The Western White Male Personality Is Maladaptive

I am curious as to how. Being influenced by the same culture they were, I believe I too am maladaptive, and would like to figure out if there are vital abilities I am unaware of.

 

Huh? What does he mean by vital abilities?

Empathy?

Self-reflection?

Do you have a link to the original essay?

 

@Such_Saturation: I will be waiting with baited breath for profound thoughts from you.

 

oh no... not Ray too

 

Mind & Tissue

But that was all it had. That is why I'm curious about this.

 

@Hugh Johnson Help me out here.

Tissue? Meaning:
Cellular plasticity? Lies at the basis of tissue regeneration (adaptive cellular plasticity ), as well as at the origin of cancer (maladaptive gain of cellular plasticity ) and ageing ( maladaptive loss of cellular plasticity )?

And what are you looking to discuss concerning Mind:

To cope with difficulties, we use various methods that can be adaptive (that help us solve problems and do well), and maladaptive (that worsen the problem).

OR:

Personality features that are socially aversive and linked with various sorts of interpersonal difficulties and potentially destructive behaviors such as aggression, manipulation, and exploitation.

OR:
Paternal malparenting and social disorders among male offspring...this could dovetail with the above.

OR:

Maladaptive risk taking, the dark and light sides of overconfidence, anxiousness and negative affectivity in the personality and internalizing disorders, and interpersonal dependency.

Just a few suggestions here.....
I'm female and we're very adaptive...have to be, everyone's pullin' at our strings!

 

The culture was completely different in 1957. Whatever his findings were, I doubt they still obtain.

 

Thank you, @Blossom. Any excerpts from it available online?

 

The source. I mixed it up, it's Generative Energy. I thought it was Mind & Tissue. Btw, Peat said this about women being more adaptive:

Some feminists have objected to the characterization of female traits as "paedomorphic," considering it as another attempt to deny women equal social status with men. It was common for Ashley Montague's book, Natllral Superiority of 121 Women, to be condemned by "feminists" as "patronizing." Nevertheless, I think it is a mistake to argue for a kind ofbiological relativism (analogous to cultural relativism) which avoids the idea of a possible evolutionary significance in certain biological features. If a certain substance, such as progesterone, closely reflects the quality of environmental support and is intimately involved in realizing and sustaining our most characteristically human evolutionary features, I don't think we should deny its importance just because of its greater importance in women than in men. Progesterone's effects are "neotenous," in the sense of prolonging youthful traits. Women have several "neotenous" features relative to men, including a bigger ratio of brain to lean body mass, a smaller face-to-cranium ratio, differences in voice and body hair, less aggressiveness, and greater adaptability. (In spite of the people who teach assertiveness, I think high adaptability and low aggressiveness are characteristic human and primate traits, which are typical of infants, and are likely to represent our species' future.)​

I suspect it might be upbringing. I received no guidance, only abuse and shaming from adults when I was a child, I was even punished for girls making noise and whatnot. I do think that women are fools to define a strong feminist woman as a woman that can defeat men in conflict.

 

Almost certainly. There are constant efforts in this culture to make men focus, to the exclusion of all else, on seeking validation from women -- in other words, making men less adaptable by creating a monomaniacal obsession. The popular ideal of the "alpha male" is nothing more than the culture programming men to seek the high-serotonin, high-estrogen state as "desirable," which, besides enslaving men to their sexual urges, also makes them better employees.

 

@Hugh Johnson here's a comforting cyber hug and back patting for the limitations of your childhood.

I have Montague's book; that's a 1950s oldie.

He showed how
woman's physical makeup made her not only man's equal, but his superior. Also a humanist, Montagu points to the emotional and social qualities typically ascribed to and devalued in women as being key to just social life and relationships.

YOU SAID:
I think high adaptability and low aggressiveness are characteristic human and primate traits, which are typical of infants, and are likely to represent our species' future.

