Sociopath Community

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

You mean the bit that further research expressed to be more about scale?

I'm not sure what you mean.

As I mentioned on page seven, more recent findings see the variations for the corpus callosum as more of a matter of scale than gender. 

Turncoat said:

You're going on about the the differences between men and women as we've found ourselves in recent history rather than "the natural state".

What could be more natural than how we are physically arranged?

As I've been going on about as is, this could just as easily be where gender dimorphism has found itself after a lengthy period of evolution steered by culturally gregarious traits as opposed to it's supposed natural state. 

Much of recorded history has been burnt alongside women's contributions otherwise being glossed over due to historical sexism, many of the tales of the past simply haven't reached us thus far, but through historical remains newer theories and questions are being founded, such as those being posed from the viking woman I linked an article over earlier in this topic that I'm sure you read up on.

Turncoat said:

Couldn't it be argued that those behaviors are an aspect of peer modeling just as readily?

Considering this behavior is detailed since the epics and plays of Ancient Greece, and we have evidence from fMRIs showing the contrast in how men and women process social cues...I'm inclined to say not really.

How does Ancient Greece supersede the historical echoes of peer modeling? 

Turncoat said:

It's through our lack of environmental challenges that we've turned inward, and our breeding patterns reflect more elements of inter-species competition than anything else. Now that survival isn't about health, but rather about interpersonal relations, with a population this big we're bound to see Gregarious values take over.

My point there was that the genetic volume of our species is so great that moving it in any strong unilateral direction is pretty hopeless.

We can literally see as aesthetics coast on music trends an increase in procreative odds for some trait clusters over others, so I'd argue that it's far from hopeless. 

Again, if submissive women were easier to mate with, that doesn't by the nature of women mean that they are primarily submissive, but rather that evolution favored those traits overtime. You're mixing up the chicken for the egg. 

Turncoat said:

Why not? We've seen similar models in other animals when it comes to peacocking where a gregarious feature becomes the foundation for procreation.

Peacocking is a feature of those animals to test genetic fitness.

Yet you can see someone with a bigger horn than someone else end up pushing out more babies, much like how social trends are pushing the notion of dick size for humans (by contrast towards breast size instincts). 

It's just about standing out enough to get picked. 

It would be as difficult to get them out of that habit as it would be for us to get ourselves out of our own. When talking about things built into our choromosomes that consolidated over tens of millions of years, those things are hard to make meaningful change to. Nature fine tunes what it has to work with, it can't really change at the drop of a dime. That's why most animals go extinct.

We aren't really most animals, our trait distribution is far more spread than what's usual for the animal kingdom. Normally if a species becomes too different from one another they cannot produce children (or if they can they come out sterile), yet humans can cross-pollinate unusually well. 

Why most animals go extinct only applies to us for things like inbreeding risk. Unlike most other creatures out there, even being split half a world apart does not stop our means of baby-making. 

Turncoat said:

Have you ever looked into Human Neoteny?

Yeah, it's pretty interesting.

How long do you figure the passage of time takes for the neotenizing of human features? 

Turncoat said:

Are we chimpanzees, or are we closer to the bonobo?

Closer to bonobos. We definitely have aspects of both, our more amorous tendencies are probably owed to that side of the family. The social structure of chimpanzees is still analogous.

The bonobo is largely matriarchal, using sexual behavior as both a means of socializing and procreation. The model we see now where "women are the gatekeepers of sex" is matched with the Bonobo, even down to lesbian action that by design entices males rather than the females flocking to the 'dick fencing' males. 

Turncoat said:

This is like saying that men can't be expected to keep their hands to themselves if there's women in the workplace, it's moronic. When it comes to soldiers they end up bonding as fellow men of their unit, and when it comes to them they're also liable to blow the mission to save their lives even if he doesn't otherwise want to fuck him.

Have desensitization be part of the training like you would for sexual harassment compensation.

Otherwise I see no reason to not have women in military positions, especially if their muscles are believed to have better fatigue resistance and recovery than a man's and they're believed to have higher cognitive functioning.

