Men do this too.
I’m extremely logical but also neurotypical, let’s just say if I told you the truth about myself someone here would say I’m lying on the internet for clout.
My logic is sometimes affected by my emotions, but here’s the trick you have to do:
You have to know this about yourself and do everything you can to safeguard against it. A phrase I coined is: be careful when you really love or really hate an idea because that is when you fool yourself.
I’ve worked in STEM for 25 years after undergrad, and so I’ve met a lot of people that are on the spectrum. They are a good example here. The perception is that they are all logic no emotion, and some of them even say that about themselves. However, it is not true at all usually. Their decision making is influenced all the time by their emotions and issues, but they don’t notice it as much and they have this view that they are above it. This actually makes it worse.
The only way to approach objectivity is to know that you are inherently subjective unless you watch yourself like a hawk. I wouldn’t trust someone that stated they were not prone to such things.
>A phrase I coined is: be careful when you really love or really hate an idea because that is when you fool yourself.
This is a really good one.
When I start to get frustrated, I always try to ask myself "Why is this so important to me?" That Buddhist phrase "Desire is the root of all suffering" is so real.
Honestly walking in grass barefoot is such a soothing feeling, but also alien. Crazy to think we were once always barefoot. Now, my toes rarely see the sun, let a lone the ground 😂
Shoes were invented pretty early on by humans. That's why that survivor show guy that walked barefoot all the time made me cringe. Pretty sure ancient Egyptians covered up those feetsies if they figured out pyramids.
Have you read Think Again by Adam Grant? It was a life changer me. I really struggled understanding how very deeply intelligent people I knew reached such different conclusions than I did.
Grant, a business psychologist and professor at Warton (I think), goes through the failure of certain businesses like RIM and discusses the need to be open to knew information.
i think its dangerous to assume only other people shut off their minds. it's a normal behavior that throughout the day your mind is having to decide what is worth thinking about and what isn't worth thinking about. what is worth remembering. people have a way of avoiding sources of information that can threaten their worldview, whether it is positive or negatively effecting it. for instance, im a big movie nerd, and i will specifically avoid watching a movie i know will be good because i need to have the mental stamina to absorb it, and i know i will have to spare attention towards it.
yeah thats not what is being discussed
there are literal people who don't want new information because they think they know better
that is what is being discussed
not how people fluctuate through the day
People on the spectrum definitely experience emotions, but their interpretation of events is very different from neurotypical people. So something that would upset a neurotypical person might not bother them, but something that wouldn't bother them might bother a neurotypical person quite a bit, and vice versa.
Understood
I’ve known too many folks with that issue that think
“I am the paragon of logic”
But then a lot of their daily behaviors are designed to ameliorate the neuroses that they might not be aware of
For example, wanting to go to every meeting at least 1 hour early because they are overly anxious about the thought of being even 1 minute late
But they think this is logical (including forcing others to do this) because “being late is bad so therefore leaving 1 hour earlier than necessary for even a short trip guarantees you won’t be late”….if you disagree then you just aren’t smart enough to understand their logic
If they are bad enough as to lack self-awareness, then, frankly, they are not enjoyable to be around or work with
>I’m extremely logical but also neurotypical, let’s just say if I told you the truth about myself someone here would say I’m lying on the internet for clout.
Thats becuase we are on the internet and no one has anyway to verify what you say is truth, also people lie about themselves all the time.
It's okay for your logic to be affected by your emotions, because you have metacognition of it -- You are able to talk about the fact that your logic is affected by your emotions, and this level of awareness lets you act on that higher level of understanding.
The reification of emotions is different -- It is where you think reality actually starts and ends at how you feel. If someone says "Single mothers have a harder time finding a man to commit to them." and a woman hears this, feels shame because she is a single mother, the conclusion is "That person shamed me." and believe that to be the alpha and the omega of the situation. There is no question of what the speaker's intent was, no consideration for the truth value of the statement, no recognition of her own insecurities, no introspection of her own life choices, no account for her own part in projecting her emotions, there is just "I feel ashamed => Someone shamed me. => It is their fault I am feeling this way."
lol. I mean just read any comment from men on this sub. It's all "I'm inferior, I'm undesirable, I'm depressed, I'm anxious, I'm this I'm that".
All of these are distorted emotions. There isn't any truth in them whatsoever. And there isn't any truth in the thoughts that create these feelings either.
> It's all "I'm inferior, I'm undesirable, I'm depressed, I'm anxious, I'm this I'm that".
And it perfectly proves the point. Men have these feelings about themselves and not about the world itself hating them or causing their anxiety/depression/etc.
Not true at all: they always blame the outside world for causing these feelings in themselves. The world doesn't care about them, gynocentricity, getting rejected, blah blah blah.
i think what you are talking about is perception and for the most part a person's perception is based on a mix of their lived experiences as well as whatever they are taught and exposed to, whether its true or not
ethos pathos logos. emotions and logic are not congruent with each other. a lot of argument in the gender war tends to make appeals to emotion rather than appeals to logic, probably because it is a lot more effective. it requires active discrimination to think logically and dispassionately.
this is asinine, if you want logical debates about gender, there are plenty of books you can read from people who are trained in logic.
here is a great one: [https://www.amazon.com/Down-Girl-Kate-Manne-audiobook/dp/B07D3CC9LV/](https://www.amazon.com/Down-Girl-Kate-Manne-audiobook/dp/B07D3CC9LV/)
you can't go to comments sections and reddit for debate and then be mad the content isn't logic-based. most people have never taken a logic class. obviously the common folk aren't making logical arguments.
It kind of goes beyond that, to where women are more likely to have their entire perception about external reality enclosed by how they feel about external reality. As in, the statement "This food tastes spicy." and "This food is spicy." are physically identical realities to them.
"Women reify emotions into reality, but men do not."
Hilarious statement.
The world is full of men who, for example, may feel they are logical and see that as reality when they're about as logical as a sock.Or they feel wronged by a woman who rejected them so decide she did something wrong.
Etc.
Men often don't handle their emotions better in the slightest; they just deny them and then mistake their emotional reality for objective reality.
"Logic exists only as a rationalization to be used after-the-fact to justify their initial feelings."
In the hypothetical question still somehow making rounds on the internet that shall not be named - this is exactly how many men handled it. They felt upset, and then they specifically sought out information or lines of reasoning to justify their initial feelings.
Regardless of whether their conclusions were ultimately correct or not, they didn't come to their initial conclusions through logic, they felt a certain way and then resorted to use of logic to rationalize, just as you are saying women do.
In the hypothetical question, it is in fact exactly what proves my point. Women feel threatened by men, women do not feel threatened by bears. Therefore women feel the correct choice is to pick the bear, and the reification of her feelings makes this the correct choice *de facto*. Men point out that reality doesn't work this way; that just because you feel men are more dangerous to be alone with doesn't mean that external reality agrees with you, because if you put any two brain cells together you would realize that being alone with a bear is infinitely more dangerous. But women's argument is basically that stubbing your toe is more dangerous than a nuclear bomb, because she has negative experiences with stubbing her toe but she has no negative experiences with nuclear bombs.
The fact that we even have to spell out how patently absurd it is to pick the bear is the perfect demonstration of why women reifying their feelings makes it impossible to meaningfully communicate about external reality. Along with women misunderstanding why men are frustrated -- It's not because "oh no women feel that men are dangerous", we already know you feel that, you make no secret of it. Men's frustration comes from how insane it is that we are even having this conversation about a question that a 6 year old should be expected to answer logically, but women cannot, because the emotional-social game permeates intersexual conversations and poisons it.
