Thursday,
November 27, 2008 at 8:38pm
While
this isn’t prompted by a usual headache that spins off into a piece
of brilliant insight, I am banking on the fact that I haven’t
written anything tantamount to the amount of thinking I find myself
doing. I think I’d like to touch on boys and girls, little ones
because their skin is so soft, and how they interact with each other.
I also what to mete out what I think it would take to be the kind of
persuasive person to convey the “ultimate truth” that I think
people are happy and well rehearsed in avoiding.
Now I’m sure this will be a hasty generalization, but I find it peculiar that when it comes to how boys and girls, or should I say men and women if you didn’t get my overtly creepy humor, interact with each other, there are major pitfalls in how the women choose to interpret the situation. I used to think it was simply my mother that would make the elaborate stories in her head about my character or intentions, but my recent endeavors with womanly kind is proving my view to be incomplete. I hesitate to say things like “all women do this,” but I don’t think I would be too far gone if I said many, if not most, of them do. I say this for one main reason, and speculative others I’ll elaborate on shortly. The main reason I feel is because of how they relate amongst themselves. Just as men get a kick out of knowing the same things about such cliches as sports or cars, a woman’s rally point is behind the eternal fight against men. If we speak purely about biology, guys are bigger, more domineering, are, historically speaking, the providers and purveyors of their clan or family. All of this doesn’t simply go away because of suffrage and a few hundred years. In light of this recent history, I can at least imagine, if not fully understand and empathize, why women would choose this line of behavior to characterize men and effectively “chalk one up” on the board for themselves.
Now obviously guys do the same sorts of things. They can underestimate women, make lude comments about how they’ll all act when aunt flow is in town, and outright disrespect their bodies in what may be described as immature jesting. So yes, women, I grant you that there are a plethora of reasons that you can mount a defense from and then counter attack to guys behavior. With that said, I think there is much misunderstanding when it comes to differentiating and dignifying the guys who can recognize when they’ve fucked up or mis-characterized you, and “guys in general.” In order to not have to keep restating this, it would be a safe bet to assume that anything I say about most girls or guys can and does go both ways.
I think I will be able to elaborate on my view if I address the notion of “girl talk.” Mr. Bowman and I found ourselves “struggling” to understand the waves of intricate girl understanding wafting through the air when I invited our female friends to engage us in a sample of this talk, or so it may have appeared. When it comes to girls, it seems as if they believe there is this secret that gets passed around with every phrase or utterance. Conversely, guys are about straight talk. When I describe my interactions or friendships with guys who are “on the level” it is because of this implicit understanding that if I call my friend stupid, he’s not going to go home and dwell on my narrow view of his intelligence and then get angry at me for the next hour or day. This kind of interaction does not carry over to women, at least in the same capacity, in my experience. What I feel happens is a projection of that “secret” that girls are passing around gets implemented into whatever comment or question the guy is asking. As if this isn’t a problem enough, girls minds are wired differently, which means they are going to be the ones who make all sorts of elaborate connections and ties to history that are going to immediately reinforce their perception of your statement. In other words, if I get called stupid, I don’t flash back to every instance my friend has called me stupid to then make a case for how he disrespects me or doesn’t care about my feelings. Nor do I think that the comment relates to my attire, relationship with my parents, or physique.
Now this is not to say that there aren’t times when what the guy says is laden with sarcasm, hidden meaning, and ignorant stabs, but the overwhelming majority of times, I assure you, this isn’t the case.
I am a fan of the show The Pick-up Artist. I can understand why many girls would not see it in the same ways I would, nor do I agree with every tactic or method in Mystery’s arsenal. With that said, the show is not designed to teach you how to become a “player.” The comments from the guys when they get booted off the show resound around the idea that it was a life changing experience, not a missed opportunity to get laid. Mystery makes it a point to answer questions about women or his method in the extras in which he does much characterizing of women as a whole. I can see why this would come off as insulting or short-sided to some women, but again, I see him talking from an evolutionary standpoint, and his personal past evidence, not from a pillar of assumptions he’s trying to batter women with. That is at the heart of my problem with this whole thing, these assumptions that go unchecked, and when challenged, rise up in revulsion with a wave of “how dare you.” This is what I feel the real battle is centered on. A perceptional one, with the guys either too lazy or frankly too stupid to care about making the little changes or being accountable, and girls vehemently entrenched in their method and ideals that culminates in a bubble of “womanly understanding” that alienates and demonizes guys whether they deserve it or not.