If that kind of training would work, I'd be fine with it. But it doesn't seem like all the education on sexual harassment in work orientations or the stigma around harassment seems to stop it.

I'd argue it actually is curbing the behavior significantly compared to even just 20 to 30 years ago. 

Men do bond, but I'm willing to bet that a 19 year old male cranked on hormones becomes more of a liability when a woman is around. 

I'd argue the male's a liability over their hormones overall from their increased proclivity to act without thinking, and that women shouldn't be held responsible for men's lack of self-control. If this were shoe on the other foot they'd be arguing that the one who can't keep their emotions in check shouldn't be the one on the battlefield. 

It could be over hunger even, something males have a harder time controlling themselves over than women. Women I'd also argue are more capable of resisting torture than their male counterparts based on where their physiology has found itself in the modern day. 

Turncoat said:

So you don't think that women being made to "act like men" contributes more stress towards their lives than if they were to otherwise be in a culture that doesn't have them have to act outside of "the bounds of their gender"?

Where are women being made to act like men?

Within the olde rhetoric anyway, when they attempt to do "a man's job", namely enacting personal freedoms over their own autonomy rather than following guidance to the point of increased stress. This is expressed through rights like abortion, divorce, voting, and having an occupation when they otherwise "aren't as good at it as a man". 

They have this idea that if women have more to do than tend the home front that they are suffering on an existential level, only behaving this entitled towards their own autonomy rather than accepting their status as a second class citizen as an aspect of culture, of immediate peer modeling, rather than the genetic fate they're templated with when it comes to being happy. They then rant and rant about how women have been spoiled away from "responsibility", becoming pleasure principle addicts or "immediate gratification whores" as opposed to looking at some patriarchal sense of 'The Bigger Picture'. 

They'd essentially take Murphy Brown as a step in the wrong direction, then justify it over how "they aren't as good at it" which is nonsense. We're only just now starting to get away from how businesses wouldn't want to hire women over being a pregnancy risk, figuring they'd drop wanting to work the minute they squish out a child. 

Turncoat said:

I've largely found this to be in relation to T vs E balances, as demonstrated through the use of steroids and hormonal therapies.

That definitely plays a role, although the brain is still wired differently based on sex. Guys with clinically low-T still have different brains than women do. But even if it was just an E vs T dichotomy, the norm still stands.

Do you have more to throw at this, or is this just more neurosexism based on outdated information? 

Turncoat said:

I see this as men being too emotionally sensitive to participate in more emotionally complicated discussions, effectively through becoming overstimulated by it, which itself I see perpetuated by societal templating and peer modeling.

It could be that they're too sensitive. I'm not sure. At least with the attitude I had in mind, which was one of generally blowing off a woman as being "nagging," or otherwise dismissive... the sense that I get is it's an easy way out. 

Their "nagging" is conversation, it's the need for closure that allows getting to the heart of things. A man's idea of closure meanwhile is closer to punching a dude, which is a childish overemotional response that comes from a combination of testosterone poisoning and being in the socially privileged position. 

It's easy to say a woman is being hysterical, and that's one realm where I'd agree there's a bit of a patriarchy going on. It's not all men either, but it does seem to be what a lot of men default to doing.

What would you say accounts for a nagging male or a non-nagging female? I'd argue it's more E vs T. 

Men can get pretty naggy even on high T-counts, they just are more monosyllabic about it and seem less capable of holding onto as much of the conversation. 

Turncoat said:

Can't we even look towards the differences in brain functioning to see that Men are by and large more emotional than women?

It's a fuzzy area that I haven't looked into much. Some say the areas are larger in one gender when controlled for overall cerebral volume, others say there is no difference. I haven't looked into it much. The areas are configured differently for the sexes. I would guess that men and women both feel just as strongly, but in different ways.

Check the dates on your sources' sources. 