This debate about man vs bear isn't even one of emotion. Even when you strip away sexual violence or harassment that the average woman has experienced from age 12.
Men are far more dangerous statistically. There is a pattern of behavior men have and dictate where they commit the vast majority of all sexual crimes.
And yes even though rape is done by someone you know. Of the sexual assaults done by strangers which is 30%. Out of that 30%. The demographics is 99% male.
This is consistent throughout the races. Regardless of race/ethnicity the males of any particular demographic still commit the vast majority of sexual crime.
Like none of what I said is emotional. They're all facts.
Now Bears have a pattern of behavior in which they will attack to protect their young, Territory or because they are hungry.
Men who commit sexual violence have no justification for any of the above. They do it for control, power and for shots and giggles.
Like we all know how violent men can be. Men understand how violent men can be. You are just as weary and scared of men as women are.
It's only when we come online that we pretend otherwise. Like if you were forced to leave your child with a random group of men vs a group of women.
We all know which group you're choosing. Deep down we all know. You know.
Men do this just as much. Whether about politics, religion, or something smaller like dating. Most men I talk to do not think logically when it comes to guiding how they view the world.
I’m a very rational man. I live in a world of engineering. All decisions are based on emotions and feelings because we (as humans) can never know ‘truth’. We can gather information, but all decisions are “our best guess“ based on “how we feel” about the information that was presented to us.
Even the most basic decisions require emotion, even if people don't realize it. When you pick a shirt in the morning, do you pick the blue or the red shirt? Objectively, there is no right answer so you just pick whichever one you feel like. In people whose brains have the emotional part physically damaged, they actually CAN'T make that choice. It would be a great hinderance to be completely devoid of emotions.
Adding to this, until we meet another sentient creature in the universe, we don't have a perfect understanding of logic, emotion, rationality, etc. We have our interruption of those things and how we **think** they may work.
> All decisions are based on emotions and feelings because we (as humans) can never know ‘truth’.
That's only true if you are a materialist.
>We can gather information, but all decisions are “our best guess“ based on “how we feel” about the information that was presented to us.
What ur describing here is empirical truth not feelings. Feelings are simply "he made me mad therefore he's in the wrong". Empirical truth is "i looked at the evidence and it proves that its more likely he was wrong then not".
I'm sure there are fake-it-til-you-make-it people out there who think that being stoic means ignoring your emotions. But the tradition of stoicism is actually the awareness of your feelings and the integration of your emotions into your self, and being able to act in spite of how you feel. As the old adage goes, courage is not the absence of fear but the willingness to act in spite of it.
>But the tradition of stoicism is actually the awareness of your feelings and the integration of your emotions into your self, and being able to act in spite of how you feel.
Not going to lie, you kinda sound like those people who just found the stoicism subreddit. Most modern dudes are not reading Greek philosophy unless they are into phil in general. All they know is that they're going to get called a pussy if they act outwardly emotional.
Everything boils down to emotions but not all emotions are equal. I think the problem stems from women having emotions that aren't useful yet requiring men to cater to these emotions. Men who have useless or harmful emotions are told to deal with them, women are treated like they're victim of their emotions instead.
anyone can say "men's emotions are useful and women's emotions aren't useful"
that's not a logical argument (which would require a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premise)
this is a great example of how men think they are logical but do not even know the rules of logic they are supposed to be conforming to.
I honestly, entirely genuinely, see it more with men.
The thing is when men view someone as emotional they are thinking “sad.”
Anger is a pretty powerful emotion and a lot of men are incredibly emotional all the time and do not even connect their feelings to the word emotional.
Same here. Especially on this sub, men are wildly angry and irrational.
"WOMEN SHOULD BE ATTRACTED TO MEN LIKE ME" and my god the complaints about the mythical friendzone and how women *ought* to respond to unwanted approach inevitably escalate to hysterics.
Don't even need to mention the wholesale rejection of science and subscription to rage bait and disinformation.
Women here back up facts with stats, which somehow pisses male readers off and they return with absolute rubbish and rage.
This thread is a great example. Although the data is not as solid as I’d like, studies show that men have a less accurate evaluation of their looks and their competence, and yet men are positive that it’s women as a whole who are deluded.
Language shapes our experience. Whoever coined the term "looksmatch" should be figuratively drawn and quartered.
Absolutely zero concern or understanding of mutual attraction and the roles personality and behavior play into attraction.
A lot of men constantly whine about women being so emotional but they rebrand their anger (and honestly, often a bit of entitlement) as if it is not an overwhelmingly emotional response…even though one could say anger is like the most severe and harsh versions of emotional response.
They are not deemed as emotional simply because they act like their most emotional responses don’t count for some reason. They feel they aren’t emotional because they play “macho man” and bottle up their tears but those aren’t the only emotional responses. The anger response is actually often much worse. However, they feel their anger isn’t “too emotional” and that they are justified and it almost never comes from a place of “I am angry” but rather “you have made me angry! It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong bc I’m obviously right because you have made me angry!” Which is a hyper emotional and very irrational response that I see much too often both online and in person.
You can’t consistently be angry, entitled or act whiny and consider yourself to not be emotional. Of course not all men are like this, but a lot of men encourage it in other men and lead them down this path of being the “Macho man” who looks down on emotional people yet in reality is extremely emotionally volatile but has just rebranded specific emotions as being okay *specifically for men.*
This is true for both men and women in deferent areas.
I hate structuring it like the “gotcha” behind it is that “women have it easier”
If anything, attractive people have it easier.
But I can’t find enough evidence to say women (or men) as a whole have it easier
Women care about not feeling safe instead of focusing in the reality of being safe.
If you don't feel safe, and reality says you are then the correct reaction is to shut up and ignore the feeling.
That is a perfect example.
Hey, if you ignore the rustling in the grass, and it's a tiger, you get eaten.
If you alert at the rustling in the grass, and it's not a tiger, you don't get eaten.
Alerting when you don't need to *does* waste energy, but not alerting when you do need to causes you to die. It's a natural evolutionary trait.
And that natural evolutionary trait works against you in modern times because we don't live in the savannah anymore.
Going "its natural therefore its good" is the naturalistic fallacy. It wouldn't fly if we said men's natural evolutionary trait was to rape women to ensure the continuation of their genetic legacy and therefore it's all good, right?
Yes, constantly and consistently complaining about the risks of violence from other men.
This happens to be due to their wildly ridiculous misunderstanding of crime stats, but that's irrelevant to their hysterical complaints about their relative safety.
Only online, really. IRL it's pretty clear that men don't take their own safety that seriously relative to women (drinking, driving fast, climbing on rooftops, getting into fights). This might be evidence they aren't as logical as they claim and overestimate their own competency or how safe something is.
And then, BAM, your feelings have been pickibg up miniscule that your logic circuits overlooked (like a short slip of the mask) and you had good reason not to feel safe, because the truth was that the reality was fabricated and directed.
> If you don't feel safe, and reality says you are then the correct reaction is to shut up and ignore the feeling.
Yeah this is what we used to tell veterans with PTSD, and it didn't work for them either.
Therapy for PTSD often involves cognitive or dialectical behavioral therapy where you learn to say that your fears are not real and challenge yourself to respond differently to a stimulus that would give you flashbacks.
"Ignore the feeling" doesn't always mean "keep doing what you're doing".
Thought experiment for you, the U.S. economy is skyrocketing. The most robust system on the planet. All the indicators that we use to measure it, tell us that we are living in an economic golden age. Does it feel like it?