If not a purely speculative one, then at least a smaller part of it is an idea more reinforced from comments I hear about women from women. Apparently there are more self conscious and insecure than then men in general, if not dramatically more so. No, I don't find this as a secret or extremely telling, but I do feel it would help to explain why women mount the type of defense they do. If you don't feel good about yourself, no wonder you feel like the guy in question is attacking that aspect of you, regardless of what he's said. If I can supplement my philosophy on top of this whole issue, I would say that it goes back to people not being honest and intimate with themselves. Not understanding why they fail or what they excel at, and not choosing what framework they are going to implement that keeps it all in, key word, perspective. But that could be a digression for another blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely switching gears, you may even want to call it a different blog, but this is prompted after the latest debate I watched Hitchens v Wilson, which I’ve posted on my “Some Sources” blog. I’ve watched at least 7-10 debates involving Hitchens, and yet I felt this one came off better than his ones in the past. First, he wasn’t debating a raving lunatic like D’Souza and the format of the debate was conducive to straight question, answer, and clarify like a normal discussion. What was most striking to me was that his examples, which I’ve heard countless times, came off more emotionally impacting than I’ve seen in the past. Essentially, this prompted me to think about my dream debate and why I think it would go over so well. When it comes down to it, there are many complex, confusing, and seemingly contradictory reason why I do and act the way I do. The reason is because there is no other way for me to convey what it is I am in fact feeling or thinking at that moment. I feel like this undermines the integrity of my arguments or statements, but I simply must say so be it, and try even harder and conveying through work and results what it is I’m talking about.
And yet, how to go about this another way? Provide pinnacles of each aspect you see as important to influence as mass group of people. Find a way to portray the overall philosophy that people can feel as justified to identify with in as many ways that they’ve done with modern religion. This is more simply to say, create an all inviting atmosphere with tools people find easy enough to help entrench themselves within it. Christianity works because you can take whatever verse you want, given that it spans the whole of human emotions, and connect in that way. There are all sorts of sects and figures that you can choose from that vibe at your level. So I say, do that for secular ideals and promotion. There are times when I simply want the cool, overtly direct, and masterful use of language the Sam Harris brings to a debate, that I don’t feel some of the others convey as well. Where one may falter, stick in an artful genius to press the point as effectively and far as is able. No opportunity to say “well I’m not a physicist” because Lawrence Krauss is sitting next to you. “I’m not sure if it was Mathew or Mark” can easily be digressed from the point of Rook Hawkins, Dan Barker, or Bart Ehrman.
Just like I consider myself to be the sum of all the parts, be it the people I dignify as friends, the activities I engage in for fun, or my demeanor towards any given person at any time, I think arguments need to be viewed and expressed in this way. I never feel like my meaning is complete by just referring one book or one set of videos, because the essence of the ideals is embodied in everything I’ve learned as well as the process of how I’ve come to learn it. Your arguments and presence should not be constrained by a convergence of your assumptions. Your demeanor should not be a mere retaliation of your strife against others. It may take a relatively long time to come full circle and be able to express true empathy, accept points of contention to better understand an argument, and finally have the will and reason to make necessary changes to your Self and how you express it, but it has to be done. One comment I made the other day resounds through my psyche in one way or another all the time. I really wish everyone could just be happy, informed, expressive, and constructive, but I know I'm not going to have a real choice but to abuse, manipulate, and destroy them. When your "on the level" such a damning fate is impossible. When you understand what it is that I would convey in the perfect debate, nothing more really needs to be said.
