This posting is in response to an utterly nonsense article posted at SMH Online Blogs. See http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/asksam/archives/2007/12/why_men_get_moody_1.html?page=fullpage. A more pertinent article would be ‘Why do writers give credence to every piece of scientific nonsense?’ Because taking any topical issue that will have a universal audience will sell advertising. Because journalists are often recruited without critical thinking skills. Because critical thinking is perceived as negative. Trite articles are regarded as entertaining. They don’t marginalize people…they are popular.
OR another theme to explore "How does utter nonsense research get financed". You guessed it! Governments and the idiots that run them.
In the meantime my girlfriend is left wondering why we argued last night. So darling, I wrote this post just for you….and anyone else who wants the question answered! Love you! Want to make up sexy!
Response
Men are moody for reasons. So are women, though they are hyper-sensitive with regularity because of PMS. Men too can become hyper-sensitive if they have accumulated a lot of accumulated stress (tolerance), but there is an incident-weighted cause, as opposed to the biochemical factor for women. The extent to which men will be generous (or tolerant) of a women’s idiosyncrasies depends on:
1. Success: The extent to which a man is happy with their level of achievement for the day, and the extent to which that question is currently playing on their mind. Succes is important to men. Don’t bitch to men when they feel inadequate.
2. Understanding Priorities: The extent to which, and the way that women interrupt with a man’s priorities will lead to moodiness. We all have a hierarchy of values, and our partners rank highly, but we expect them to understand our needs as we should understand and respect theirs. If we don’t, then that is a daily stressor. The duration and timing of our disruptions will cause stress, the amount depending on the context. If women show no understanding, no flexibility, they will get a moody reaction.
3. Respect: The extent to which we respect our partner and their values will be an important factor. Not all relationships are the same. A person who values their partner for superficial reasons (ie. As a trophy) will quickly get stressed out by them. Our level of respect will depend on the extent of or commitment to the relationship, the extent to which we know them, and are capable of understanding them.
4. Physical condition: This is the only factor I can agree with the article on. If you don’t get a balanced diet or enough sleep, then this will increase your irritability.
My ‘distinguished counterpart’ Jed Diamond (the author of the book) argues that moodiness is "a state of hypersensitivity, frustration, anxiety, and anger that occurs in males and is associated with biochemical changes, hormonal fluctuations, stress, and loss of male identity". Nonsense. This of course is an argument that arises from a philosophical view point – in fact the appropriate philosophy for a vegetable (say a carrot). And that after 40 years. The problem with this definition is that he does not differentiate humans – male or female – from plants. Yes we are biochemical, but we are more than that. We are conceptual, we have a much more complex value system, we have choices, we reflect on our self worth.
Wow, such brilliant insights, and it came from my general knowledge and took me just 30mins to write. Didn’t need to interview 10,000 people or conduct 40 years of research to pretend I know something like this empiricist with no respect for conceptual science. Hmm…sounds like some country is wasting a lot of money on dubious academic studies.
The reason we get dubious science like this is because many scientists have an utterly tragic philosophical undercurrent to their thinking. Its why psychologists often have different ideas, and the journalistic world just treats them like different theories, as though they have equal merit, as if there was no objectivity, as if scientific inquiry was an illusion. Its actually amazing how intelligible and easy wisdom comes if you have the right philosophical base. What seems as complex theory to one person is self-evident to this critic of the over-paid, unaccountable establishment.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Internet relationships
I recently read a statistic that suggested that 1 in 8 people develop a relationship from the internet. Its amazing how scornful or cynical people can be about meeting others on the internet. Really I think there is no better way of meeting people if you use the medium in the correct fashion. Here are several tips:
1. Universal tips
a. Know thyself – You can’t sell yourself unless you know yourself
b. Know what you want – right down a list of core & non-core attributes you want in a girl, and expect to be surprised
c. Experience – Expect to have a number of GF/BFs before you settle. Unless you have some pretty amazing role models around you, most of us have lax standards because we just don’t hang around inspirational people. I think when your learning curve starts flattening out you can start thinking about getting serious. I would suggest partnering with people from different countries. It broadens the mind.
d. Engaging – Don’t be too quick to cross people off your list. Don’t dismiss people because they don’t have an attribute you want, explore whether they acknowledge it, whether they are prepared to change. You might serve each other that way.
e. Purposeful – Both partners need to be value-driven rather than safety-driven, otherwise one of you will loose interest
f. Analyse – I think you have to ask the hard questions if you want to really understand people. If they are defensive, and are turned off, that is useful information.
g. Constraints – Don’t place any location or arbitrary constraints on a relationship from the start. You might think you don’t want a GF in another country, but don’t close off opportunities until you know more. You might change your mind if she were special enough. You will be surprised how your lives will mesh or how interesting your life could become if you make a change.
h. Partners – You are looking for a partner who serves every aspect of your life. If they are in anyway holding you back, negotiate to resolve those issues. It’s a risk-reward assessment whether you break up. Are they worth it?
