How to deal with little girls
Youngi femalesii are anxiongeniciii. This is why functional societies see young women hanging themselves in the eve of an important exam ; this is why dysfunctional societies inevitably end up massively neuroticiv.
The reinforcement of anxiety in young women consits of anything intended, destined or expected to reduce their anxiety, or help them cope with their anxiety, such as for instance making exams "less stressful" in any mannerv. A fine example of this would be introducing of the scoring mechanism whereby if the exam question asks for item X with property p, the examinee gets some credit for coming up with item Y with property q, because you knowvi. This particular bit of nonsense will drive a flavour of anxiety whereby the misfortunatevii female will construct endless collections of mostly meaningless drivel, to have in hand just in case. Just in case what ? Just in case!
Such nonsense may superficially be identified (by the same sort of people as they penning the "revolutionary" booklets) as "a thirst for knowledge", but by the same token a duck could be identified as Quetzalcoatl. Hey, it has feathers, and it's... kinda scaly. On the feet, right, as long as they're where the scales are it's ok for serpents to have feet, innit ?
The correct solution, of course, is to markedly, deliberately and explicitly handicap anxiety in young females. "Here is the exam sheet, my dears, and anyone who's worried about it will have to take it standing up". On occasion you will get the poor soul who is so strangely composed as to actually terminate itself over the untenability of anxiety in such a world ; but you won't get any of the sad, amputated, tortured souls who ended up intertwining the anxious behaviour with their rich and colored emotional life to the point where that beautiful butterfly exists principally as a life support system for the maggot that shouldn't have ever been.
The correct solution is also difficuly to apply, and besides it requires ingredients (such as men) which can not actually be produced in a sufficiently neurotic society, so I suppose we needn't worry ourselves with all these considerations in this language.
It's all good, though : now we can worry together about all the other languages which don't have this problem, and therefore will outlive us. Wanna call them terrorists ?
———- This article discusses the article in question as it comes from the factory. Whichever way young females may be, the way adult females are depends for the most part on how well this article is understood and then applied to the article in question. [↩]
- The statement is neither descriptive of nor prospective for the female gender. That means it neither tells you how all females absolutely and universally are ; nor how they should be. The statement is introductory for the article, meaning that it modulates the article's domain of application : if your girl isn't as described, she's an outlier, and the foregoing doesn't apply to her ; if your boy is as described, he's an outlier, and the foregoing does apply to him. [↩]
- This doesn't merely mean they "secrete anxiety", but that the mechanism of anxiety exists altogether in human culture and the human mind because of them. They are the mothers of anxiety much like lazy adult females are the mothers of stupidity -- in everyone, from puppies to POTUS, not just in themselves. [↩]
- Neuroticism is the fully bloomed plant which you should have known by the root, called it anxiety, and extirpated in its youth.
Anxiety as a behaviour can either be encouraged or discouraged ; anything other than a strict check from the outside is an encouragement. Understand this well : you can't, as an individual agent by yourself "resolve" your anxiety problems, this isn't "autodidacticism". The only, strictly and absolutely the only thing you yourself can do to your own anxiety is improve it. You'll make it harder to be noticed by others, more difficult to be engaged meaningfully, more resilient in case it is engaged. Whatever the effect, it will never be in the lines of "I got rid of my anxiety". That is not something you can do in the manner of currently fashionable UStardian puritanisms as found in the perennially revolutionary cheap booklets on "how to make friends, introduce people, and get to heaven through not spitting in the street or saying any words from this list".
As far as the invidual is concerned, the only winning move is not to play ; and the field in which not playing is a meaningful choice is without exception created by others. So, if you are genuinely bereft of anxiety, this will be the result of your having made the right choice, in the right environment. It so happens that the choice is easier to make the earlier it's made, but it also so happens that the choice can never be made in meaningless environments. For a female of any age (and any sex) to manage to shed her anxiety, she will have to live in a world which is complete (meaning it integrates all the things) and correct (meaning not self-contradictory). In any other worlds (meaning, subcultures) it is impossible for the female to stop playing, irrespective of any other considerations. As complex incomplete dysfunctional societies usually end up including a statement of their own neuroticism, a positive feedback loop emerges whereby efforts to limit the effects spread the behaviour until the maximal cognitive load possible is dedicated to maintaining the anxious thought patterns, at which point populists start winning on a "MAGA" ticket / the whole thing collapses in a pile of its own rubble because holy shit you can't keep a society running if all anyone ever thinks about are things that don't actually exist. [↩]
- The exam is fine. You fuck with it, it only get heavy, and you still don't hit largest side of barn. Instead, go to firing range, practice with many magazine of cartridge. [↩]
- I mean this "because you know" quite literally. Because why ? You tell me, it makes entirely no sense and yet you do it, so because why ? [↩]
- To have been born among the idiots in question. [↩]
Tuesday, 24 January 2017
Anxiety, even being neurotic, was probably a good thing to have for early humans and their progenitors, being a species not on top of the food chain on African savannahs and all. Especially for mothers guarding children. Whether we should strive to remove this property from them... I guess nature will sort it out in the end.
