h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Who can understand what makes anyone tick! Have been nuked too many times to take life too seriously any more and am having way more fun!"

People are known to show their feelings more in order to gain the sort of attention they want (can't think of the word for that). I have been guilty of that myself; then because I was living with somebody who had a quick abusive temper, and as me crying calmed him down straight away, I found myself getting upset quicker. I never faked it, but tears came easier as I became weaker. That's all over and done with now though.

It is important to try and think why people may be acting in a certain way, either by figuring it out for yourself or asking, as you find yourself getting less upset and angry by people's actions because you understand the reasoning behind it (even if it doesn't always make sense!)

A latin maxim I found and now have on my mobile:
Nosce te ipsum - Know thyself

Understanding your own emotions makes it a lot easier to understand others, men or women. (still find men more confusing though!

-Q

Wold.
I have a suspicion, and only that, that partners believe it would be altruistic to expose ones feelings to them. At the risk of rationalising my own personaity traits (Allport, Jung etc.)I do not believe this to be the case. I am a firm believer in Goffman's dramaturgical theory of personality\behaviour and I doubt if one does any favours by pretending to reveal a core self which probably does not exist. Possibly it is altruistic to be 'authentic'. I would be interested to hear Marduk's view on this.
I have never been able to resolve the determinism v free will conflict, being a determinist by conviction but choosing (?) to live as if I had free will. (See the H2G2 thread 'determinism v free will'). Given free will, and it has taken me some time to untangle this position in my own head, then we may choose to act in the best interests of another to our own detriment. What those 'best interests' are, however, is a value judgement that depends either upon our own attitudes or our inclination to defer to group ideals; not upon the perception of the object of altruism. Like 'morality', it is debatable how useful the concept of altruism is in arriving at an acceptable code of personal behaviour. In a deterministic universe the whole question is completely meaningless.

These time zone differences are annoying I leave to go to sleep at a decent hour, and I come back after waking up to find that I missed a juicy conversation.

I'd like to add in my two bits here (I think I've added in enough small change into this conversation buy at least a large cappuccino, if not a meal).

First, I can't recall who said it, but regarding men who only want to talk and not listen, or who only want to problem solve, but not "just" listen, or who only want to talk when something is wrong... that is one of those gender based sweeping generalizations that you'll find is not correct nearly as often as you might think. It is true that many men do not like talking about their feelings, especially military men. Showing feelings is a sign of weakness, so the old myth goes, and men do not like showing they are weak. Some men do not believe it is a weakness, though. I, being a 21 year old male, can attest to that, because I have for several years felt that one of my strengths is that I am able to sit down with anyone and discuss any issue we might have and work it out.

A lot of people - not just men - have difficulty just listening. People try to be "empathetic", and interupt the talker by saying "Oh, yes, that happened to me", and proceed to tell their experience in detail, turning it in to a conversation about them, the listener. The best way a person can empathise is to say, "I know exactly how you feel. Something similar happened to me. We can talk about it later if you want."

Men do like to solve problems, more than women, I think. There is something innate in men that makes them want to find out how things work and to make them work. But I don't think that it's a problem solving issue that makes men worse listeners (in general) than women. I'll get to that in a minute.

There is an inherent difficulty that arises when men and women try to "understand" each other. Men and women think differently. And I don't care how masculine a woman is, or how femimine a man is, they will still think differently. It's a result of how the hormones react in the brain. And there are general tendencies that spring from that. Women tend to think more circularly, men more linearly. Women tend to be better at looking at the big picture, and working out problems over the long run, and men tend to be better at handling immediate crises. And because of that difference, we can never REALLY understand what exactly the other speci... I mean gender is thinking. Most things are general, for men and women, and those concepts and motivations you can understand. But I could no more understand what a woman thinks and why than I could understand what it's like to walk around with breasts. And it's the same for women (only opposite...)

That, I believe, is what causes men to be worse listeners than women. Men are very simple creatures, and women are far more complex. Misunderstandings occur because men assume women to be just as simple as they are, whereas women tend to think men are just as complex. Barring all of the deceptions, when a man is feeling something, he will usually either (a) hide it, because it's not manly, or (b) say it straight out. When a woman is feeling something, she will either (a) say it straight out, or (b) try to hint at it. There is a study done by Alice Eagly (1987) that showed that women, across the world, are more adept at using and interpreting nonverbal communication - ie, body language. So you can see how that would make women more complex - they say things subtly, that often men don't pick up, but other women do.

So getting back to my original point, men can also be good listeners, and you shouldn't say that men in general aren't. The issue of not listening isn't gender specific - only the issue of really picking up on each other's feelings.