2. Internet tips
a. Use dynamic modes of communication because they don’t give the counterparty the opportunity to think answers out beforehand, and you have a chat history that you can search (on Google mail)
b. Integrity check – review your chat dialogue with your counterparty to determine if they have integrity. If you stop any inconsistencies
c. Disclosure – Don’t disclose personal details that would allow a person to determine your personal address. Search for your name on the popular search engines to check whether your details are listed.
My experience was really positive aside from the fact that I ended up talking to this girl 7 hours a day and neglected my work, so lost a lot of money. She was not exactly the type of girl I expected but I persisted because I saw some very strong points. I think the internet is a powerful match-making medium if you use it the right way. I read profiles to determine the qualities that I liked and disliked, which allowed others to find me, or me to find them.
1. Universal tips
a. Know thyself – You can’t sell yourself unless you know yourself
b. Know what you want – right down a list of core & non-core attributes you want in a girl, and expect to be surprised
c. Experience – Expect to have a number of GF/BFs before you settle. Unless you have some pretty amazing role models around you, most of us have lax standards because we just don’t hang around inspirational people. I think when your learning curve starts flattening out you can start thinking about getting serious. I would suggest partnering with people from different countries. It broadens the mind.
d. Engaging – Don’t be too quick to cross people off your list. Don’t dismiss people because they don’t have an attribute you want, explore whether they acknowledge it, whether they are prepared to change. You might serve each other that way.
e. Purposeful – Both partners need to be value-driven rather than safety-driven, otherwise one of you will loose interest
f. Analyse – I think you have to ask the hard questions if you want to really understand people. If they are defensive, and are turned off, that is useful information.
g. Constraints – Don’t place any location or arbitrary constraints on a relationship from the start. You might think you don’t want a GF in another country, but don’t close off opportunities until you know more. You might change your mind if she were special enough. You will be surprised how your lives will mesh or how interesting your life could become if you make a change.
h. Partners – You are looking for a partner who serves every aspect of your life. If they are in anyway holding you back, negotiate to resolve those issues. It’s a risk-reward assessment whether you break up. Are they worth it?
2. Internet tips
a. Use dynamic modes of communication because they don’t give the counterparty the opportunity to think answers out beforehand, and you have a chat history that you can search (on Google mail)
b. Integrity check – review your chat dialogue with your counterparty to determine if they have integrity. If you stop any inconsistencies
c. Disclosure – Don’t disclose personal details that would allow a person to determine your personal address. Search for your name on the popular search engines to check whether your details are listed.
My experience was really positive aside from the fact that I ended up talking to this girl 7 hours a day and neglected my work, so lost a lot of money. She was not exactly the type of girl I expected but I persisted because I saw some very strong points. I think the internet is a powerful match-making medium if you use it the right way. I read profiles to determine the qualities that I liked and disliked, which allowed others to find me, or me to find them.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Staying engaged
A fundamental value of life is achieving your values, and establishing relationships with people - no matter how profoundly important or superficial. Enlisting the support of others is the most compelling approach to achieving success. Some people see enlisting others to achieve your goals as 'using people', but there is nothing wrong with it if:
1. You are honest with people about your intent - they are not manipulative
2. Those relationships serve all vested interest groups - they are good for everyone
Most of us develop our relationship skills during adolescence. Sadly for many of us, we dont learn the explicit message that relationships offer a powerful means of achieving our goals. For this reason, we might be inclined to see relationships as an end in themselves...but of course nothing is an end in itself. Anyone who suggests there is really just hasnt identified their ends. The alternative end or goals are:
1. Non judgement - the sense that you might loose self-respect, whether it be from self-realisation or as a result of others perception
2. Loss of value - the sense that you might loose from a relationship, eg. a material loss
It is fair to say that people who have a strong ego but lack the validation of self-mastery or achievement will exhibit a greater degree of urgency with respect to achieving their goals. Hopefully they will remain respectful to the interests of their counter-parties or associates. It is common however for the counter-party to fail to appreciate the need for validation of these people, and indeed rebuff them as selfish, pushy or even manipulative. This is a misinterpretation which highlights a tendency for people to form judgements based on a lack of knowledge. Sadly people generally have a poor understanding of their own needs, and a poor understanding of other people's needs is a consequence of that.