Now I’m sure this will be a hasty generalization, but I find it peculiar that when it comes to how boys and girls, or should I say men and women if you didn’t get my overtly creepy humor, interact with each other, there are major pitfalls in how the women choose to interpret the situation. I used to think it was simply my mother that would make the elaborate stories in her head about my character or intentions, but my recent endeavors with womanly kind is proving my view to be incomplete. I hesitate to say things like “all women do this,” but I don’t think I would be too far gone if I said many, if not most, of them do. I say this for one main reason, and speculative others I’ll elaborate on shortly. The main reason I feel is because of how they relate amongst themselves. Just as men get a kick out of knowing the same things about such cliches as sports or cars, a woman’s rally point is behind the eternal fight against men. If we speak purely about biology, guys are bigger, more domineering, are, historically speaking, the providers and purveyors of their clan or family. All of this doesn’t simply go away because of suffrage and a few hundred years. In light of this recent history, I can at least imagine, if not fully understand and empathize, why women would choose this line of behavior to characterize men and effectively “chalk one up” on the board for themselves.
Now obviously guys do the same sorts of things. They can underestimate women, make lude comments about how they’ll all act when aunt flow is in town, and outright disrespect their bodies in what may be described as immature jesting. So yes, women, I grant you that there are a plethora of reasons that you can mount a defense from and then counter attack to guys behavior. With that said, I think there is much misunderstanding when it comes to differentiating and dignifying the guys who can recognize when they’ve fucked up or mis-characterized you, and “guys in general.” In order to not have to keep restating this, it would be a safe bet to assume that anything I say about most girls or guys can and does go both ways.
I think I will be able to elaborate on my view if I address the notion of “girl talk.” Mr. Bowman and I found ourselves “struggling” to understand the waves of intricate girl understanding wafting through the air when I invited our female friends to engage us in a sample of this talk, or so it may have appeared. When it comes to girls, it seems as if they believe there is this secret that gets passed around with every phrase or utterance. Conversely, guys are about straight talk. When I describe my interactions or friendships with guys who are “on the level” it is because of this implicit understanding that if I call my friend stupid, he’s not going to go home and dwell on my narrow view of his intelligence and then get angry at me for the next hour or day. This kind of interaction does not carry over to women, at least in the same capacity, in my experience. What I feel happens is a projection of that “secret” that girls are passing around gets implemented into whatever comment or question the guy is asking. As if this isn’t a problem enough, girls minds are wired differently, which means they are going to be the ones who make all sorts of elaborate connections and ties to history that are going to immediately reinforce their perception of your statement. In other words, if I get called stupid, I don’t flash back to every instance my friend has called me stupid to then make a case for how he disrespects me or doesn’t care about my feelings. Nor do I think that the comment relates to my attire, relationship with my parents, or physique.
Now this is not to say that there aren’t times when what the guy says is laden with sarcasm, hidden meaning, and ignorant stabs, but the overwhelming majority of times, I assure you, this isn’t the case.
I am a fan of the show The Pick-up Artist. I can understand why many girls would not see it in the same ways I would, nor do I agree with every tactic or method in Mystery’s arsenal. With that said, the show is not designed to teach you how to become a “player.” The comments from the guys when they get booted off the show resound around the idea that it was a life changing experience, not a missed opportunity to get laid. Mystery makes it a point to answer questions about women or his method in the extras in which he does much characterizing of women as a whole. I can see why this would come off as insulting or short-sided to some women, but again, I see him talking from an evolutionary standpoint, and his personal past evidence, not from a pillar of assumptions he’s trying to batter women with. That is at the heart of my problem with this whole thing, these assumptions that go unchecked, and when challenged, rise up in revulsion with a wave of “how dare you.” This is what I feel the real battle is centered on. A perceptional one, with the guys either too lazy or frankly too stupid to care about making the little changes or being accountable, and girls vehemently entrenched in their method and ideals that culminates in a bubble of “womanly understanding” that alienates and demonizes guys whether they deserve it or not.