Turncoat said:

Both genders seek guidance, but Estrogen has a tendency to ask questions before shooting while Testosterone will shoot first and ask what survives. If this is a question over who acts first, those with higher T-counts will get the rush on things while E-count people will consider their options instead.

I'd otherwise argue that "seeking protection" is more of a learned helplessness symptom.

But it's not just who acts first. There's an element of dominance and submission.

What's your views on that, as I just have more E vs T to allude towards as well as more cultural modeling ranting. 

Turncoat said:

As I mentioned on page seven, more recent findings see the variations for the corpus callosum as more of a matter of scale than gender.

Oh, you're meaning that they are proportional. Looks like you're right; I've been duped.

Turncoat said:

As I've been going on about as is, this could just as easily be where gender dimorphism has found itself after a lengthy period of evolution steered by culturally gregarious traits as opposed to it's supposed natural state.

That's a chicken or the egg way of looking at it. You can say culture shaped evolution as much as how we evolved shaped early cultures. They both played respective roles, but here we are at the consequence.

Turncoat said:

How does Ancient Greece supersede the historical echoes of peer modeling?

My point was that the same gender stereotypes we have today go very far back, and also coincide with information we can get from fMRIs. It's not coincidence that women are seen as more chatty, and also that they use more words per average on day, have different lateralization in Broca's area (language processing) as well as more gray matter there. They also use significantly more areas of the brain when processing body language. Clearly women are more wired for social analysis; it's no wonder that they are more chatty.

Turncoat said:

We can literally see as aesthetics coast on music trends an increase in procreative odds for some trait clusters over others, so I'd argue that it's far from hopeless.

In a world of almost 8 billion, I don't think musicians are about to change the gene pool much.

Turncoat said:

Yet you can see someone with a bigger horn than someone else end up pushing out more babies, much like how social trends are pushing the notion of dick size for humans (by contrast towards breast size instincts).

It's just about standing out enough to get picked.

Sure, but we still have our human parameters. For feminine attraction, that tends to be "look good, don't be fucked up in the head." Men overall are most attracted to women in their most fertile years. Women tend to be attracted to men who are established in some way. Whether with career success or in fitness, or social standing. All things that indicate someone is a capable provider. Of course there are variations, but that's the general theme. There isn't anything to indicate that these tendencies are going to be bred out of instinct.

Turncoat said:

We aren't really most animals, our trait distribution is far more spread than what's usual for the animal kingdom. Normally if a species becomes too different from one another they cannot produce children (or if they can they come out sterile), yet humans can cross-pollinate unusually well.

Humans aren't that different from each other. Look at what dogs are able to breed with each other.

Turncoat said:

Why most animals go extinct only applies to us for things like inbreeding risk. Unlike most other creatures out there, even being split half a world apart does not stop our means of baby-making.

That's true, but my point there was that changing large sets of DNA to effect things like reversal in sexual dimorphism is both difficult (I think insurmountable in our case) and gradual. DNA doesn't fluctuate rapidly, hence why most life forms go extinct. They can't adapt fast enough given their genetic profiles.

Turncoat said:

How long do you figure the passage of time takes for the neotenizing of human features?

No idea. It seemed to happen as humans acclimated to civilization. Early humans looked quite different from modern ones, probably from higher circulating T levels.

It's possible we'll continue to be more neotenous. Maybe we're already on that route.

Turncoat said:

The bonobo is largely matriarchal, using sexual behavior as both a means of socializing and procreation. The model we see now where "women are the gatekeepers of sex" is matched with the Bonobo, even down to lesbian action that by design entices males rather than the females flocking to the 'dick fencing' males.

Humans have the capacity to be matriarchal or patriarchal. I don't think just because we have one system or another means that there's inherent oppression. I still hold that (generally) women are more suited for taking care of children and have certain innate capacities that serve as the yin to yang. But that shouldn't preclude leadership roles or other determinations.

Turncoat said:

I'd argue it actually is curbing the behavior significantly compared to even just 20 to 30 years ago.

Sexual harassment seems be taken more seriously as of late. Especially around the time of the #MeToo stuff and onward.

