Are women sexist against themselves?

Post Reply New Topic

I do follow all this. I guess I just have difficulty understanding why do people rely on the evolution so much. I mean, they have a brain to think with. Okay I see they might not have time to. But if I think of the fact that they live nearly 100 years, it seems like they have plenty of apportunities to sit down and rethink things.



Okay this gets closer to answering my question in a sense that it brings reasoning to their thinking. But still I can ask the following. So they are lazy and don't want to put effort. Fine. So why not stay around with me WITHOUT putting any effort and let whatever happend, happend. The reason why they don't do that is that they don't want to make bad impression or screw something up. But isn't the fact that they left amounts to ultimate screw-up? So if it is okay to stop talking to me altogether, why would it not be okay to be around me WITHOUT putting any effort into communication that they are too lazy to put?



So are you saying that initial stages are the hardest, because if I were to succeed to surround myself with a lot of friends, then they will eventually start doing some of the work for me?

This does help me a bit. I guess I would still wonder what about the people who just moved to another state or whatever. After all the answer to this question would help me get myself pass these first few stages.

So yah I knwo you suggested I join certain clubs that might and might not be over my head. So what about the typical person. When they just move to a new area, what would they typically do? Do they meet people in busses, in shops, in caffee, or in school?



The reason I want to talk to aspies is NOT because I dislike NT-s but simply because I would like to discuss certain things that aspies can relate more. And the difference there is huge. For example, I am talking to a physics professors as opposed to biology prof because physics professors can relate better to my ph.d. project. But that doesn't mean I dislike or avoid non-physicists, for one thing I can't think of any physicist here in wrongplanet, but like you pointed out I joined it, lol.



The point is that I am very conscious of my logical processes and I can justify every step. I didn't have problem with other religions untill I became Christian and decided to follow what bible says. Furthermore, I am aware of all the problems that I face if I am a Christian, not the least of these is the question that it is unfair that people who never heard of Jesus are going to hell. The reason I am still a Christian is mainly fear because I am scared that *IF* christianity is right I would go to hell if I didn't believe in it. And again this is logical, before my conversion I compared hells in different religions and Christian hell is the worst one.

So, the bottom line is that if someone will ask me why don't I "test my assumptions" regarding my beliefs, the answer is that I am afraid of hell. *BUT* if I ask similar question as to why don't people "test their assumptions" regarding their evaluation of me, they won't be able to say that they would go to hell for doing that. So my ultimate question is what are they afraid of? What do they have to lose?



But for the most part they don't talk about history, they talk about daily news. If I am wrong (which I might be since I don't talk to people) please let me know since this would actually be helpful to find a history-based audience.



Well I don't need an excuse because like I said I didn't see people talk much about history anyway other than in school. The ultimate question though is to find something I CAN talk about in order to begin a conversation.



Well as far as war in Iraq, I feel that it was a mistake that Bush overfocused on Iraq while ignoring Iran and North Korea. If the latter two countries didn't exist and Iraq was the only problem in teh world then I would take a pro-war stance and say that however small the threat could have been, it is better to be safe. But in light of other world problems, it just seems to be a mistake. As far as execution goes, I got a sense that it was a little bit too hasty, in light of the fact that a lot of controversies surrounding the issue weren't resolved yet. I mean it is never too late to execute someone, but once it is done it is irreverseable.

Anyway, as you can see these are just general words. Plus I simply heard different opinions on the issue and I evaluated them based on logic (as opposed to any kind of knowledge) and chose my own opinion out of the options I have heard. But there is nothing there that I can strictly speaking "contribute" since I don't nkow much about the subject. I am only agreeing with some people over others.



Yah exactly. And that is also true in NT verses aspie. NT-s can be very precise when there is PRACTICAL need for it, while aspies are precise for the sake of being precise. So this pretty much makes a case that Jews are more of an aspie than Egyptians are.



I think there is nothing wrong with medicalizing personality types. After all, a statement that personality types are milder versions of mental illnesses is logically equivalent to saying that mental illnesses are merely stronger forms of personality types. But, despite the logical equivalence, teh former statement implies that mental illness is everywhere while the latter implies that there is no such thing as mental illness at all. So what it boils down is that the ultimate insight is that there is ONE underlying phenomenon and the only question is how would we call it (mental illness or personality type). As a physicist, I love the idea of one underlying phenomenon (it lines up with trying to unify physics to find only one physics law whose consequences are all teh other laws that we know) so that is the motivation that I have for sticking with these mental illness theories of personality.



You said they multiplied like rabbits as an evidence for intermarriage. So I responded that tehre is a way to multiply like rabbits without it, namely thruogh having many kids with the same wife.