If not a purely speculative one, then at least a smaller part of it is an idea more reinforced from comments I hear about women from women. Apparently there are more self conscious and insecure than then men in general, if not dramatically more so. No, I don't find this as a secret or extremely telling, but I do feel it would help to explain why women mount the type of defense they do. If you don't feel good about yourself, no wonder you feel like the guy in question is attacking that aspect of you, regardless of what he's said. If I can supplement my philosophy on top of this whole issue, I would say that it goes back to people not being honest and intimate with themselves. Not understanding why they fail or what they excel at, and not choosing what framework they are going to implement that keeps it all in, key word, perspective. But that could be a digression for another blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely switching gears, you may even want to call it a different blog, but this is prompted after the latest debate I watched Hitchens v Wilson, which I’ve posted on my “Some Sources” blog. I’ve watched at least 7-10 debates involving Hitchens, and yet I felt this one came off better than his ones in the past. First, he wasn’t debating a raving lunatic like D’Souza and the format of the debate was conducive to straight question, answer, and clarify like a normal discussion. What was most striking to me was that his examples, which I’ve heard countless times, came off more emotionally impacting than I’ve seen in the past. Essentially, this prompted me to think about my dream debate and why I think it would go over so well. When it comes down to it, there are many complex, confusing, and seemingly contradictory reason why I do and act the way I do. The reason is because there is no other way for me to convey what it is I am in fact feeling or thinking at that moment. I feel like this undermines the integrity of my arguments or statements, but I simply must say so be it, and try even harder and conveying through work and results what it is I’m talking about.
And yet, how to go about this another way? Provide pinnacles of each aspect you see as important to influence as mass group of people. Find a way to portray the overall philosophy that people can feel as justified to identify with in as many ways that they’ve done with modern religion. This is more simply to say, create an all inviting atmosphere with tools people find easy enough to help entrench themselves within it. Christianity works because you can take whatever verse you want, given that it spans the whole of human emotions, and connect in that way. There are all sorts of sects and figures that you can choose from that vibe at your level. So I say, do that for secular ideals and promotion. There are times when I simply want the cool, overtly direct, and masterful use of language the Sam Harris brings to a debate, that I don’t feel some of the others convey as well. Where one may falter, stick in an artful genius to press the point as effectively and far as is able. No opportunity to say “well I’m not a physicist” because Lawrence Krauss is sitting next to you. “I’m not sure if it was Mathew or Mark” can easily be digressed from the point of Rook Hawkins, Dan Barker, or Bart Ehrman.
Just like I consider myself to be the sum of all the parts, be it the people I dignify as friends, the activities I engage in for fun, or my demeanor towards any given person at any time, I think arguments need to be viewed and expressed in this way. I never feel like my meaning is complete by just referring one book or one set of videos, because the essence of the ideals is embodied in everything I’ve learned as well as the process of how I’ve come to learn it. Your arguments and presence should not be constrained by a convergence of your assumptions. Your demeanor should not be a mere retaliation of your strife against others. It may take a relatively long time to come full circle and be able to express true empathy, accept points of contention to better understand an argument, and finally have the will and reason to make necessary changes to your Self and how you express it, but it has to be done. One comment I made the other day resounds through my psyche in one way or another all the time. I really wish everyone could just be happy, informed, expressive, and constructive, but I know I'm not going to have a real choice but to abuse, manipulate, and destroy them. When your "on the level" such a damning fate is impossible. When you understand what it is that I would convey in the perfect debate, nothing more really needs to be said.
Billy
Bowman
at 10:17pm November 27, 2008
Was
going to say something cliche about how right that first one was, but
then I realized cliches piss me off because they sound retarded and
decided to go off on a little tangent before I got back to my
original point....
Which was, I agree with your first article, more or less, completely. I expect an uproar (as I'm sure you do) from certain ... Read More people, but whatever. I'll read an respond to your second article (which I'm now going to call these writings of yours for reasons i could explain if you wish but are rather irrelevant to my point..) some other time.