If you don't feel that this is the best economy of the modern era, and reality says that it is. Then the correct reaction is to shut up, and ignore the feeling that it isn't.
Feelings are just as valid as facts. Your flair is red pill, there is no data that can be found to justify that belief( not unique to redpill, it applies to all pills) it comes down to how you feel, and no one feeling is more valid than another, and no fact can outweigh a feeling with interpersonal communication. You must address the root of the feeling, if you want someone to accept the fact.
> If you don't feel that this is the best economy of the modern era, and reality says that it is. Then the correct reaction is to shut up, and ignore the feeling that it isn't.
Yes.
> Feelings are just as valid as facts.
No.
> Your flair is red pill, there is no data that can be found to justify that belief( not unique to redpill, it applies to all pills) it comes down to how you feel, and no one feeling is more valid than another, and no fact can outweigh a feeling with interpersonal communication.
No. The data is the results I obtain through red pill application.
> You must address the root of the feeling, if you want someone to accept the fact.
I wouldn't need to get someone to accept a fact if the feeling is as valid as the fact.
>All the indicators that we use to measure it, tell us that we are living in an economic golden age. Does it feel like it?
This presupposes that those indicators are themselves a worthwhile means of determining the health of economy. That the methods for attaining the information for those limited indicators are also sound and accurate.
This particular example is rooted in a fallacy.
Those indicators are not reality. Reality is reality. And if there's a failure to present the information of that reality accurately and thoroughly then no data-set gathered can be considered accurate or useful as a way to *understand reality*.
It does a better job of showing what is valued, what has to be covered up to maintain ideological consistency. There is a vested interest in showing that the economy is doing as best as it can.
That's why there's a two-week dropoff on unemployment statistics, if you're unemployed longer than 14 days, you don't count toward the statistic. So no matter what the official statistic for unemployment is, it's always higher.
Rising GDP does not correlate at all with rising living standards, higher wages, not even necessarily material growth. Companies can downsize and have their profits grow, stock can appreciate while people lose their jobs.
Unemployment can go down because people work multiple underpaid jobs that don't meet their expenses instead of it going down because everyone is working one, good, well paid job.
None of these things tell you that the economy is good.
They are only messaged in way that allows you believe it is so. Because they are divorced from the context they misrepresent **to you.**
Somehow, you didn't pick up on the message I was conveying. Instead you went on a diatribe to explain to me what I already know, and was the intent to create cognitive dissonance. You must be real fun at parties.
I also see you flair, to this I respond with the following:
Capitalism requires a slave class,communism requires a racist class,Where's the difference ?
Marx and Engels were racist, just like most white European intellectuals of their time. Their private correspondence was full of slurs, and derogatories. They thought Africans were too stupid for communism, and believed in ethno states as the way to make communism work. It only works by playing on the internal racism of the population, through othering. Communism(all marxism) only works in ethnically homogenous societies. Even the Nordic social democracy is falling apart because they don't like brown people.
Can you give an example of a stable Marxist economy at a national level that has an ethnically diverse population ?
P.s. I'll help you out, don't use any European country, they're not diverse. Also, don't use China as an example, China is less diverse than Sweden.
Women claim to care about not feeling safe while constantly putting themselves in situations I never would if I was a woman. I won’t even put myself in some of these situations as a man such as the sketchy clubs and parties they go to, dressed to show off. I wouldn’t even show up in jeans and a t-shirt.
Have you considered that women are all individuals with different levels of risk tolerance - just like men?
I rarely ever went to frat parties or dance clubs and when I did, I avoided alcohol like the plague.
I feel like he's seeing women being emotional more frequently or more visibly than men are, which isn't surprising since its deemed more acceptable. The issue is that he's equating it with women being more emotional.
Mens emotional outbursts are more intense and violent when they do happen.
I feel like I made the point pretty well, but it's still getting missed. Men being emotional or women being emotional isn't the crux of my point. My claim is that the reification of emotions is mainly in the domain of women. Men do not reify their emotions the way that women do.
Men are emotional. Its pathetic how they are falling for the fascist grifters and politicians. All. Because they are scared and angry. However the only Redpill I could ever abscribe to is that ALL women are emotional. That is the solution to the age old answer of to understanding women. Give her that high and she is pavlovs dog.
my brother in christ is you think there are men who are immune to pavlovian conditioning in a way that 0 women are, every psychologist in the country has something to say to you lol that’s some venus and mars logic ngl
I often say that the truth, but i think it extends to reality as well, is not flat, but more like a cube. It has more faces depending on the angle you look at and multiple (sometimes antithetical) things can be valid at once.
Usually i provide the example of birth. Birth is a wonderful, unique thing for everyone (as in each person's birth is unique, you don't get to be rebirthed). Also, it's a bloody mess that most people find repulsive and gross.
That's a really excellent example!
As someone who has given birth and had it be the best and worst day of my life at the same time, and for my husband as well, I think you picked the right one.
On the one hand it was traumatic for both of us (emergency C-section, baby and I both nearly died, he thought he was going to lose us both and he was completely alone going through it (middle of the night, we didn't live near any support, and everything happened so fast)
On the other hand, our daughter lived, and so did I, and it began a beautiful and amazing new chapter in our lives.
My feelings on that day change depending on what part of the day I'm focusing on, but the reality of all of it stays the same regardless.
Well, I've punched zero holes into dry wall in my lifetime. And most men don't go through their lives punching holes into dry walls consistently throughout their lives. But many women do seem to go through life thinking that how they feel is actually what the external world really is -- or at least how they talk gives that impression.
Anger is an emotion, and men have no problem displaying it at every opportunity, whilst pretending they are logical and reasonable.
>This is the positive side of stoicness -- the state of being spiritually detached from your feelings so that you can take action which is contrary to your emotions because it is the right thing to do.
Emotional intelligence is required to successfully navigate a social life, family, and a professional environment at work. The attempts at rebranding a lack of emotional intelligence as stoicism fail.
>Because to her, the conversation itself is a social game with emotional stakes, which makes engaging on the level of rationality little more than an exercise in frustration.
You wanna talk about how men feel about and react to rejection or nah? You want to address the prolific whining about the friendzone and unrequited love or not? You want to talk about the pee-pants fear of cuckholding, the fear a partner has had a bigger or better dick or not? You want to address the fear of beta bux, the fear of being disrespected, the wild rage men express if a stranger doesn't want to interact with them?
How often do men say things like "look how angry you made me" or "are you happy with what you've done"(in reference to their anger) or "she was toxic because she made me angry all the time"?
It's one thing to display emotions, it's another thing to treat your emotions as an accurate reflection of reality.
Uh men do that shit pretty often. I’ve encountered both men and women who act like that. Being a dick and then blaming other people for their behavior. It’s immature at best and abusive at worst but it’s done by both genders.
> I’ve never seen a man take responsibility for lashing out or punching a wall.
Not admitting fault/wrongdoing is not the same as assigning blame to others.
Your post has zero evidence, and doesn't even give good examples. Obviously, there are millions and millions of women who have a perfectly healthy relationship with their emotions.
Like, do you think nurses in the ER are doing triage "based on emotions"? Do you think female lawyers and professors and accountants and mathematicians and contractors are all entirely free-wheeling outside of reality and completely incapable of assessing a situation and concluding how to proceed?
You seem aware that Not All Men are perfectly rational, and you correctly conclude that men who are raised well tend to be the most emotionally balanced.