Clearly the best chance people have for developing meaningful, goal-orientated relationships with others is to:
1. Know thyself - your values and your goals
2. Know your counter-parties
3. Interpret your counterparties values and goals to determine their level of commitment, historical performance, integrity
4. Make a judgement about their capacity to meet your needs
5. Negotiate a relationship
By negotiating a relationship I mean that you should never close a relationship unless a person doesn't respond to your needs. There are several possibilities:
1. Neediness: A counterparties need for validation is so great that it overrides your needs, leaving you unfulfilled. The best strategy is to tell the person how you feel, why you think its a problem, what you think the cause is, and then seek their feedback. They might not be willing, able or ready to change, but in a sense you have left the ball in their court, so you can continue with your life. I dont see this as disengagement, rather as engaging on your terms, and your communication should convey that.
2. Disrespect: A counterparty doesnt treat you with respect, leaving you feel demeaned, misunderstood or unappreciated. The best approach is to ask them to explain their actions with respect to concrete events to dtermine how they interpret their or your actions.
There is a tendency I think in the community for people to detach themselves from these relationships. Whilst I think a person should not place themselves in danger if they feel threatened, nor over-invest in other people's lives, I do see a value in constructive engagement, for being straight, for displaying empathy, and attempting to understand. I also see no problem in conveying that you are only prepared to do so much, spend so much time, or help so much. The problem with detachment is:
1. You might be misjudging the counterparty
2. You are causing confusion by not offering feedback - inevitability delaying any possibility of recovery
3. You are undermining the self esteem of the person (alienation)
The problem is people have a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes their self-interest, and helping others is often just not on the page. There are several reasons for this, but they largely all derive from a lack of efficacy in dealing with personal issues - whether theirs or others. This is actually an opportunity to correct the problem, but actually most people are inclined to avoid the confrontation. I would suggest that the reason is that parents did not develop these skills during childhood by in fact remaining aloof and not being engaged in their children's lives. Another motive is a social value system which places others on a hierarchical peeking order, where people are only interested in relationships which advance their standing in the community. These people dont see others as offering a sense of efficacy, but rather as pulling them down in their 'social standing'.
At the end of the day the intention is to:
1. Serve your own goals - this requires discipline and focus
2. Remain open to broader possibilities of achieving value
3. Advance those relationships in your life that serve
4. Remain engaged with people even if you dont enlist them in the achievement of your higher goals
There is no question that such a strategy will cause some resentment among others, if they see that you diminish your time for them in favour of others, but there are several positives from this strategy:
1. You are conveying the reality that your own interests are supremely important to you
2. You are conveying the possibility of a higher relationship in future
3. You are conveying the fact that you have a hierarchy of values
4. You are acting as a role model for your values, and if you are effective/successful, that in itself should be a powerful motivator (education) for them, and thy might eventually come to understand the nature of their own resentment or jealousy.
The tendency in society is to not apply this strategy but rather to:
1. Disengage: Rationalise that you have some very important things to do - to disengage
2. Evasion: Rationalise that you cant develop the relationship, eg. A sit aunt in town
3. Hypocrisy: Affirm that you really like them, but act in a different way.
People use these tactics because it suits them as a short term strategy for serving their interest, but in the long run it just causes confusion, ill-feeling and prompts the counterparty to 'feel the victim' because they see the lack of truthfulness. People will tell me that the 'direct approach' does not work. But realistically it can only work if a large number of people do it. But there are a great many spin-offs if people did this. If people acted with integrity and empathy I have no doubt that the insidence of psychological troubles would decline.
But its not just about how we relate to people, its also about the values we convey. The reality is that society regards religion (Christianity and Islam) as credible moral systems despite their impracticality. This contradiction can only undermine the efficacy of people's thinking, their self esteem and thus their psychological well-being.