Turncoat said:

I'd argue the male's a liability over their hormones overall from their increased proclivity to act without thinking, and that women shouldn't be held responsible for men's lack of self-control. If this were shoe on the other foot they'd be arguing that the one who can't keep their emotions in check shouldn't be the one on the battlefield.

I don't disagree, but I'm looking at the situation pragmatically.

Turncoat said:

This is expressed through rights like abortion, divorce, voting, and having an occupation when they otherwise "aren't as good at it as a man".

Whoa.

1) Pro-life isn't a male-only position.
2) Alimony fucks men pretty well.
3) Women have been able to vote for a while now.

Depending on the job there may be some gender discrimination. The maternal leave issue is a good point. But the playing field is getting pretty damn level. There's even more women than men in higher education now. I'm not seeing how women are made to act like men in any of this, though.

Turncoat said:

Do you have more to throw at this, or is this just more neurosexism based on outdated information?

Hey now, I've only gotten one thing factually incorrect because it was off the dome from something I read years ago. To answer the question, there's the lateralization I mentioned in this post. There was the difference in body language processing I brought up earlier. The structure of the hippocampi is sexually dimorphic, Wiki has some good info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Turncoat said:

What would you say accounts for a nagging male or a non-nagging female? I'd argue it's more E vs T.

Men can get pretty naggy even on high T-counts, they just are more monosyllabic about it and seem less capable of holding onto as much of the conversation.

Imagine this dude constantly whining about you behind your back to your co-workers:

It can be an E vs T thing, it's even the case that some high T men nag a lot. I think this behavior is generally seen as disgraceful among men, though.

Turncoat said:

What's your views on that, as I just have more E vs T to allude towards as well as more cultural modeling ranting.

What about beta incels?

Elaboration: They have the drive, just not the means. And probably lack in T.

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

As I've been going on about as is, this could just as easily be where gender dimorphism has found itself after a lengthy period of evolution steered by culturally gregarious traits as opposed to it's supposed natural state.

You can say culture shaped evolution as much as how we evolved shaped early cultures. They both played respective roles, but here we are at the consequence.

This is why I allude to the variations both from historical corpses and the broader range being expressed now to conclude that it's more likely morphic than rigid. 

Turncoat said:

How does Ancient Greece supersede the historical echoes of peer modeling?

My point was that the same gender stereotypes we have today go very far back, and also coincide with information we can get from fMRIs. It's not coincidence that women are seen as more chatty, and also that they use more words per average on day, have different lateralization in Broca's area

Couldn't it be argued that women fall on language as more of a trained thing from having culturally sat in the secondary position for this long? 

It's like when you need to wear glasses from having bad eyesight; You lose a bit of a natural sports alacrity and as a result have higher odds of taking up reading. Males as a matter of society have the privilege of not having to work as hard and, consequently, have underdeveloped areas compared to the underprivileged. It's arguably similar to "White Fragility", but from the gender side of things instead of race. 

(language processing) as well as more gray matter there.

The gray matter discussion's become an area of debate based on our being cerebral sponges, that it's accumulated through lifestyle rather than the proclivity of one's gender. The younger you look at their brain matter, the less variation it's shown between them. 

They also use significantly more areas of the brain when processing body language. Clearly women are more wired for social analysis; it's no wonder that they are more chatty.

But did they start that way or simply become it as a byproduct of gregarious steering? 

Stating differences only matters as far as how trivial the differences between the two are or aren't, and said differences otherwise don't denote the "natural" state of woman, but rather where they've ended up. 

Turncoat said:

We can literally see as aesthetics coast on music trends an increase in procreative odds for some trait clusters over others, so I'd argue that it's far from hopeless.

In a world of almost 8 billion, I don't think musicians are about to change the gene pool much.

Why not? People look towards icons to see what is and isn't desirable, and through modeling off of that you'll see those of similar trait couplings end up with more babies. 