Well for one thing a lot of endings are similar. I don't know either language so I might be wrong, but I believe that common German endings like "berg" are shared with Hebrew. Also, some of the words are the same. For instance Jews call their passover a "seider", where "sei" means feast and "der" means day. Now, in German "der" also means day. But once again I mgiht be wrong since I don't know these languages but at least from what I been told these might be similarities. My grandmother picked up on basic German at some point in her life because of her knowledge of Hebrew.



We don't know one way or the other but this is definitely a possibility that he talked about both. After all, in book of Acts they did go to non-Jewish countries even though Jesus told them NOT to go anywhere other than Israel. The way to reconcile it is to say that people at these otehr countries they went to really ARE from Israel. I guess this goes against standard Christian interpretation that says that the statement of not going outside Israel only applies to the times untill Christ's death while later the gentiles were "grafted in" through his blood. But still one has to notice the fact that in Acts, which happened AFTER christ's death, there was at least one passage where they did NOT go to a certain region because holy spirit told them not to. So this seems to suggest that perhaps, as Paul said, it was "to the Jew first and also to the Greek" which would mean that they didn't exclude anyone from salvation but at the same time their choice of places was based on the prevalence of lost tribes of Israel in these countries.



What about having open communication ON ALL SIDES. That way on teh one hand people will know that some races are more gifted than others, and on the other hand they will have CONCLUSIVE PROOF why they should NOT act on it. If you say that we were living for centuries and this didn't work, what do you mean it didn't work if no one ever tried it? Nazi Germany is not a good example of free speech. Yes, they obviously had free speech for the Nazi point of view, but all other points of view were shunned. Furthermore, in terms of history, there definitely wasn't any free speech untill the Reformation, which leaves us with only three centuries to look at. And now that we look at these three centuries it is easy to see how a handful of dictators at handful of places basically "covered" most of them, too. The only difference is that it was no longer globally organized like Spanish Inquisition. The only century where free speach was actually tried is 20-th century. So lets ask ourselves whether or not the free speech in 20th century resulted in any kind of massacre. The way to answer this question is to take all teh bad guys from 20 century and cross out the ones that did NOT have free speach in their countries. So Hitler and Stalin and others are going to be crossed out, and the clear answer will become that free speech leads to NO violence at all. So why not try it?



I would explain it by saying that Jews are more autistic than others and therefore they were so obsessed about their rules (like ritual hand washing) that this simple thing was enough for them to reject Jesus.



I guess my feeling is that in medieval Europe they DID talk about Jews killing Jesus, but NOT about Jesus being "one of tehir own". After all, when Jews converted to Christianity at some point they were forced to publically denounce Judaism and eat pork. So if their deal was that it is weird that Jews don't believe in Jesus despite Jesus being their own, they would of done just the opposite with the converts: they would of encouraged them to be faithful to their Jewish traditions in order to bring Jesus and Jewishness back together and thus make it less "weird". But that isn't what they done; on the contrary converts to Christianity who continued to practice Judaism were killed as heretics during Inquisition. So this means that the whole concept of Jewishness of Jesus was a moot point, which makes the "weirdness" of Jews rejecting their own also a moot point.

Well yes they probably seen that Jesus was Jewish from the bible, but the point is that they also seen bible talking about Jews being "cut off" and gentiles being "grafted in" so this basically drew a line that said that Jewishness of Jesus is only applicable to the Jews living untill his time as opposed to the Jews living after his time. Think of divorced couple. After a divorce the fact that htey used to be a couple isn't relevent any more.



How about the time prior to 2001 when I weren't desperate YET. Back then I didn't even want to have any friends because I wanted to focus on studies. But still I weren't judging people. I didn't have a concept of deciding NOT to talk to someone for the rest of my life because of the mistake THEY made. Well sure I was avoiding ppl because I had to focus on physics, but that was about me, not them. The fact is that I don't remember ever judging someone else for their differences.



Okay, I begin to suspect that might be simply not knowledgeable. I thought that being goths is a particular religion, but in this case it isn't compatible with what you said that "great many of them are atheists". So can you tell me more about goths? If it is true that a lot of them are atheists as opposed to pagans, then I won't have so much problem with them.



Like I pointed out earlier, with me and Christianity I have a "logical" reason not to test my assumption, namely fear of hell. But at the same time NT-s who reject aspies do NOT think that they would go to hell if they were more open minded in this way, they simply say that I am "creepy" and thats it.

I guess it is all relative and depends on where you draw the line. In my case the line is drawn in such a way that most ppl are extroverted since I can't keep up with them.



I guess they don't look feminite enough.



I guess the bottom line is that I don't see an evidence of her self contempt. She is very sociable person with a lot of friends, she is very likeable and polite to everyone -- much mroe than most ppl. And this isn't an attempt to pretend or cover self contempt either, because she genuinely DOES like the people in her circle with whom she has things in common. And her circle doesn't live in slams either, for one thing she knows a lot of professors and stuff.



