Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possibly Useful
#11
(01-10-2019, 07:42 AM)Richard_39 Wrote: I think books are only as good as the use you make of them. Some are good, some are bad, but you can't really interact with a book (well some you can...whatever lol). I like books as impartial sources of knowledge, but when trying to make sense of human nature, I've always found it more useful just to interact. Because were all different and while you may "know" how someone can be, or talk or act, our individuality makes it a myriad of interpretations.

See, we differ on that particular opinion. I don't think men are integrally different than women; I think they're exactly both the same, in the sense that people want to hear only what they want to hear. Long ago, when women finally obtained the right to work and started climbing to the top, it was hailed as what would be a revolution in workplaces. Now, almost 70 years latter, what happened? Well, most high-powered women just act like the men that were so criticized. Make the same types of decisions. Can be just as businesslike or uncaring. Im no sociologist, but I havent seen much revolution. Divorce rates are at a historical high, but women have more freedom than ever, so I do believe its logical to assume there's a correlation. Behavior is very similar to the "career men" of the 50s and 60s. Social problems have also risen, burn outs, stresses, etc. Women affected as much as men, probably more so in those trying to balance need for a family AND career, which unless you're particularly lucky, is a Herculean task...

All that to say, perhaps women and men do communicate differently, but it boils down to the same; people hear only what they want to and dont go the extra step necessary to understand the actual individual in front of them. Fall back defense mechanism include "You're a man, you can't understand" as much as "women don't care about anything except what they want". Very similar, I feel. Because people want to talk to each other, but don't really listen and expect only what they want.


Well, a famous philosopher and author was frequently interviewed, quite often by persons that were somewhat
suspicious or even hostile to her ideas.

She would often begin a response by simply saying, "Before I reply, let's define our terms"

And she would then go on to explain in detail how she was using a word,  exactly the meaning when she used it.
She would challenge her interviewer or opponent to do the same, and if 
common ground could be found, then a conversation could proceed.

If not, not.

I do not view books as flawless, but what they can be are compilations of many scientifically collected samples of what you
say you prefer, in person interaction to arrive at understanding and truth.

The difficulty with your approach is that your method is highly unlikely to be objective or to contain a very large
sample.  This isn't adequate for the purpose.   

,.,.,.
,
,
Reply
#12
Well, there are of course other ideas.
One is that simple economics solves population problems. When couples can't afford a baby, they don't have one.
This lead to a problem in Japan.   There is such a huge population of retired there are not enough working people
to pay the pensions or other government expenses.   This of course is also happening in America.
And of course the old hit parade can solve this:  famine, war, disease, poverty.
As you must know, there have been ideas put forth to help at least reduce population if not
find a way to only allow certain people to breed.
For example, the United States sent millions of condoms to India, to give away for free.
Unfortunately, no one bothered to find out what the average size of a man's penis is in India.
The condoms were so big, they simply fell off. Useless.
Millions of condoms were sent to somewhere I can't recall.  Maybe the phillipines, during the Reagan 
administration, to help reduce poverty and starvation and unemployment.  Predictably, these some of these
free condoms wound up in the hands of prostitutes. When the moral majority found out, of course all 
condom shipments stopped.  So, I think a reasonable guess would be that a pretty fair number of people
died from AIDS, syphyllis, etc.    But that is okay, because by not using condoms, their souls went to heaven
and voted republican!
Eugenics was actually actively practiced in the U.S. in some states for some years.  
It's an idea as old as Plato.
And of course the NAZI experiment, based on little or no actual science but nonetheless with the
idea of actually improving the entire human race.  Bad methods, I'd say obviously.
Bad filters?  That also.
But a bad goal?   No, I'm afraid you can't build a case for that at all.
Perhaps only nature can create better parents.  
I once called in to a radio program, the topic was why local schools performed so badly.
I said the root cause is that we allow just any moron to have kids.
The guy said I was a nut and hung up on me.
The very next call was a high school teacher and she ripped him a new backside, telling him
that I was exactly right, that 99 percent of the parents in this area are not only not
raising their children right, they don't want to and could not do so if they did want to.
Interesting little factoid: for many years, perhaps still, this region has spent more money
per student than anywhere else in America,   producing the lowest test scores in America, year 
after year.
Reply
#13
(01-10-2019, 07:53 AM)bearcat22 Wrote:
(01-10-2019, 07:42 AM)Richard_39 Wrote: I think books are only as good as the use you make of them. Some are good, some are bad, but you can't really interact with a book (well some you can...whatever lol). I like books as impartial sources of knowledge, but when trying to make sense of human nature, I've always found it more useful just to interact. Because were all different and while you may "know" how someone can be, or talk or act, our individuality makes it a myriad of interpretations.

See, we differ on that particular opinion. I don't think men are integrally different than women; I think they're exactly both the same, in the sense that people want to hear only what they want to hear. Long ago, when women finally obtained the right to work and started climbing to the top, it was hailed as what would be a revolution in workplaces. Now, almost 70 years latter, what happened? Well, most high-powered women just act like the men that were so criticized. Make the same types of decisions. Can be just as businesslike or uncaring. Im no sociologist, but I havent seen much revolution. Divorce rates are at a historical high, but women have more freedom than ever, so I do believe its logical to assume there's a correlation. Behavior is very similar to the "career men" of the 50s and 60s. Social problems have also risen, burn outs, stresses, etc. Women affected as much as men, probably more so in those trying to balance need for a family AND career, which unless you're particularly lucky, is a Herculean task...