-Marduk

IPercy, I think altruism (like any concept, I suppose), requires a good solid definition. The standard definition of altruism is generally a regards for others as a principle of action. Ie, you act in a way that benefits others, solely because it benefits others, with no ulterior motive. So I would suggest that in no way is telling someone else your feelings or emotions, however authentic they are, altruistic. Why? Because whenever you do so, you are not doing it to benefit the other person - you are doing it to benefit you, or your relationship. But before this goes any further I must ask - is that a bad thing? We view altruism as "good" (which I believe it is; it's hard ot say that doing things for other people, with no thought of reward, isn't good), and because we as humans very frequently view concepts as dichotomies (good/bad, big/small, black/white, up/down) we think of non-altruistic as bad. But why is it bad? Is there anything wrong with trying to improve your relationship? Or trying to benefit yourself, even? I don't think there is.

As much as when we talk about our feelings, it is for ourselves, it is not "selfish" in the negative connotation. We, as people, are highly social animals. But, at the same time, we are all individuals, in more profound way than any other creature. We need to put our own health and well being above anything else, because if we as individuals are not healthy, either mentally or physically (mainly mentally), how are we to help others (which is the highest level of social interaction)? If I am having a bad day, and I start telling my girlfriend about it, she is helping me by listening, and I am helping me by talking. But then tomorrow, when she has a bad day, I listen to her. And it goes back and forth. No single interaction has to be equal - they tend to even themselves out. Interdependence is part of living in society. We need to be able to depend on other people.

And as far as trying to better our relationship - that's not altruistic, because you can surely see how I would benefit! But it's definitely a good thing. As you may have gathered from the previous bit, on the selfish aspect, I tend to view people as very social animals, who really need each other. Altruism, I discussed in another thread ("what is the first language", I believe it was) is seen from an evolutionary standpoint as only helping others in order to pass on some of your own genes. By that I mean that in a species, especially with closely related members, two individuals share a lot of genes (the more closely related, the more genes they share). And it is nature's way that animals have an instinct to try to transmit their onw genes. So if an animal is uncapable of bearing children, it can pass on SOME of its genes by helping a relative - since some of the genes are shared.

That says that there is no such thing as true altruism. I do believe, however, that humans are higher than that. Humans do have the capacity for altruism. Think though...the adjectives we use to describe things, even the verbs we use to show actions - they all have a connotation behind them. Selfish, altruism, moral. Do they mean the same thing to different people? It's difficult to say exactly what they mean, because everyone views the world differently. Everyone knows what an elephant is, but can you tell me what the truth it? Or what is "good"? Why is altruism good, and selfishness bad? Are they necessarily so?

In my view, a person must try to maintain a delicate balance of helping themselves and helping others. You can't help others if you do not help yourself, but you have to be aware of others' needs, and help them if you can. Perfect example - anyone that has flown a plane will know that if the pressure in the cabin drops, little oxygen masks fall out of a little panel that pops open. What are we told to do? "Secure your own mask before assisting others". If you are dying of asphyxiation (in open space...) it is difficult to assist others, despite the fact that they may be seriously injured from having to wait for help.

As for determinism vs. free choice, my belief is a mixture of the two. I believe in a God, and I believe that this (gender non-specific) God knows everything. Yet we still have free choice. How does that work? Well, look at it this way. If God existed before the universe was created (which assumedly God did - at least, that's my belief) then God must have existed before Time, and logically exists OUT of Time. Time is measured only by the movement of molecules. If molecules do not move, time does not pass (take, for example, how nothing ages at zero degrees Kelvin - no molecular motion, no time). Before the universe was created, there were no molecules. Now that we have that understanding, take the universe as a seires of movie reels - and a chooce your own adventure book. God has all of our lives, and those of the people who came before us, and those who will come after us, all mapped out on movie reels, and God can see each frame. But God does not not have just one per person. Each person has millions and millions, each one for a possible choice that we can make. So in effect, God is not telling us what to do, but God knows all of the possibilities that we might decide. We still have free choice, though, because for us it is happening within Time.

This is a very difficult concept to understand, and I myself don't fully understand it. But the bare bones of it make sense to me, so I accept it. It may also help to htink of this example. Take your best friend. You know this person very well, right? If someone were to ask you, "I have this ice cream, do you think your best friend will want it?" You'll be able to say either "Sure, of course!" or "No, he doesn't like ice cream". You know what your friend is going to decide - and you are convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt. Your friend MIGHT choose otherwise, but he won't. Why do you say this? You know your friend SO well, you know what he'll do. It's the same, in my belief, with God. God knows us so well, that God knows what decisions we'll make, even though God does not affect them.