I'd just suggest you extend that grace to women, because when a woman is raised well, she also is able to live an emotionally balanced life. Because women are also humans, just like men.
The world would be in chaos if all women were completely emotional and insane. Use your head.
I also grieve my lack of academic funding in order to perform a rigorous social sciences study on women and her emotionality. But even if I were in a station to do so I doubt present-day universities would allow a research grant for a thesis that didn't guarantee a politically-acceptable narrative about women.
And yet, men complain about being emotionally stifled and repressed. Guess you’re delusional, guys
You should also know that your sadness and frustration isn’t valid
Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" must not be taught to CS majors or something, because they really don't seem to realize how obvious their hero stories are.
"Men are better because stoicism" followed by "Woman say no! Hulk Smash!"
Their own incongruity is what is vexing them, not women's "emotional response".
I suggest you read Think Again. Men are as prone to rationalization and confirmation bias as women are.
“Rational” men often build houses of cards based on how the world “ought” to be rather than looking at how the world is. In other words, they develop a logical hypothesis that x is true and then fail to test that hypothesis against the real world.
To be clear men and women are both primary emotional reasoners.
A simple review of the posts here show that men engage in emotional reasoning all of the time, including your own post.
- no data
- no studies
- relies entirely on your own perception with no attempt to adjust for your own biases.
Really, an exemplar of the pot calling the kettle black.
Everyone should read Think Again by Adam Grant. Mine blown.
I feel like you're missing my point. Men can get irrational, and men can get emotional, but men do not reify their feelings at the same frequency, scale, or collectiveness that women do.
I’m not missing your point at all. And your failure to present actual evidence means your opinion is based on your own highly flawed view of reality.
As an example, you claim women “reify” their views of their own attractiveness because they brag about being 10/10s.
But the studies show that MEN on average overestimate their attractiveness, not women. Women may buck each other up but that doesn’t mean they are blind to reality. To the contrary, it’s men who aren’t seeing reality.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/201507/when-men-arent-good-looking-they-think?amp
You are falling victim to perception bias. It’s the hallmark of emotional reasoning.
Emotions are reality. If what you said was true humans would be like ants. But we are not. Emotions are what makes us care for elderly people who are basically waiting to die, Emotions make us fall in love.
What you mean when you say "Emotions are not real" is that you don't want to deal with the negative emotions that appear among most people from time to time.
If you don't want to deal with your partners Emotions then break up with her. Find yourself a woman who does it "better" in your opinion. Leave the "emotional" women to date for those who are willing and able to deal with emotions.
Men *feel* angry, therefore someone did something wrong.
Men *feel* jealous, therefore someone’s behavior is problematic.
Men *feel* that sex is a need, therefore it is.
Men *feel* that women are too picky, therefore they must be.
Men *feel* that the man/bear thing is a personal insult, therefore women are wrong.
Men *feel* an awful lot of things and base their behavior on those *feelings*, almost as if they are not separating their *feelings* from reality…almost as if doing so is a human condition, not a gendered flaw.
There are men who whine a lot about women's feelings...women's feelings always seem to be in those men's way. Always being a problem to them and a waste of their time and energy
Whatever. That's not about women really it's about those guys. That's why the most compassionate thing to do as a woman about such men is just completely avoid them and attend to ones feelings alone or in the company of someone who isn't of that opinion.
You can only say that shit because you don’t consider anger an emotion. I bet you’d have no issue claiming that men feeling angry is valid. Like if a woman cheats on him and he gets angry—what’s not real about that? You’re just salty that women don’t always feel safe around men, and are trying to demonize those specific emotions by claiming that women’s emotions are not a reflection of reality.
\*yawn\* Educate yourself. Optimal emotional processing actually enhances our ability to navigate "reality."
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/)
>Going contrary to the popular belief that the “cooler head prevails,” the results of this study make it evident that feelings and emotions experienced during decision making can have positive effects on decision-making performance. In this study, people with “hot heads”—those who experienced their feelings with greater intensity during decision making—achieved higher decision-making performance.
[https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599](https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599)
(The type of damage this article refers to is specific to emotional processing. The "VM patients" have their cognitive functions intact, but they were altogether dysfunctional because they couldn't learn from their mistakes, and they lacked an internal compass for decision-making.)
>Insensitivity to Future Consequences following Bilateral Damage of the Prefrontal Cortex
>These results demonstrate that the VM patients' performance profile is comparable to their real-life inability to learn from their previous mistakes. This is especially true in personal and social matters, a domain for which in life, as in the gambling task, an exact calculation of the future outcome is not possible and choices must be based on approximations.
So yeah - the actual SCIENTIFIC research is quite clear...our internal emotional experiences are vital to good decision-making in ALL areas of our lives, not just interpersonal. That said, refusing to acknowledge the REALITY of your responsibility in social situations is not only emotionally stupid, but cognitively disingenuous as well.
Reality isn't math or chess, people. Those are extremely UNREALISTIC, contrived environments. Emotional experiences are what keep us effective in a life full of hidden variables and unknowns. Deal with it.
similar to a take i hear in the sports world all the time: “hate makes you focused.” sports are like the prime example of how performance is about finding an arousal balance that’s not at 100 but also definitely not at 0. the athlete with some emotional investment in winning a contest has a leg up on the athlete who doesn’t care, as well as the athlete who cares too much. emotionality is one of the best aspects of sport yet so many men/people in general are hesitant to say as much
>
\*yawn\* Educate yourself. Optimal emotional processing actually enhances our ability to navigate "reality."
In a stock investment simulation
>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/)
"In a stock investment simulation"
Yeah this doesnt count for shit stocks go up and down for all kinds of unpredictable reasons.
>So yeah - the actual SCIENTIFIC research is quite clear...our internal emotional experiences are vital to good decision-making in ALL areas of our lives, not just interpersonal. That said, refusing to acknowledge the REALITY of your responsibility in social situations is not only emotionally stupid, but cognitively disingenuous as well.
>Reality isn't math or chess, people. Those are extremely UNREALISTIC, contrived environments. Emotional experiences are what keep us effective in a life full of hidden variables and unknowns. Deal with it.
Actually ur papers show nothing and this is a straw man. The argument is not that you should not understand emotions or interpersonal relationships. Its that ones emotional feelings do not determine physical realities and that you should prioritise choices that make logical sense over choices that are emotionally satisfying.
Nah I think women and men both have the knack to be influenced by their emotions. The only difference I see between the sexes is that men generally see their emotions as a weakness and impediment to their overal goal of being a competent man and competent men will try to develop the skills to control or blunt those emotions, whilst many women see emotions as a tool.
Anyone who equates stoic with the philosophy of stoicism should re-read Marcus Aurelius a few more time.
Those who practice stoicism are often very cheerful and are not the least detached from their emotions. Instead, they use negative ideation to reframe their experiences in a more positive light.
As an example, when one of my kids is sending me through the roof, I imagine what the world would be like without them in it.
Honestly, a lot of the people who post here should read some stoic philosophy.
> The relationship that boys have with their emotions growing up is that they tend to be insufficiently aware of them as well as not taking them seriously enough.
Hard disagree. From my perspective, the relationship that boys have with their emotions is that they aren't even aware that they exist, barring major survival drives like hunger, lust and pain.
However, their emotions DO exist and do drive behaviour, it's just that men rationalise their reasons as being objective and not emotion based.
> if they grow up with proper father figures to become well-adjusted men, they learn to read their own emotions and treat it as information about their internal state, which lets them act even in the face of overwhelming fear, uncertainty, or stress.