I can. But the question is do I really want to, I mean this would just made me come across as self absorbed and obsessive. So when I am saying I don't know how to hold a conversation, I am implicitely rulling out all the "inappropriate" things, such as the conversation I am having on message boards.



What I meant is taht when you play ball, it is all about WHEN you hit it and if you accidnetally missed it then you lose. So when you said "Because you've already smacked them upside the head with the unpleasant truth, lol. Too late" thats how it sounded. And this makes it silly that people judge you based on how good are you in playing game of ball with words instead of trying to look at the substance.

There was this girl who I worked with and she was really upset about how one of the female managers was treating her. That manager was nice to me. I was pretty mad about it. That girl could have sued for a couple thousand dollars because she was being kept past the legal time for minors to work in Wyoming, and I think she should have.

When they expect themselves to look like Barbie Dolls.

If they had to sit back and evaluate every single tiny thing from scratch, they wouldn't have time to do anything else, hence the reliance on cognitive heuristics, the shortcuts that stereotyping provides. You rely on cognitive heuristics yourself, it's not like you're innocent, either. For example, consider your reaction to paganism. 'Ick, it's THOSE people.' lol



Again, you're underestimating the strength of the line that an outsider crosses. They don't CARE whether they make a bad first impression on an outsider or otherwise "screw something up". It's an outsider, it's not like s/he's going to be able to do anything about it, so who cares?

Let me put this another way. Suppose you play football, and you're hanging out with your jock friends. A random gamer nerd wanders by, D&D books under his arm. Do you honestly give a s**t what he thinks? Do you see any point or purpose in his existence other than to give you and your friends someone to feel superior to? No.

If you are out with your buddies... a group of random goths, pagans, and other night dwellers... and some random jock wanders by, do you honestly give a s**t what he thinks? Do you see any point or purpose in his existence other than giving you and those like you someone to feel superior to? No.

If you're a button-down tightass Type A personality businessman type and you see a random goth wander by, do you honestly give a s**t what he thinks? Do you see any point or purpose in his existence other than giving you and those like you someone to feel superior to? No.

I think that a good 50% of our socialization is learning not to act on the automatic derogatory thoughts we have when dealing with outsiders... learning to ignore them or let them pass peacefully rather than verbally abusing them or taking a swing at them. THAT'S how strong the impulse is.



They tend to gravitate to people who are like themselves, mainly.



Exactly, you have a hard time relating to outsiders... to people vastly different than yourself. What I'm saying is this... everyone does.



You're being herded by fear tactics into believing a bunch of alarmist crap that you have no evidence of whatsoever, and you call this logical thinking? I can't think of anything more illogical than this, particularly when you consider that most of the Bible is little more than thinly-veiled attempts at social control.

Let's sum up the overall message, shall we?

Religious official - "Do what I say, or go to Hell. Oh, and see if you can bring me some more suckers that I can scare into doing the same thing. Thanks."

Give me a break.



They're not afraid of anything, the fact is that people find outsiders ANNOYING, and they consider it a task of monumental self-restraint to not actively start hassling you over it right there.



History mostly functions in daily conversation by providing a shared frame of reference. For example, some people are comparing the current conflict in Iraq to the Vietnam War. Without a passing knowledge of the Vietnam War, the comparison would be meaningless to you.



So what is stopping you from talking about it in rl?



I despise this trend towards medicalization of personality myself, and consider it quite possibly the worst thing that's happened in the mental health industry for decades.

It makes the focus less about teaching people coping skills, how to better get along with others, etc. and turns into shoving as many pills and controversial treatments at them as one possibly can. It takes the responsibility off parents who are raising their children incorrectly, or have incorrect expectations of children. It takes the responsibility for one's own life off of adults. It gives them something else to blame for their problems, and only serves to help them pop pills while rationalizing their failures rather than doing something constructive to better their situation. This doesn't help anyone in the final analysis, except for perhaps the profit margin of pharmaceutical companies.

I'm going to be brutally honest here... when I look out at these boards, I see a lot that saddens me a great deal. There's WAAAAY too much whining, rationalizing, and playing the blame game with this or that disorder, one's parents, the people around you, etc. and not nearly enough efforts at constructive personal change.



Um... no, I never said they intermarried. I said they multiplied like rabbits, which they did. A couple having a dozen kids is still multiplying like rabbits lol.



That's because they see you as an outsider... as someone who is not like themselves, as someone who socially "just doesn't get it".

Last edited by Hazelwudi on 20 Jan 2007, 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is going to sound like a strange question, but it's something I've noticed with aspies... do you make an honest effort to keep up with the flow of conversation, or do you just zone out into your own little world and then be seemingly amazed that you can't keep up with the flow of conversation?





I'm not meaning the ones that look mannish, I mean the ones who look like women but who still don't take s**t off people and don't hesitate to speak their minds lol.





Self-CONCEPT, not self-contempt. How you see yourself, not how much you dislike yourself. These can be very different things. lol