I hope that's what you meant by determinism vs free will

-Marduk

You have constructed a highly sophisticated and likeable rationalisation which leads you to conclusions about desirable behaviour with which I heartily concur. I respect your opinion and your articulacy. You have made a good case for there being no true altruism and then said that 'humans are higher' and have a capacity for something that you have already argued does not exist. Unfortunately your supposition that there is a god is just that. Call it faith and I will not dispute with you. The argument that God knows all paths but leaves us free to choose, aside from the gigantic assumption that there is a god, is trite and ignores the philosophical issue of cause and effect. It is also impossible to empirically disprove. Your ice-cream analogy is self defeating because if your friend has free will you do not know what he will choose. You could, if you were so inclined, calculate a probability. Even that would be based upon many unproveable assumptions.
I am aware that this may sound very critical. It is not. From your postings you seem to be a cultured and caring person and I thank you for addressing the issue and helping me to sort out my own ideas.
I was rather hoping that you would choose to pick up the issue of personality theories and behaviour.

Wow! Volume or what!

I completely agree that there are exceptions to every rule, and generalisations are often wrong (and can be dangerous).

Where they are useful is where they point out something you did not know before, or a way of thinking you have not used before. Go for the generalisation for a new insight, and then fine tune on an individual basis.

Percy - Don't worry; I do not mind criticism. I appreciate it, if it is constructive.

You're right, my belief in God is just that. It's faith. There is no empirical proof of God. As much as I believe that there are many things that support my faith, I know that none of them actually "prove" it.

The ice cream analogy was used because of how we humans think. True, having free choice, we will not "know" what our friend will chose. But have you never been certain of what someone else will do? Even though yes, you can never really know 100% what someone else will do, you can be fairly certain, due to past behaviours, and, as you said, personality. If your friend has never eaten ice cream before, and always turns it down whenever offered, you're going to be pretty sure that he'll choose not to take it. Also, if you know that he's the kind of person that doesn't like cold things, again, you'll be retty sure he won't take it. But you're right, you can never be absolutely certain.

My case ofr humans having no altruism was not exactly that. What I said (although I may have said it elsewhere, and forgotten to mention it here; if that is the case, I apologise) that it is an evolutionary argument. I do believe in evolution, but I do not agree with everything the biologists say. I do think that humans have altruism, and I think it is, as far as humans are concerned totally different from the way it is explained in animals.

I'll try to look at the issue of cause an effect in terms of behaviour and personality later. It is a good idea, and I'm glad you mentioned it. It brings up a lot of interesting possibilities (ie, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc).

Ben - I agree with you, too. Generalisations come from somewhere, they don't just start up. It's just dangerous to use them in defining other people's behaviour (ie, he did this because he's a man). I use generalisations myself. My favourite (another one for outlining what I believe is a fundamental belief between men and women's thoughts) is "Women forgive but never forget; men forget but never forgive." It's not that EVERYONE is like that. It's just a general rule - on the whole, that's how the gender behaves. Another one - women seem to love this one - is "Women grow up but never grow old, men grow old but never grow up".

I actually should probably say a word about my stance on generalisations, because I may have been giving conflicting ideas. I do believe that generalisations have some basis to them. However, I try not to use them when I am making a judgement about another person's disposition or behaviour - that is wrong, because a generalisation is just that - it's general. It cannot be used accurately to define a specific individual.

"Women forgive but never forget; men forget but never forgive."
"Women grow up but never grow old, men grow old but never grow up."

Love 'em both, love 'em both to bits.
Thanks Marduk

Use them in good health

We all(men and women)listen to what we want to hear and fail to hear what we don't want to hear.

Just a light quote while I'm digesting all that lot. It's been a busy night.

"There are girls that you trust and boys that you don't"

(George Michael)

Has anyone heard Billie Myer's 'The shark and the mermaid'? I am inclined to agree that understanding is not necessary. Liking, respect and tolerance will do - oh, and an overwhelming mutual desire to inflict physical pleasure helps a lot. (-:

Yes!

Amen to that, Percy!

*Sultandude in Kabuki Man mode (samuri warrior with superpowers but still trying to master flying) crashes headlong into the forum*

"Yo most excellent dudes and dude'ess's! Great conversation. I'm growing old but I am never going to grow up, no time, too busy partying. Must go find a party, ciao for now!

In other words the way to a man's heart is through his underpants? why didn't you say so at the beginning?

And my granny always said that it goes through the belly. Whole life living in the darkness!

When I spend evenings laughing and drinking with girl friends we conclude that men can only think with their dicks or their egos. And we roll around laughing feeling wise and superior. It isn't true of course, but it makes us feel good.

It isn't their hearts you reach via their underpants, though.

*grins lecherously*

Aha! Another obvious difference between the sexes: A man can reach a womans underpants through her brains, but a woman turns the mans brains of through his underpants....

That was what you meant Ben? You reach (Among other things.. ) a mans Brain-Off Button through his underpants?

A different question alltogether: While it is perfectly allright to use a number of words for the male sexual organ (dick for example), what is a social accepted word for the female sexual organs?