The Manosphere delusion is that women lack empathy because of "solipsism." The first problem with that is "solipsism" is a philosophical problem, not a psychological one. The word is used incorrectly. Not a little incorrectly, but completely.
The second problem is that even if women are "solipsistic," it explains nothing. "They lack empathy because they're solipsistic." What does that even mean? Nothing. It's gobbledegook.
Women are less empathic than men because they lack imagination, and imagination is how you put yourself in someone else's place.
Adam Smith, in 1759, wrote a book called The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he suggested that imagination is what creates empathy. I have a book, The Creative Imagination, about the arguments during that time about the relationships between imagination, creativity, religion,science, art, morals and empathy. It's a big book.
Look at history. Who created everything? Men. For all practical purposes, a very small number of imaginative, creative men.
Consider Nickolai Tesla. This is what he wrote about his imagination:
“I soon discovered that my best comfort was attained if I simply went on in my vision further and further, getting new impressions all the time, and so I began to travel; of course, in my mind. Every night, (and sometimes during the day), when alone, I would start on my journeys – see new places, cities and countries; live there, meet people and make friendship and acquaintances…
"This I did constantly until I was about seventeen, when my thoughts turned seriously to invention. Then I observed to my delight that I could visualize with the greatest facility. I need no models, drawings or experiments. I could picture them all as real in my mind… I do not rush into actual work. When I get an idea, I start at once building it up in my imagination. I change the construction, make improvements and operate the device in my mind."
I understand the power of imagination. Between 12 and 14 I used to get lost in a book. It was more real than reality. At first I didn't understand why everyone wasn't like me, but I was fast disabused of that notion by encountering the stupid and unimaginative. I was shocked at that for a long time and considered them no better than Morlocks.
I do know this, though: women, except a select few (and they are outliers) have created nothing. Why? No imagination. No creativity.
Why this is so I do not know. But it's true. It's also a bit scary.
9 comments:
And men gave power to women over them.
Scary indeed.
Yes, they did.
'I do know this, though: women, except a select few (and they are outliers) have created nothing. Why? No imagination. No creativity.'
They do birth humans.
Hamsta says:
The human brain is said to develop in a few discernable phases, driven by hormones. In early childhood, the child is taking in tremendous amounts of information and forms a picture of how nature and society works by the age of maybe 6 to 8.
Then, at puberty, another hormonal stimulation to the brain sets boys and girls on their sexual course and prepares them for the the whole process of finding mates and starting families. It is thought that when boys and girls are sexually mature, then nature thinks that that is the time to reproduce. In most primitive societies, boys and girls learn all the necessary skills to be useful at the age of 13 or 14 onwards.
I have read that boys get one more big hormone kick at age 16 to 21 where the brain is stimulated to pick up the mental skills necessary for successful hunting and all the strategy, planning and goal orientation that requires. Hunting is really finding solutions to problems in nature.
In late teens, in primitive societies, boys join in on hunts and war parties etc.
This is why in some professions like mathematics and engineering that is crucial to start the heavy, complex training around the age of 16 or 17 and get it done by around 22. After, say, 24 years old, it is impossible to pick up the deep skills and competence required for highly abstract and imaginative practitioners.
The girls are given different hormonal signals and they are generally not being set up to be hunters and warriors.
It is rare to see a female bust into the highest domains of imagination and creativity since these are really the modern equivalent of hunting.
Women excel at holistic appreciation of social patterns. In business, the women that really made it were the ones who got into marketing to other women. Think Mary Kay cosmetics, Martha Stewart, Body Shop and others. When women are CEO's are large corporations it is always when the organization has a well established playbook to follow.
It is rare to see all-girl bands in companies using hard science and tech.
They do birth humans.
I agree with the sentiment, but the fact is many do not, or are careless with their fertility, "managing" it with less consideration than a nail appointment.
An otherwise average woman can affect a large change in the world and her own life by birthing and raising decent human beings if she observes and respects the importance of doing so. Unfortunately, most women (and men, for that matter) see children as either burdens or accessories, never as gifts, or as positive and productive contribution.
They've endlessly made clear what they mean by solipsism. It's arguably closer to narcissism.
You have a childish habit of arguing by pretending (?) to be too stupid and literal-minded to even identify what people are saying. It doesn't make you look as smart as you think it does. Paul Krugman does this as well, but critically, he's being paid good money to be a thick-headed clown, and you're not.
"They've endlessly made clear what they mean by solipsism. It's arguably closer to narcissism."
'“When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.” - Confucius.'
That's why I'm free and you're not. Because I know the meaning of words and you don't.
By the way, solipsism will always be a philosophical problem no matter how hard the Lost Boys of the Manosphere try to redefine the word.
'I agree with the sentiment, but the fact is many do not, or are careless with their fertility, "managing" it with less consideration than a nail appointment. '
I'm not talking about those women.
irrelevant. Men create life. you can have billions of kilometers of fertile land, nothing will grow there except that q seed is planted. we can create artificial ovum in a lab we absolutely cannot and likely never will be able to create sperm. Men are superior to women in all the ways that matter on this planet. without men there would be no human life - period
Post a Comment