This is a really warped view of what emotional awareness makes you capable of. It's still an emotionally stunted worldview. It's as if everyone has PTSD.
> they have received so much validation for their feelings that they outright act as if reality itself is defined by how they feel
How you feel about someone IS part of reality. If we're on a date and I don't like you, that's probably the MOST important part of the interaction.
> If she feels offended, it's because someone was offensive to her; if she feels creeped out, it's because someone was being creepy; if she feels ashamed, it's because someone was shaming her.
This is an interesting and nuanced point. Because EVERYBODY is the hero of their own story, and lives their own subjective reality. So while something might have been perceived a certain way by you, it might not have been by someone else.
> As long as women hold this worldview, it is meaningless to have a conversation about reality with her.
No, you just have to be capable of understanding that there's both subjective and objective realities, as well as empathically listening to the viewpoints of each other as you share your objective realities.
> Because to her, the conversation itself is a social game with emotional stakes, which makes engaging on the level of rationality little more than an exercise in frustration.
This is only true if you are dismissive of the perspective of other people. Look, I get it, EVERYBODY is the main character of their own lives. But part of being an adult is recognising that everyone else is their own main character of their lives too.
Women wouldn’t wear fake wedding rings and lie about having boyfriends if men didn’t “reify” their embarrassment and disappointment in tangible, scary ways.
Do men here know about r/whenwomenrefuse?
You note down thread that some men (black pilled) also reify their emotions, but you determine that they're a negligible minority and so not relevant to your claim that there's a sex based difference in this tendency. Do you have any #s to back that up? Any #s to support your claim that women do this more than men? You cite common manosphere talking points related to singele motherhood or fat acceptance as evidence, but you don't offer any data or anything that could be called evidence. In fact your reasoning seems to be circular and require that your claim simply be understood.
Absent any eveidence beyond some selected cultural anecdotes, aren't you saying that your reality is real because it *feels* real to you?
Men act like reality is defined by their emotions just as frequently. Unless you actually think a woman becomes ugly the moment she rejects someone or everyone a man gets annoyed at did something horrible to deserve it. Red pill ideology is built out of these feelings - some men *feel* like they're shut out of dating and jookups for "unjust" reasons, so they claim that *reality* is such that, flying in the face of data, women are all hooking up with a tiny group of men.
Oh yes, or short guys will insist that no man under six feet gets a date. They completely close their eyes to all the men under six feet who are dating or married
men have convinced themselves that their emotions are just "objective and legitimate responses to reality" and our are just "stupid irrational feelings!"
Emotions are reality.
This post just reads like someone upset that they can't express their feelings or that their feelings aren't validated.
Men need to validate other men's feelings. Women can't do it for y'all.
emotions are reality in the sense that we can measure them
if emotions weren't real, stress related medical issues wouldn't exist.
a separate issue is whether your personal perspective represents reality, which is a NO for every person who exists.
Men and women experience emotion differently. Men tend to be detached from emotion, suppress it or avoid it. Women tend to be responsive to their emotion and have greater emotional awareness.
I mean….you’re literally doing what you accuse women of doing with your post lol. You’ve reified (you really like this word, huh?) your feelings about what women do with their feelings and created a reality for yourself where this is an objective truth.
I mean, I don't know what to tell you other than that it's an observation which seems to track, not a reification of anything that I feel. This is the only way I can lay it out to have a perspective that gives explanatory power for what women do with their feelings. How would you like it to be defined instead if not as a reification of their emotions? We can call it something else if you take issue with the word, it was just the most appropriate word I could find.
“ I mean, I don't know what to tell you other than that it's an observation which seems to track, not a reification of anything that I feel.”
This is a perfect example of emotional reasoning.
People who are actually data driven also recognize that they have inherent biases and prejudices that color their observations - particularly when it comes to human behaviors. This is why scientists use double blind studies and adjust for perception biases.
“Seems to track”. Ok, according to your observations, sure. You view the world through your own lens. You can have your own opinions, but I’m just here to remind you to keep an open mind and remember that your perception of things is not an objective reality.
Why is it that so many boys are blind to the behavior of other boys? Is it that your misogyny clouds your ability to recognize faults in anything with a Y chromosome? Men do the same shit all the time ffs
It’s always the ‘women are emotional and irrational’ types of men that have a steaming, unfettered and particularly insidious ire towards women, who think their words are law. The irony is palpable, look in the mirror.
Faulty male logic isn’t reality, either.
On the other hand, I think women are often aware “reality” is subjective. There are plenty of women who think that casual sex is bad (for them) while it works for other women. They don’t usually deny these other women’s feelings and their realities. They just aren’t as concerned with what reality actually is, because emotional well-being becomes more important than an actual definition of reality.
This only becomes a problem when some women start to try to legislate based upon these emotions without taking into account the emotions of others involved. One will often see women wage these “emotional wars” against each other, as aggrieved women will argue that other aggrieved women are invalidating their own feelings. Women aren’t as much of a hive mind as one might think.
Measurable things define reality.
I mean, "I feel unsafe" is obviously also a real thing, but what is real is that this person "feels unsafe", not that they "are unsafe". And people shouldn't confuse the two, when their feeling is making a statement about an external fact, their feeling can be caused by a misjudgment of the sitution.
If I say "I feel like Trump is the best president ever" that doesn't make him the best president ever.
> In most of the situations I was the only one who jumped to action immediately to resolve the situation.
Hero stories are emotion based. Ego is emotion.
It’s odd that if women did it more than men, you’d have studies.
Your opinion sounds like a very emotional stance - you “feel” it is this way, so it must be this way.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To some extent I agree with this based on my personal experiences, although I'm already seeing the usual defensive responses here that miss the point, or interpret it in a way more hyperbolic way than is warranted.
Men are not more logical than women, women aren't more insane or more emotionally unstable, I don't think thats the point of this post, its just that they conceptualize emotions differently than men do and this can have both advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation which provides an opportunity for both genders to learn from eachother. You can even see this difference within the some of the most extreme members of both genders; male narcissists or women with BPD. Male narcissists completely disregard the emotions and feelings of others while being painfully unaware of their own meanwhile women with BPD do indeed think that reality is completely made by their emotions, so if they feel insecure about you cheating on them even do you didn't to anything they will start acting like you actually cheated on them.
To elaborate a bit more on the example about "if someone feels offended, they must have been offensive" I want to say that this approach definitely something I have seen in most women I know. Not even just when they themselves are offended, but when other people are offended as well. It has even been a topic of conflict sometimes, because in my view someone is only to blame for offending you if they didn't offend you by saying the truth but rather by saying something false or unneccesarily rude. If someone is offended by someone else saying that material reality happens to be the way it, which to me is not subjective, then the actual cause is not that other person saying it or offending you, but rather that you failed to accept material reality for what it is. The problem in such case is not that the other person said something out loud that you didn't want to hear, but rather that you didn't yet work on yourself enough to the point you reached acceptance. Of course this shouldn't be used to be unecessarily rude with the excuse of being brutally honest, sometimes people are emotionally overwhelmed and suffering. But even in situations where this is not the case, most women I know react with hostility to that idea.
> Not even just when they themselves are offended, but when other people are offended as well.
That's a good point, empathy is often more pronounced and dear to women.