1. You are honest with people about your intent - they are not manipulative
2. Those relationships serve all vested interest groups - they are good for everyone
Most of us develop our relationship skills during adolescence. Sadly for many of us, we dont learn the explicit message that relationships offer a powerful means of achieving our goals. For this reason, we might be inclined to see relationships as an end in themselves...but of course nothing is an end in itself. Anyone who suggests there is really just hasnt identified their ends. The alternative end or goals are:
1. Non judgement - the sense that you might loose self-respect, whether it be from self-realisation or as a result of others perception
2. Loss of value - the sense that you might loose from a relationship, eg. a material loss
It is fair to say that people who have a strong ego but lack the validation of self-mastery or achievement will exhibit a greater degree of urgency with respect to achieving their goals. Hopefully they will remain respectful to the interests of their counter-parties or associates. It is common however for the counter-party to fail to appreciate the need for validation of these people, and indeed rebuff them as selfish, pushy or even manipulative. This is a misinterpretation which highlights a tendency for people to form judgements based on a lack of knowledge. Sadly people generally have a poor understanding of their own needs, and a poor understanding of other people's needs is a consequence of that.
Clearly the best chance people have for developing meaningful, goal-orientated relationships with others is to:
1. Know thyself - your values and your goals
2. Know your counter-parties
3. Interpret your counterparties values and goals to determine their level of commitment, historical performance, integrity
4. Make a judgement about their capacity to meet your needs
5. Negotiate a relationship
By negotiating a relationship I mean that you should never close a relationship unless a person doesn't respond to your needs. There are several possibilities:
1. Neediness: A counterparties need for validation is so great that it overrides your needs, leaving you unfulfilled. The best strategy is to tell the person how you feel, why you think its a problem, what you think the cause is, and then seek their feedback. They might not be willing, able or ready to change, but in a sense you have left the ball in their court, so you can continue with your life. I dont see this as disengagement, rather as engaging on your terms, and your communication should convey that.
2. Disrespect: A counterparty doesnt treat you with respect, leaving you feel demeaned, misunderstood or unappreciated. The best approach is to ask them to explain their actions with respect to concrete events to dtermine how they interpret their or your actions.
There is a tendency I think in the community for people to detach themselves from these relationships. Whilst I think a person should not place themselves in danger if they feel threatened, nor over-invest in other people's lives, I do see a value in constructive engagement, for being straight, for displaying empathy, and attempting to understand. I also see no problem in conveying that you are only prepared to do so much, spend so much time, or help so much. The problem with detachment is:
1. You might be misjudging the counterparty
2. You are causing confusion by not offering feedback - inevitability delaying any possibility of recovery
3. You are undermining the self esteem of the person (alienation)
The problem is people have a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes their self-interest, and helping others is often just not on the page. There are several reasons for this, but they largely all derive from a lack of efficacy in dealing with personal issues - whether theirs or others. This is actually an opportunity to correct the problem, but actually most people are inclined to avoid the confrontation. I would suggest that the reason is that parents did not develop these skills during childhood by in fact remaining aloof and not being engaged in their children's lives. Another motive is a social value system which places others on a hierarchical peeking order, where people are only interested in relationships which advance their standing in the community. These people dont see others as offering a sense of efficacy, but rather as pulling them down in their 'social standing'.
At the end of the day the intention is to:
1. Serve your own goals - this requires discipline and focus
2. Remain open to broader possibilities of achieving value
3. Advance those relationships in your life that serve
4. Remain engaged with people even if you dont enlist them in the achievement of your higher goals
There is no question that such a strategy will cause some resentment among others, if they see that you diminish your time for them in favour of others, but there are several positives from this strategy:
1. You are conveying the reality that your own interests are supremely important to you
2. You are conveying the possibility of a higher relationship in future
3. You are conveying the fact that you have a hierarchy of values
4. You are acting as a role model for your values, and if you are effective/successful, that in itself should be a powerful motivator (education) for them, and thy might eventually come to understand the nature of their own resentment or jealousy.
The tendency in society is to not apply this strategy but rather to:
1. Disengage: Rationalise that you have some very important things to do - to disengage
2. Evasion: Rationalise that you cant develop the relationship, eg. A sit aunt in town
3. Hypocrisy: Affirm that you really like them, but act in a different way.
People use these tactics because it suits them as a short term strategy for serving their interest, but in the long run it just causes confusion, ill-feeling and prompts the counterparty to 'feel the victim' because they see the lack of truthfulness. People will tell me that the 'direct approach' does not work. But realistically it can only work if a large number of people do it. But there are a great many spin-offs if people did this. If people acted with integrity and empathy I have no doubt that the insidence of psychological troubles would decline.
But its not just about how we relate to people, its also about the values we convey. The reality is that society regards religion (Christianity and Islam) as credible moral systems despite their impracticality. This contradiction can only undermine the efficacy of people's thinking, their self esteem and thus their psychological well-being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