Now there is a subset of humans who do not feel anxiety, at all. Their brains are incapable of it. If all humans would've been this way, we wouldn't have left the savannahs, I'd bet. But they do markedly well when there is a solid base society, as an intra-species predator. I wonder if the sight of anxiety triggers an impulse to torture in them.... It makes sense that it at least triggers a predatory response, just like running away from a tiger does.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
The early humans argument is always dubious. Smegma, for instance, is easily the most notable "useful for early humans" items out there.
There isn't "a subset of humans who do not feel anxiety". Those are the humans.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
You know I came up with a new theory. Actually it is stolen from other, greater minds. People hate that which they cannot have, and even turn positives into negatives if it helps their worldview stay consistent to them. Stalin supposedly said gratitude was more apt for dogs than humans. It makes sense he felt that way. It makes sense that betas can't stand alphas getting away with all the pretty girls and thus they demonize that. Me myself I always hated dancing and didn't understand it's appeal. I can't dance for shit, and it all clicks now.
I've spent quite some time around those who would be classified as sociopaths and was greatly annoyed by their lack of loyalty. I pay biological penalties (ie. anxiety) for breaking loyalty, and they don't even notice. So same goes there I guess. However I disagree on me not being human.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
Holy Flying Conflataballs, hold up here.
For one thing, sociopathy isn't this catchall fallthrough case of the scary, incomprehensible, and just-plain-wrong™. I mean obviously that's how it ends up working in practice, but really now... The problem with "miscellanea" concepts which end up containing everything nobody knows what to do with is that they become self-contradictory.
So it is here : it can't at the same time be the case that sociopathy were a disease and sociopathy also be whatever scares you. Unless you're actually deranged, what scares you isn't a disease. (No, euphemizing towards "alter state" etcetera does not resolve this problem ; nor does it rest well with your ideas of qualia-chair-parts, come to speak of it, but that's for another time).
For another thing, the cheapest trick in the book is the pretense, readily granted, eagerily swallowed, that "the system" "holds the stars up" for whatever values of the system and the stars. For instance, the primitive (under a certain light) minds in Muslim Africa had serious trouble comprehending how someone could live who didn't believe, not in Allah, not in Allah-by-another-name-because-they're-weird-where-he-was-born, but not at all. It seemed to them that such a person would necessarily be untrustworthy, have no loyalty etcetera.
Funny you should think the same thing in the same conditions, considering how you wash (differently from the way they do) ; but take solace in the happenstance that idiot Americanistas honestly believe, to this very day, that outside of their pantsuited paradise there's no possibility of $anything-good and therefore Bitcoin people can never be, you've guessed it, either loyal or trustworthy. Because hey, if you don't vote for Hillary then clearly.
And finally : while it's very often the case that a frank discussion of heretofore unexamined yet internalized ideology tends to drive women into a desperate rage, I'm not automaticallly saying you, personally, aren't human but merely that a specific something isn't. Normative speech works in that manner, you're free to resolve the tension any way you wish (obviously some will work better than others).
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
Actually, to me sociopathy is pretty cearly defined and measurable as well. Sociopathic brains are different from non-sociopathic brains when scanned. It is a little obsession of mine. I am googling now but there are actual papers on this:
[scans of sociopath brains] showed reduced activity in an area towards the center of the brain called the orbital cortex thought to play a role in regulating our emotions and impulses as well as morality and aggression.