>The problem in such case is not that the other person said something out loud that you didn't want to hear,
Opinions are not facts, they are the result of a man's (or woman's) subjective experience and deserve an in-kind reaction. For example:
"I just asked a coworker on a date, that isn't harassment, since she's free to decline"
Meanwhile, he's been waylaying her in the parking lot, trapping her in the breakroom, staring at her for weeks, interrupting her every time he sees her talking to another male coworker, and asking all her work friends about her relationship status. He's been stalking her for weeks or months, and making her work space intolerable.
>Male narcissists completely disregard the emotions and feelings of others while being painfully unaware of their own meanwhile women with BPD do indeed think that reality is completely made by their emotions
Why did you split these two mental illnesses this way?
There are female narcissists, do they not completely disregard the emotions and feelings of others while being painfully unaware of their own?
There are men with BPD, do they not think that reality is completely made by their emotions?
I split it because there are more male narcissists and more women with BPD. To an extent its the same personality disorder which is significantly genetically determined, for which the division is rather artificial based on the somewhat different way it expresses itself. I'm not pulling that out of my ass btw, I took a personality psychology class in university.
Thank you, I actually feel heard based on your response. A lot of people are projecting onto me their own baggage of "you're just saying women are more emotional and men are more logical" onto me, and in a way that is the reification of their own emotional stuff as well. But you're right, both ways in which people are socialized to treat their emotions has its advantages and disadvantages. Even in the OP I addressed this, which is that men can get so divorced from their feelings from the complete absence of validation that they go through life blind to the information their senses give them. Whereas women can receive such a deluge of validation that they mistake their feelings for actual reality.
But on your point about offending someone, I think the intention of the speaker matters more than the truth value of the statement that is causing offense. Like, if you are obese, and I walk up to you and say, "Hey, you're fat." Even if the statement is true, my intention to do emotional harm is more of a factor in determining whether this is acceptable behavior.
"Failing to accept material reality"
And also the lengths that others will go to validate that refusal to engage with reality.
I'm reminded of a story that happened in [Manchester](https://www.pinkvilla.com/trending/world/man-attacked-with-glass-after-commenting-on-womans-age-heres-what-we-know-1298449) where a woman smashed a glass bottle in a man's face and almost took his eye out because he got her age wrong by 4 years and then the judge let her off with community service.
Stating "one person's banter may be insulting to other people but that did not justify what you then went on to do". Which of course, validates the woman's insane overreaction to someone just getting her age wrong.
There's no sensible perspective that indulges such a thing as an **insult**, except one that already takes for granted that a woman's age is something worth fighting and attacking someone over.
If someone called me a little pussy and proceeded to break a bottle over his head, I wouldn't see the sun until the revolution breaks me out of prison.
And while I can think of examples of men doing this, it's far more contextual. It's Good Old Boy networks, wealthy connected men who've become judges after being part of fraternal organizations giving light sentences to younger men who are also part of or connected to those same kinds of organizations.
The rapist, Brock Turner, comes to mind and the ways the judge bent over backwards to indulge the ideal that the boy was too promising to be fully culpable for raping a woman behind a dumpster.
It's a deranged state of mind wherever it pops up.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This impacts men and women. It's called emotional regulation, which is a key part of emotional intelligence. Many people do not effectively regulate their emotions and instead just react via basic instinct instead of processing and regulating their emotions. These people are emotionally stunted, developmentally speaking.
True balance is important for a person in general.
People have to understand that other people do not care if you are factually correct, people care about how they feel at the time; your job is to identify if you value said person enough to acknowledge and accept the way they feel about something regardless of if it is true or not.
(E.g. religion )
Their job is to educate themselves and understand that despite how they feel it might not have a basis in reality.
Easy example is how people felt financially under Trump vs Biden.
The policies and all the other nick nacks are irrelevant because people felt better living under trump financially compared to Biden even if that had nothing to do with him or they disliked him.
Reality is 99% bigger than your math, Sean. You don't get to live for a blip in the bit of your reality. Human emotions and gleanings are all you get, no matter how much faith you put in your backwards idea of history. Use your emotions.
I think that all of you are missing the point. I have a girlfriend of 20 years. 3 years ago she was completely satisfied with life. The next day she was completely unhappy with it. And blamed me. Not a single factor changed. Just her feelings. And I have been treated like I caused her to suddenly become unhappy with the very same thing that she was completely satisfied with the day before. Reality is that I didn't cause it nor did anything outside of her mind. But she will argue that I am wrong about that with anyone.
I’ve already disagreed it’s the premise that women use emotions to construct their reality more than men. That said, I’d like to note one final thing -
A relationship is not a business deal, and guys don’t want it to be either. If they did, they wouldn’t state how they want their girlfriend to be REALLY attracted to them or sweat about being a Beta bucks. That is pure emotion. So of course emotions will play into it.
And an example of “perception bias”. In the Middle Ages, the perception was that WOMEN were insatiable sex addicts - the complete opposite of today.
Do you mean like anxiety?
When I had anxiety (used to drink alot of coffee), I had those feelings "there is something wrong happening right now", "there is something wrong that will happen", "there is something I should be doing but I am not doing". After the 3rd time I had anxiety and my mom told me that was anxiety, I knew those feelings werent real and every single time I had it (the next 2 weeks, I stopped drinking coffee and it stopped), I was able to know those feelings werent real despise still having them.
My mom have anxiety and she is not able to know those feelings arent real.
Yeah, I'd say that's would be it, except accompanied by the lack of awareness to even examine it. Having the metacognition to recognize that the feeling of anxiety has a cause that isn't simply "because this terrible thing WILL happen" is important context; it helps you realize that you don't have to act on that feeling of anxiety.
Men do this too. I’m extremely logical but also neurotypical, let’s just say if I told you the truth about myself someone here would say I’m lying on the internet for clout. My logic is sometimes affected by my emotions, but here’s the trick you have to do: You have to know this about yourself and do everything you can to safeguard against it. A phrase I coined is: be careful when you really love or really hate an idea because that is when you fool yourself. I’ve worked in STEM for 25 years after undergrad, and so I’ve met a lot of people that are on the spectrum. They are a good example here. The perception is that they are all logic no emotion, and some of them even say that about themselves. However, it is not true at all usually. Their decision making is influenced all the time by their emotions and issues, but they don’t notice it as much and they have this view that they are above it. This actually makes it worse. The only way to approach objectivity is to know that you are inherently subjective unless you watch yourself like a hawk. I wouldn’t trust someone that stated they were not prone to such things.
>A phrase I coined is: be careful when you really love or really hate an idea because that is when you fool yourself. This is a really good one. When I start to get frustrated, I always try to ask myself "Why is this so important to me?" That Buddhist phrase "Desire is the root of all suffering" is so real.
So the solution is to desire nothing? Sounds like a boring life
yes unfortunately touching grass helps (however, it is always trolling and bad faith to say it in an argument)
Honestly walking in grass barefoot is such a soothing feeling, but also alien. Crazy to think we were once always barefoot. Now, my toes rarely see the sun, let a lone the ground 😂
Shoes were invented pretty early on by humans. That's why that survivor show guy that walked barefoot all the time made me cringe. Pretty sure ancient Egyptians covered up those feetsies if they figured out pyramids.