I'm not so sure of that. In the past women tended to balance men out. We were the peace keepers, comforters ( here we have some social/emotional qualities). If one would observe the general aggressiveness of many of today's young girls and women, one might fear for the future of the human race. Alot of teachers tell me the girl's are worse than the boys....so it's not just me noticing it.

Is it from hormones or culture? Or both?

And yes, I think feminists can throw the baby out w/ the bathwater. I grew up a tomboy w/ 5 brothers, very athletic and comfortable hangin' with the guys. My first major job, I climbed smoke stacks and tested the effluent, used tools and built/repaired equipment with ease....I'm 60 and women just didn't do those jobs then.

But I still enjoyed my femininity and its perks from the dance betw/ men and women.

Are guys becoming more effeminate, on the other hand? If you talk with many, they would say yes.

A balance of typical gender qualities is a good thing in both sexes but I believe something else is going on that's not natural.

Any ideas?

 

Ulysses, it also makes men better soldiers and cannon fodder for endless wars.

 

When discussing handwriting analysis, Mike Mandel once mentioned that girls around 13 or so often get the felon's claw. It's a handwriting marker showing guilt, it shows up in criminals, psychopaths and such. It goes away with most girls soon enough. It may just be puberty messing with their empathy. OTOH, "bad" behaviour might be a positive sign that a person has not had their spirit crushed by the school system. (See John Taylor Gatto's work on that if you are interested)

I don't think women are superior to men, that is a quote from Peat who comes from a specific perspective. Men and women have different traits and tendencies, but if I were facing Pinkerton agents or a foreign military, I would much rather have men with me. Women have their strengths, but I don't think we should discount the ability to put up a fight or take action, two things men are better at. I also find most primates terrifyingly violent.

Personally I believe you just become authentic, and follow your natural tendencies. Don't listen to the lies media and authorities tell you. We are messed up because the hormones are all over due to toxins, our social environment is pathological, and we face endless propaganda meant to control us, starting from a very young age. There is very little gendered things that need to be done, since healthy people are naturally sexualized and authentic expression should therefore lead to expression of those gendered traits in healthy ways. Forcing things seems like a bad idea, OTOH I also don't thinks transsexuality should primarily be treated by transition, but as a metabolic issue.

Authentic expression all around, and giving others space to express themselves seems like the answer. The difficulty for men is that you need to figure out a game that makes women like you. Women have a simple, if sometimes difficult, way of being attractive to men, since male sexuality is pretty simple. I was at a Radical Honesty meeting and it was almost all women. Men I actually see as often cowardly, we can't handle intimacy and being truly seen by others.

 

Sounds like Ray had been reading Lord Bertrand Russell. Chief Philosopher for the ruling class.

Selected quotes from The Impact of Science on Society:
The Impact of Science on Society by Bertrand Russell ~ No Man Regarded
On education“The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” – p41 [2] “In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called ‘co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.” “It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.” – p61 [3]
On control over opinion
“The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies.” – p57[4] “All this is not imaginary, it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.”[5]
On diet and vaccinations
“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” – p62 [6]
On selective breeding
“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton. (The Aztecs kept a domesticated alien tribe for the purposes of cannibalism. Their regime was totalitarian)” – p63 [10]

 

Stimulating thoughts/info, men.

@Hugh Johnson yes I have read Gatto's work....thoroughly. I homeschooled my son. He didn't do well in that setting and I didn't want him indoctrinated.

Sometimes I think that made it hard on him, not being part of the herd. But once in a while, he thanks me....He grew up w/out TV also. For a short time we had a small black and white for news and Red Green on PBS. Twenty some years later we still don't have one.

He's a Sous Chef now and I'm pround of him. He has a job where he provides an enjoyment for people.

@raypeatclips do you know if Russell was part of the disgusting Travistock Institute?

 

Oops!

 

I think men are becoming less masculine, by definition if nothing else, since androgen levels have dropped globally, and most of all in the west.

This doesn't necessarily mean they're becoming "more feminine", which entails something else.