All that to say, perhaps women and men do communicate differently, but it boils down to the same; people hear only what they want to and dont go the extra step necessary to understand the actual individual in front of them. Fall back defense mechanism include "You're a man, you can't understand" as much as "women don't care about anything except what they want". Very similar, I feel. Because people want to talk to each other, but don't really listen and expect only what they want.


Well, a famous philosopher and author was frequently interviewed, quite often by persons that were somewhat
suspicious or even hostile to her ideas.

She would often begin a response by simply saying, "Before I reply, let's define our terms"

And she would then go on to explain in detail how she was using a word,  exactly the meaning when she used it.
She would challenge her interviewer or opponent to do the same, and if 
common ground could be found, then a conversation could proceed.

If not, not.

I do not view books as flawless, but what they can be are compilations of many scientifically collected samples of what you
say you prefer, in person interaction to arrive at understanding and truth.

The difficulty with your approach is that your method is highly unlikely to be objective or to contain a very large
sample.  This isn't adequate for the purpose.   

,.,.,.
,
,
Lol True. Doesnt really need to, though. I just need that insight on the person in front of me. Unless maybe its a public speech or something, but Im not really trying to understand the world as much as just that person in front of me. So its easier, to me at least, to just read the cues rather than guess according to what I've read that may or may not apply.
Ironically, I prefer movies over books.
"Some people read War and Peace and come off thinking its a simple adventure story. Others read the ingredients of a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe"
- Lex Luthor, interpreted by Gene Hackman (the best and only Lex lol)
Reply
#14
[quote pid='891355' dateline='1547072939']
"Some people read War and Peace and come off thinking its a simple adventure story. Others read the ingredients of a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe"
- Lex Luthor, interpreted by Gene Hackman (the best and only Lex lol)
[/quote]


I share your strong feelings.  For me, several movie characters can and only ever will be one specific actor.
Doesn't matter my favorite, but for me there is only one James Bond.  
The rest they could have just given different numbers.  009, not 007, for example.

It's discouraging how few books make a good transition to film.
There is a fairly famous book called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
I think I remember reading that once the book sold well, Hollywood got very interested in it with
Robert Redford in the lead. 

The author and Redford met briefly in person, and Redford said something the author 
found strange.  "You'll be able to come on set, of course.  But you won't be able to control anything,
and I have to tell you, you probably won't like what they do to your book"

The movie never got made. I think a short and horrible TV series was tried.

There is a novel in limbo.  I think the rights to make it into a movie have changed hands
half a dozen times.  It's a classic Science Fiction adventure, with a very solid story.
It's called " The Stars My Destination" and would be packed with action, drama, mystery and even some romance and humor.
Nowhere can I find out exactly WHY it stays locked up and dead.
,
,
,
Reply
#15
(01-10-2019, 07:43 AM)bearcat22 Wrote: Unfortunately although Warren Farrell is quite a good writer, he is not what I would call 
an excellent public speaker.  As an example of such, I'd offer up the style of, say, Anthony Robbins as coming across powerfully.

This is bad because his points so badly need to be made emphatically and widely.
There is a flood of Anti Male propaganda, and there needs to be balance.

I also feel that most of his books are overdue for serious updating and reprinting.

The strongest voices now come from MGTOW on YouTube.

You might be able to find the free PDF file "If men have all the power, why do the women make the rules" online

For perspective, I watched a video of Anthony "Tony" Robbins and I have to say I disagree based on what makes an excellent public speaker. I'd say it often runs counter to being a genuine person. Farrell might not be a "powerful" speaker in his softspokeness but he comes across as more sincere and also non-confrontational to me while the most "effective" speakers are often riding a thin line between being effective and being a hack. Since most of Farrell's books are one or two decades old by now, I do agree on the necessary updating though. One point of criticism I have is that Farrell can be a bit too spiritual for my taste.

I'm familiar with MGTOW but I'm interested in whether you have specific people to name when it comes to the point of MGTOW being the strongest voices - unless you just meant collectively. A point would might disagree on either way, because the "golden age" has been over for a while and the average person is too prone to hyperbole, heavy emotional investment and a rather combative rhetoric. None of which is useful when faced with accusations of just being "angry".

I hadn't heard the author Jack Kammer before but it seems somewhat interesting, so I might give it read. Thanks for the mention.
Sometimes I wake up in the morning and I go...
[Image: d8mV4rP.gif]
Reply
#16
Relationships?????

Really?????
Reply
#17
What are your thoughts, Puddled Duck? lol
Want to talk?  Check out the CHAT ROOM 

[Image: Quotefancy-19173-3840x2160.jpg?resize=1165%2C655&ssl=1]
Reply
#18
(01-11-2019, 04:06 AM)TheRealCallie Wrote: What are your thoughts, Puddled Duck? lol

Relationships????

Do what the fuck you want to do?.

Has no meaning.

Marriage, well that’s different matter, you’ll get married in church, most likely, well then?.
Reply
#19
of the last 7 weddings I have been to, exactly none of them have been in a church. Why would it be the most likely option?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Think of me long enough to make a memory
Reply
#20
(01-11-2019, 04:15 AM)nibbysaurus Wrote: of the last 7 weddings I have been to, exactly none of them have been in a church. Why would it be the most likely option?

Well it’s legal, marry, divorce, split the assets, other than that, nothing stops you.

Other than that, nothing stops you. You might as well go for ‘common law’.

Why do that?.

Teaching you that principle has cost me say £100,000.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I'm still unable to believe that any girl wuld possibly want me el Jay 13 4,556 04-25-2014, 08:43 AM
Last Post: Outcast
  Possibly shallow. Any way to fix that? neo651 13 2,040 12-25-2011, 03:17 AM
Last Post: Lonesome Crow

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)