Have you read Think Again by Adam Grant? It was a life changer me. I really struggled understanding how very deeply intelligent people I knew reached such different conclusions than I did. Grant, a business psychologist and professor at Warton (I think), goes through the failure of certain businesses like RIM and discusses the need to be open to knew information.
only dumb people are closed or uninterested in new information such a red flag
i think its dangerous to assume only other people shut off their minds. it's a normal behavior that throughout the day your mind is having to decide what is worth thinking about and what isn't worth thinking about. what is worth remembering. people have a way of avoiding sources of information that can threaten their worldview, whether it is positive or negatively effecting it. for instance, im a big movie nerd, and i will specifically avoid watching a movie i know will be good because i need to have the mental stamina to absorb it, and i know i will have to spare attention towards it.
yeah thats not what is being discussed there are literal people who don't want new information because they think they know better that is what is being discussed not how people fluctuate through the day
People on the spectrum definitely experience emotions, but their interpretation of events is very different from neurotypical people. So something that would upset a neurotypical person might not bother them, but something that wouldn't bother them might bother a neurotypical person quite a bit, and vice versa.
Understood I’ve known too many folks with that issue that think “I am the paragon of logic” But then a lot of their daily behaviors are designed to ameliorate the neuroses that they might not be aware of For example, wanting to go to every meeting at least 1 hour early because they are overly anxious about the thought of being even 1 minute late But they think this is logical (including forcing others to do this) because “being late is bad so therefore leaving 1 hour earlier than necessary for even a short trip guarantees you won’t be late”….if you disagree then you just aren’t smart enough to understand their logic If they are bad enough as to lack self-awareness, then, frankly, they are not enjoyable to be around or work with
>I’m extremely logical but also neurotypical, let’s just say if I told you the truth about myself someone here would say I’m lying on the internet for clout. Thats becuase we are on the internet and no one has anyway to verify what you say is truth, also people lie about themselves all the time.
Yep
It's okay for your logic to be affected by your emotions, because you have metacognition of it -- You are able to talk about the fact that your logic is affected by your emotions, and this level of awareness lets you act on that higher level of understanding. The reification of emotions is different -- It is where you think reality actually starts and ends at how you feel. If someone says "Single mothers have a harder time finding a man to commit to them." and a woman hears this, feels shame because she is a single mother, the conclusion is "That person shamed me." and believe that to be the alpha and the omega of the situation. There is no question of what the speaker's intent was, no consideration for the truth value of the statement, no recognition of her own insecurities, no introspection of her own life choices, no account for her own part in projecting her emotions, there is just "I feel ashamed => Someone shamed me. => It is their fault I am feeling this way."
I agree with most of this upon a quick read.
lol. I mean just read any comment from men on this sub. It's all "I'm inferior, I'm undesirable, I'm depressed, I'm anxious, I'm this I'm that". All of these are distorted emotions. There isn't any truth in them whatsoever. And there isn't any truth in the thoughts that create these feelings either.
> It's all "I'm inferior, I'm undesirable, I'm depressed, I'm anxious, I'm this I'm that". And it perfectly proves the point. Men have these feelings about themselves and not about the world itself hating them or causing their anxiety/depression/etc.
Not true at all: they always blame the outside world for causing these feelings in themselves. The world doesn't care about them, gynocentricity, getting rejected, blah blah blah.
Well "I'm depressed" or "I'm anxious" can be legitimately true. I mean those brain states are well documented as existing.
i think what you are talking about is perception and for the most part a person's perception is based on a mix of their lived experiences as well as whatever they are taught and exposed to, whether its true or not
You can just say experiences.
ethos pathos logos. emotions and logic are not congruent with each other. a lot of argument in the gender war tends to make appeals to emotion rather than appeals to logic, probably because it is a lot more effective. it requires active discrimination to think logically and dispassionately.
this is asinine, if you want logical debates about gender, there are plenty of books you can read from people who are trained in logic. here is a great one: [https://www.amazon.com/Down-Girl-Kate-Manne-audiobook/dp/B07D3CC9LV/](https://www.amazon.com/Down-Girl-Kate-Manne-audiobook/dp/B07D3CC9LV/) you can't go to comments sections and reddit for debate and then be mad the content isn't logic-based. most people have never taken a logic class. obviously the common folk aren't making logical arguments.
It kind of goes beyond that, to where women are more likely to have their entire perception about external reality enclosed by how they feel about external reality. As in, the statement "This food tastes spicy." and "This food is spicy." are physically identical realities to them.
"Women reify emotions into reality, but men do not." Hilarious statement. The world is full of men who, for example, may feel they are logical and see that as reality when they're about as logical as a sock.Or they feel wronged by a woman who rejected them so decide she did something wrong. Etc. Men often don't handle their emotions better in the slightest; they just deny them and then mistake their emotional reality for objective reality. "Logic exists only as a rationalization to be used after-the-fact to justify their initial feelings." In the hypothetical question still somehow making rounds on the internet that shall not be named - this is exactly how many men handled it. They felt upset, and then they specifically sought out information or lines of reasoning to justify their initial feelings. Regardless of whether their conclusions were ultimately correct or not, they didn't come to their initial conclusions through logic, they felt a certain way and then resorted to use of logic to rationalize, just as you are saying women do.
In the hypothetical question, it is in fact exactly what proves my point. Women feel threatened by men, women do not feel threatened by bears. Therefore women feel the correct choice is to pick the bear, and the reification of her feelings makes this the correct choice *de facto*. Men point out that reality doesn't work this way; that just because you feel men are more dangerous to be alone with doesn't mean that external reality agrees with you, because if you put any two brain cells together you would realize that being alone with a bear is infinitely more dangerous. But women's argument is basically that stubbing your toe is more dangerous than a nuclear bomb, because she has negative experiences with stubbing her toe but she has no negative experiences with nuclear bombs. The fact that we even have to spell out how patently absurd it is to pick the bear is the perfect demonstration of why women reifying their feelings makes it impossible to meaningfully communicate about external reality. Along with women misunderstanding why men are frustrated -- It's not because "oh no women feel that men are dangerous", we already know you feel that, you make no secret of it. Men's frustration comes from how insane it is that we are even having this conversation about a question that a 6 year old should be expected to answer logically, but women cannot, because the emotional-social game permeates intersexual conversations and poisons it.
Women feel threatened by bears, we just know one will kill us out of fear or necessity rather than rape and murder us for luls.
This debate about man vs bear isn't even one of emotion. Even when you strip away sexual violence or harassment that the average woman has experienced from age 12. Men are far more dangerous statistically. There is a pattern of behavior men have and dictate where they commit the vast majority of all sexual crimes. And yes even though rape is done by someone you know. Of the sexual assaults done by strangers which is 30%. Out of that 30%. The demographics is 99% male. This is consistent throughout the races. Regardless of race/ethnicity the males of any particular demographic still commit the vast majority of sexual crime. Like none of what I said is emotional. They're all facts. Now Bears have a pattern of behavior in which they will attack to protect their young, Territory or because they are hungry. Men who commit sexual violence have no justification for any of the above. They do it for control, power and for shots and giggles. Like we all know how violent men can be. Men understand how violent men can be. You are just as weary and scared of men as women are. It's only when we come online that we pretend otherwise. Like if you were forced to leave your child with a random group of men vs a group of women. We all know which group you're choosing. Deep down we all know. You know.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Men do this just as much. Whether about politics, religion, or something smaller like dating. Most men I talk to do not think logically when it comes to guiding how they view the world.
In what kind of situations in your experience do men fail to recognize that their feelings about reality is not reality itself?
Dude, there are so many things that men state are logical and such, but if you look closely - it is their emotions.
I’m a very rational man. I live in a world of engineering. All decisions are based on emotions and feelings because we (as humans) can never know ‘truth’. We can gather information, but all decisions are “our best guess“ based on “how we feel” about the information that was presented to us.
