacademic as possible.

When a layperson attempts to play the role of a therapist and try to save a promiscuous woman that has been abused or smacked around by a crazed stepfather, then it will obviously take years of therapy and cognitive restructuring before that person is able to function in relationships and society in a healthy and stable manner.

Okay, so far we seem to agree.

In terms of what women expect from men, strength and leadership are indeed important qualities. Evolutionary psychology has taught us however that these are merely traits that help secure resources, which will in turn give women the confidence that those resources will be passed on to their offspring. In studies of virtually all societies on earth, whether they encouraged tranquility and femininity like some Asian cultures, or aggression and masculinity like many western cultures, Women always find money, resources, and the ability of acquiring those resources most desirable in a man.

Okay, now here’s where I begin to disagree. How do Asian cultures promote femininity and tranquility while Western cultures promote agression and masculinity? I think this is a trap intellectuals and progressives tend to fall into, this belief that Western civilization is selfishness and war while the East is all zen and yoga. I believe this stems from the mistake of judging the east by its purported spiritual beliefs while judging the West by its actions. If you were to primarily judge the west by its spiritual practices like Christianity, you’d find a society just as tranquil in theory as you claim the East to be. If you were to judge the East by their actions, you’d find societies as aggressive and dangerous and prone to war as you claim the West to be. Isn’t North Korea building nukes? Isn’t China building up its military and aggressively suppressing human rights and protest? And it’s not a recent development, warring states were the norm in China and Japan long before they ever came into contact with the West. And read about precolonial India and the cult of the Thugees. Don’t buy into the intellectual hype peddled in elite universities that the West somehow has a monopoly on aggression and war and machismo.

The main problem with your reasoning is that the traits you bring are no longer at the very top of the list. A man that is cultured, intelligent, socially agreeable, and rich is not necessarily the same man that is an aggressive leader. Of course CEO’s of major companies are usually testosterone pumped and aggressive, but for the most part the well educated upper social spheres are more in touch with their emotions. Studies show that couples that stay together the longest are those that are very precise about their communication in the relationship. Im starting to ramble but heres a good example. The man in a lower social sphere should be tough and an honorable fighter for example and it is often that man that will win over a girls heart. In a rich neighborhood with its own set of rules, it is the smartest man that avoids fights in order to not get arrested and keep his resources secure who is the most attractive to a woman. Even if he admits to his woman that he is scared of physical confrontation, he still has his money and upper class mannerisms to fall back on, which are much more important to her, and the communication is much more important for keeping the relationship stable.

This does not disprove anything I’ve said. There are more ways to be weak than just physically. It’s not the rich guy’s upper class mannerisms that satisfy his woman, it’s his leadership and power. In his case, getting into a fight and risking his money and status would be a sign of weakness and low self-discipline, whereas with a low-status guy who has nothing to lose and no other way to exercise power, it’s a sign of strength. If your rich guy with upper class mannrerisms does not show mental toughness and leadership and is percieved as emotionally weak by his woman though, she won’t respect him, even if she stays with him. There is more to winning than just keeping your mate, the terms you keep her on are just as important. If the guy’s wife is keeping him just as a meal ticket that she just walks all over while spending his money and disrespecting him at will, he has lost, even if they stay together. I see many couples where the woman is around a rich weak man for status and publicly emasculates the man in front of mixed company at will.

I dislike the reasoning in 3b because it seems irrelevant. You are saying that it will blow up in your face if you worship someone with low self esteem. But why either worship them or treat them like shit? Those aren’t the only options available to you. You can work on improving their self esteem and the communication between the two of you rather than looking for a cynical approach of keeping them “in check”.

Matt, where did I say the only choices were either to worship someone or treat them like shit? I never claimed those were the only two options available to you, YOU were the one that read that into what I wrote. Not worshipping someone in no way means you have to treat them like shit either.

Thanks for your response Matt. i appreciate the thought you put into it.

I read this as a satire piece, what’s with you people?