Have you not seen douchebro with the guitar, or douchebro with the pet dog? Peer modeling demonstrates what works, what people are currently after, and natural talent will find an easier time utilizing that advantage rather than those who have to work harder to demonstrate the same worth. 

This is like saying Porn won't change the gene pool much, or that human kind hasn't been becoming taller as a result of gregarious steering. 

Turncoat said:

Yet you can see someone with a bigger horn than someone else end up pushing out more babies, much like how social trends are pushing the notion of dick size for humans (by contrast towards breast size instincts).

It's just about standing out enough to get picked.

Sure, but we still have our human parameters. For feminine attraction, that tends to be "look good, don't be fucked up in the head." Men overall are most attracted to women in their most fertile years. Women tend to be attracted to men who are established in some way. Whether with career success or in fitness, or social standing. All things that indicate someone is a capable provider. Of course there are variations, but that's the general theme. There isn't anything to indicate that these tendencies are going to be bred out of instinct.

I tend to see both genders being attracted to the same things with cultural mores being the main source of deviation, something we're seeing shift as women are more blatantly recognized as the power figures of 1st world society. 

Where before women and men needed to have different priorities over how only one of them could become pregnant, the presence of birth control is neutralizing this division and "putting the power back in their hands". Sexual liberation continues to trend as society normalizes it, as PornHub takes off further, and with it we're seeing the "understood" gender mores almost doing a 180. 

I'd say these days it's women having more sex while men complain about how it's not as easy for them as it is for women, and that with it we're seeing more domineering women and bitchier men. This shift has been outright happening in my lifetime, and as dominant women who are successful in the workforce find themselves less challenged to procreate we're liable to see gender norms shift even harder. 

Without the presence of historical culture as a backbone of justification we're seeing a lot of sexist assumptions fizzle out, and this is only the beginning. 

Turncoat said:

We aren't really most animals, our trait distribution is far more spread than what's usual for the animal kingdom. Normally if a species becomes too different from one another they cannot produce children (or if they can they come out sterile), yet humans can cross-pollinate unusually well.

Humans aren't that different from each other. Look at what dogs are able to breed with each other.

I'd actually argue that they are, at least when compared to the rest of the animal kingdom for it's variations. Dogs also possess the trait, but can you think of many others? 

It's more common to have cross-pollination be difficult. 

Turncoat said:

The bonobo is largely matriarchal, using sexual behavior as both a means of socializing and procreation. The model we see now where "women are the gatekeepers of sex" is matched with the Bonobo, even down to lesbian action that by design entices males rather than the females flocking to the 'dick fencing' males.

Humans have the capacity to be matriarchal or patriarchal. I don't think just because we have one system or another means that there's inherent oppression. I still hold that (generally) women are more suited for taking care of children and have certain innate capacities that serve as the yin to yang. But that shouldn't preclude leadership roles or other determinations.

Men seem to mature less further away from the mentality of children than women do, carrying a higher capacity for problem solving, language, and stress. Wouldn't it make sense to have women be the leaders? 

Doesn't this make their position as secondary citizens seem unnatural?

 

Turncoat said:

I'd argue the male's a liability over their hormones overall from their increased proclivity to act without thinking, and that women shouldn't be held responsible for men's lack of self-control. If this were shoe on the other foot they'd be arguing that the one who can't keep their emotions in check shouldn't be the one on the battlefield.

I don't disagree, but I'm looking at the situation pragmatically.

So am I. 

If men can't be trusted to do their jobs as soldiers, perhaps it should be women who are in the military instead of it being some sort of men only club based on outdated values. 

Turncoat said:

This is expressed through rights like abortion, divorce, voting, and having an occupation when they otherwise "aren't as good at it as a man".

Whoa.

1) Pro-life isn't a male-only position.

Ignoring fundamentalist Christian values, how is it a woman's position beyond that of ignorance? 

2) Alimony fucks men pretty well.

So we should just have the two be shackled together 'til death? 

Sign a pre-nup, we have measures for this. 

3) Women have been able to vote for a while now.