This, coupled with other literature and tests makes it clear to me that sociopathy is a real phenomenon. There are some clear giveaways such as (enjoying) torture (of animals as a child), lack of loyalty, higher resistance to bad smells, trouble identifying the "disgust" emotion in faces, not having "a favorite item", not anthropologizing objects, using (non emotional) aggression as a tool, and more.
I don't think of it as a disease (I see you beat me to the punch, but I'll be politically correct nonetheless), merely a variation among humans that makes sense to exist: if everyone plays by the rules, not playing by the rules is a terrific strategy if you can get away with it. Just as it made sense that some creatures just started eating others at some point instead of painstakingly producing energy themselves.
I do see some problems with it; empaths are forced by nature to feel empathy, remorse, kinship, which helps in building a base on which society can grow. Too many sociopaths in important places makes trust hard. Also, I am in direct competition with them and I hate being on an unfair playing field. I actually hate feeling pity most of the time, and it's biological use is unclear to me, but it is hardwired nonetheless.
Now there are many, many other factors, some of which you stated. Many humans can be remorseless towards out-group, or when exacting revenge, while not being sociopaths. People can be traumatized and lose emphatic capability. Hanging with sociopaths for a long time can make one a secondary sociopath, etc...
Let it be known that I am a perspectivist, which for me means this: people don't necessarily believe what is objectively true, but what seems most expedient to their (mostly subconscious) brain from a perspective of gaining power.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
It seems altogether dubious "sociopathy to you is clearly defined and measurable as well" given that you feel the need to pretty it up and are googly now. Certainly you may wish it to be, but that's a different story.
Brain scans are the age's astrology, not so different from debugging software through taking temperature readings off the cpu with a Professional Cook's Laser Termometer (tm). "Other literature and tests" are in no sense better, by the way.
There were "some clear giveaways" for every previous incarnation of the "miscellaneous disease", such as "delusions of self importance and ideas of reform" back when the soviets were doing it ; or a certain sulphurous scent and nocturnal activity back when the spanish were doing it etcetera.
Most importantly : your attempt to re-introduce your nonsense covertly as "accepted universally" doesn't work on this n-th incantation any better than it worked previously. What "the rules" ? There's no "the rules", get over yourself. People come first ; hallucinations of "society", in whatever form, come after and are dependent on them. But hey, pseudoscience resplendent, "at some point" bacteria apeared in a sea of algae, right ? Not the other way around ? Nuts.
There's no "empaths" anymore than there's "qualia". Stop with the fatlogic already, there aren't "people who are forced by nature to ingurgitate everything in sight" and so "have no choice in being fat". Stupidity is a choice. Do not make the stupid choice.
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
I've deprived myself of too much sleep already so you'll have to excuse me but did you infer I was looking for cursive text there? That would be scary.
Thursday, 26 January 2017
Nothing but violence! Don't you know, I've been right hand to lesser yous? And here you are, claiming my pattern recognition is broken! Yet to them, that was my raison d'etre!
They put knives to my neck, and guns to my belly, but never once I felt fear! I was just thrilled to discover, there where non-muggles in this world! I watched them, as they tore the limbs from the muggles, and scarcely I felt pity! And here you are, nitpicking arguments I should have left at home! What I meant to say was this: "It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!"
And who knows... Stranger creatures may even exist! But do you understand, that possibility is the reason I am here, spraying graffiti on your castle walls! That is why I am here, being relegated to paint now! That is why I am here, contemplating walking naked into what might well be a torture chamber!
Am I being mistaken for a young wolf? A disgruntled muggle? A lost mind, even? Might all of these live in me? Do I care? I know I'd burn gladly if it meant being able to give birth to a star. But to burn up for a prop, that would be the worst fate!
Thursday, 26 January 2017
You're not being mistaken for anything, simmer down.
Tuesday, 14 March 2017
"The correct solution is also difficul[t] to apply, and besides it requires ingredients (such as men) which can not actually be produced in a sufficiently neurotic society, so I suppose we needn't worry ourselves with all these considerations in this language.
It's all good though : now we can worry together about all the other languages which don't have this problem, and therefore will outlive us. Wanna call them terrorists ?"
Significant problem identified and therefore the person/organization/society/language group is doomed, doomed I tell you.
Yep, you're a romanian (as if there was much doubt before).
The solution is to import what you do not have. Haven't you noticed the impulse?
Tuesday, 14 March 2017
For the same money you could say I'm a woman.