Which was, I agree with your first article, more or less, completely. I expect an uproar (as I'm sure you do) from certain ... Read More people, but whatever. I'll read an respond to your second article (which I'm now going to call these writings of yours for reasons i could explain if you wish but are rather irrelevant to my point..) some other time.
Chris
Cashel-Cordo
at 11:29pm November 27, 2008
"Now
I’m sure this will be a hasty generalization"
It is.
It is.
Billy
Bowman
at 12:23am November 28, 2008
When
i first read your comment, cash money, i thought it said (or rather..
meant)...
Now I'll give you a hasty generalization: 'It is'
Now I'll give you a hasty generalization: 'It is'
Nick
P.
at 2:51am November 28, 2008
Ah,
but by me denoting it as potentially hasty and a generalization I
would hope you extracted that I understand the grounds I'm playing on
and making sure it doesn't come off as overtly ill informed and
presumptuous. By saying it anyways, I express my belief, to that
extent, that it is not entirely hasty nor in bad taste by
generalizing.
Chris
Cashel-Cordo
at 8:58am November 28, 2008
I
disagree. Its bullshit to try and base an argument off a base
generalization. You do it four of five times in your first three
paragraphs, and then it keeps showing up. And then you take these as
fact. They are not facts. The question here is an interesting one,
but an argument based on generalizations will have a hard time
holding up to scrutiny.
Billy
Bowman
at 12:04pm November 28, 2008
There
are issues with basing an entire argument on generalizations, but I
have to go with Nick here and say since he did qualify it, you can
take it in stride that this argument applies and is only valid in the
general case, and that there ARE exceptions--as many as exceptions as
you can find that fail to meet one or more of his presumptions that
he applied to the general case.
Chris
Cashel-Cordo
at 12:09pm November 28, 2008
Fine.
But there are more exceptions than examples that fit his
generalizations, combined with the authoritative tone, make the
argument simply end up seeming pretentious.
Billy
Bowman
at 12:12pm November 28, 2008
Very
well, however, in my experience, there are far more examples of this
misunderstanding and mischaracterization then i find exceptions... as
for the reasons, I don't care to speculate, and the ones listed are
as good as any i suppose.
Nick
P.
at 2:46pm November 28, 2008
"In
order to not have to keep restating this, it would be a safe bet to
assume that anything I say about most girls or guys can and does go
both ways."
Let's remember that when it comes to a topic like this I don't really have a choice but to generalize and draw from my experiences in the past. It's one thing to talk of these exceptions as if they aren't few and far between, and another to hand me a thousand page book detailing how terribly wrong I am. I never once say "This is a fact" and always say how it seems or appears to me. This is also not really an argument, it's me describing my experiences with an issue that really pisses me off. Overwhelmingly in my experience what I describe has been the case, and take the zeitgeist around Hollywood portrayals of this alone to at least hint I'm not yards off base, and many have noticed the same thing. If you wanted an argument I would've made it specific and drawn up concrete examples and cited articles. Me pretentious? I'll just call it ironic given that I wrote it in opposition to the pretentious tone and look that comes my way when I try to understand why a girl is acting a certain way.
Let's remember that when it comes to a topic like this I don't really have a choice but to generalize and draw from my experiences in the past. It's one thing to talk of these exceptions as if they aren't few and far between, and another to hand me a thousand page book detailing how terribly wrong I am. I never once say "This is a fact" and always say how it seems or appears to me. This is also not really an argument, it's me describing my experiences with an issue that really pisses me off. Overwhelmingly in my experience what I describe has been the case, and take the zeitgeist around Hollywood portrayals of this alone to at least hint I'm not yards off base, and many have noticed the same thing. If you wanted an argument I would've made it specific and drawn up concrete examples and cited articles. Me pretentious? I'll just call it ironic given that I wrote it in opposition to the pretentious tone and look that comes my way when I try to understand why a girl is acting a certain way.