If you ask more "traditional" thinkers, they're not exactly a fan of this development. 

Depending on the job there may be some gender discrimination.

Mostly over if the boss is old fashioned or not tends to be the case, and over how much the male employees can coast on privilege. 

The maternal leave issue is a good point. But the playing field is getting pretty damn level. There's even more women than men in higher education now. I'm not seeing how women are made to act like men in any of this, though.

This is something I expect to see be more of a tipping point later in our lives. 

Turncoat said:

What would you say accounts for a nagging male or a non-nagging female? I'd argue it's more E vs T.

Men can get pretty naggy even on high T-counts, they just are more monosyllabic about it and seem less capable of holding onto as much of the conversation.

Imagine this dude constantly whining about you behind your back to your co-workers:

I've seen jocks be some of the bitchiest people, especially if surging on 'roids. They just didn't have too good of a way with words. 

It can be an E vs T thing, it's even the case that some high T men nag a lot. I think this behavior is generally seen as disgraceful among men, though.

As an aspect of culture, this is purely about normalized concepts. 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

What's your views on that, as I just have more E vs T to allude towards as well as more cultural modeling ranting.

What about beta incels?

Elaboration: They have the drive, just not the means. And probably lack in T.

Not necessarily, there are high T-incels who even pump tons of steroids out of insecurity, ascribe to NoFap, play sports and are otherwise functional in that area. 

It's about how well they do or don't handle being overstimulated, which can happen from T-overstimulation or E-overanalysis. 

Turncoat said: 

But did they start that way or simply become it as a byproduct of gregarious steering? 

Stating differences only matters as far as how trivial the differences between the two are or aren't, and said differences otherwise don't denote the "natural" state of woman, but rather where they've ended up.

What do you guys mean by "start" or "natural" anyway? Sexual differences have been around since we were simple multi-celled organisms. It's a continuous evolution.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

But did they start that way or simply become it as a byproduct of gregarious steering? 

Stating differences only matters as far as how trivial the differences between the two are or aren't, and said differences otherwise don't denote the "natural" state of woman, but rather where they've ended up.

What do you guys mean by "start" or "natural" anyway? Sexual differences have been around since we were simple multi-celled organisms. It's a continuous evolution.

The "Natural State" would be wherever point 0 is for 'Homo sapiens', where our species' behaviors truly began (which could be argued to be pre-human through bonobo and chimp arguments). It is the behavior at our truest prototype that either echoes still in the now or is completely lost. It's similar to talks of how we used to have stronger nails and sharper fangs. 

Our traits are morphic, but to the degree of how morphic seems to be where the discussion has gone. It's that he gives less credence to evolutionary changes that's become the main hang up. 

Turncoat said: 

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

But did they start that way or simply become it as a byproduct of gregarious steering? 

Stating differences only matters as far as how trivial the differences between the two are or aren't, and said differences otherwise don't denote the "natural" state of woman, but rather where they've ended up.

What do you guys mean by "start" or "natural" anyway? Sexual differences have been around since we were simple multi-celled organisms. It's a continuous evolution.

Our traits are morphic, but to the degree of how morphic seems to be where the discussion has gone. It's that he gives less credence to evolutionary changes is the main hang up. 

And there is reason to argue on both sides given one of the larger debates in evolutionary theory is that of gradualism vs Punctuated equilbrium.

Turncoat said: 

The "Natural State" would be wherever point 0 is for 'Homo sapiens', where our species' behaviors truly began (which could be argued to be pre-human through bonobo and chimp arguments). It is the behavior at our truest prototype that either echoes still in the now or is completely lost. It's similar to talks of how we used to have stronger nails and sharper fangs. 

Our traits are morphic, but to the degree of how morphic seems to be where the discussion has gone. It's that he gives less credence to evolutionary changes that's become the main hang up.

Isn't it more interesting to debate what differences still exist today? You don't need to define a "natural state" for that, just attempt to create a timeline of sexual traits or behaviors and check it for consistency.