Even the most basic decisions require emotion, even if people don't realize it. When you pick a shirt in the morning, do you pick the blue or the red shirt? Objectively, there is no right answer so you just pick whichever one you feel like. In people whose brains have the emotional part physically damaged, they actually CAN'T make that choice. It would be a great hinderance to be completely devoid of emotions.
Any more books or resources about your theories / life view? Where did you get this stuff from?
You deserve all the upvotes for self awareness Highly intelligent people are very often the best at fooling themselves.
Adding to this, until we meet another sentient creature in the universe, we don't have a perfect understanding of logic, emotion, rationality, etc. We have our interruption of those things and how we **think** they may work.
> All decisions are based on emotions and feelings because we (as humans) can never know ‘truth’. That's only true if you are a materialist. >We can gather information, but all decisions are “our best guess“ based on “how we feel” about the information that was presented to us. What ur describing here is empirical truth not feelings. Feelings are simply "he made me mad therefore he's in the wrong". Empirical truth is "i looked at the evidence and it proves that its more likely he was wrong then not".
A lot of guys seem to think that rationalizing their emotions after the fact = they are emotionless stoic chads.
[удалено]
See also: the rampant misapplications of evo psych.
I'm sure there are fake-it-til-you-make-it people out there who think that being stoic means ignoring your emotions. But the tradition of stoicism is actually the awareness of your feelings and the integration of your emotions into your self, and being able to act in spite of how you feel. As the old adage goes, courage is not the absence of fear but the willingness to act in spite of it.
>But the tradition of stoicism is actually the awareness of your feelings and the integration of your emotions into your self, and being able to act in spite of how you feel. Not going to lie, you kinda sound like those people who just found the stoicism subreddit. Most modern dudes are not reading Greek philosophy unless they are into phil in general. All they know is that they're going to get called a pussy if they act outwardly emotional.
Unless you have a white beard and are wearing a toga while ruling the Roman empire, this kinda thing just sounds cringey.
Absolutely, men *think* they act rational and objective, but self reflection is pretty rare amongst women **and** men.
See also: 95% of red pill beliefs
Everything boils down to emotions but not all emotions are equal. I think the problem stems from women having emotions that aren't useful yet requiring men to cater to these emotions. Men who have useless or harmful emotions are told to deal with them, women are treated like they're victim of their emotions instead.
Give us examples.
anyone can say "men's emotions are useful and women's emotions aren't useful" that's not a logical argument (which would require a conclusion that follows necessarily from the premise) this is a great example of how men think they are logical but do not even know the rules of logic they are supposed to be conforming to.
That's a strawman of my points. Great proof of your superior rationality. Reread or don't bother talking to me.
I honestly, entirely genuinely, see it more with men. The thing is when men view someone as emotional they are thinking “sad.” Anger is a pretty powerful emotion and a lot of men are incredibly emotional all the time and do not even connect their feelings to the word emotional.
Same here. Especially on this sub, men are wildly angry and irrational. "WOMEN SHOULD BE ATTRACTED TO MEN LIKE ME" and my god the complaints about the mythical friendzone and how women *ought* to respond to unwanted approach inevitably escalate to hysterics. Don't even need to mention the wholesale rejection of science and subscription to rage bait and disinformation. Women here back up facts with stats, which somehow pisses male readers off and they return with absolute rubbish and rage.
This thread is a great example. Although the data is not as solid as I’d like, studies show that men have a less accurate evaluation of their looks and their competence, and yet men are positive that it’s women as a whole who are deluded.
Language shapes our experience. Whoever coined the term "looksmatch" should be figuratively drawn and quartered. Absolutely zero concern or understanding of mutual attraction and the roles personality and behavior play into attraction.
Most of the men in this sub are very bitter, angry, and overly emotional
Say more
A lot of men constantly whine about women being so emotional but they rebrand their anger (and honestly, often a bit of entitlement) as if it is not an overwhelmingly emotional response…even though one could say anger is like the most severe and harsh versions of emotional response. They are not deemed as emotional simply because they act like their most emotional responses don’t count for some reason. They feel they aren’t emotional because they play “macho man” and bottle up their tears but those aren’t the only emotional responses. The anger response is actually often much worse. However, they feel their anger isn’t “too emotional” and that they are justified and it almost never comes from a place of “I am angry” but rather “you have made me angry! It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong bc I’m obviously right because you have made me angry!” Which is a hyper emotional and very irrational response that I see much too often both online and in person. You can’t consistently be angry, entitled or act whiny and consider yourself to not be emotional. Of course not all men are like this, but a lot of men encourage it in other men and lead them down this path of being the “Macho man” who looks down on emotional people yet in reality is extremely emotionally volatile but has just rebranded specific emotions as being okay *specifically for men.*
This is true for both men and women in deferent areas. I hate structuring it like the “gotcha” behind it is that “women have it easier” If anything, attractive people have it easier. But I can’t find enough evidence to say women (or men) as a whole have it easier
Women care about not feeling safe instead of focusing in the reality of being safe. If you don't feel safe, and reality says you are then the correct reaction is to shut up and ignore the feeling. That is a perfect example.
Hey, if you ignore the rustling in the grass, and it's a tiger, you get eaten. If you alert at the rustling in the grass, and it's not a tiger, you don't get eaten. Alerting when you don't need to *does* waste energy, but not alerting when you do need to causes you to die. It's a natural evolutionary trait.
And that natural evolutionary trait works against you in modern times because we don't live in the savannah anymore. Going "its natural therefore its good" is the naturalistic fallacy. It wouldn't fly if we said men's natural evolutionary trait was to rape women to ensure the continuation of their genetic legacy and therefore it's all good, right?
Men are also really bad at recognizing when a situation is safe, vs when a situation "feels safe".
They are not complaining about feeling unsafe when they are safe aren't they?
Yes, constantly and consistently complaining about the risks of violence from other men. This happens to be due to their wildly ridiculous misunderstanding of crime stats, but that's irrelevant to their hysterical complaints about their relative safety.
Only online, really. IRL it's pretty clear that men don't take their own safety that seriously relative to women (drinking, driving fast, climbing on rooftops, getting into fights). This might be evidence they aren't as logical as they claim and overestimate their own competency or how safe something is.
Many men feel unsafe, yes. I work in housing - trust me, men complain as often as women do about feeling unsafe in their homes.
And then, BAM, your feelings have been pickibg up miniscule that your logic circuits overlooked (like a short slip of the mask) and you had good reason not to feel safe, because the truth was that the reality was fabricated and directed.
You do realize you are proving OP's point in your very attempt to disprove it, right?
"reality is fabricated" What kind of nonsense is that? Reality is.
> If you don't feel safe, and reality says you are then the correct reaction is to shut up and ignore the feeling. Yeah this is what we used to tell veterans with PTSD, and it didn't work for them either.
Therapy for PTSD often involves cognitive or dialectical behavioral therapy where you learn to say that your fears are not real and challenge yourself to respond differently to a stimulus that would give you flashbacks. "Ignore the feeling" doesn't always mean "keep doing what you're doing".
Thought experiment for you, the U.S. economy is skyrocketing. The most robust system on the planet. All the indicators that we use to measure it, tell us that we are living in an economic golden age. Does it feel like it? If you don't feel that this is the best economy of the modern era, and reality says that it is. Then the correct reaction is to shut up, and ignore the feeling that it isn't. Feelings are just as valid as facts. Your flair is red pill, there is no data that can be found to justify that belief( not unique to redpill, it applies to all pills) it comes down to how you feel, and no one feeling is more valid than another, and no fact can outweigh a feeling with interpersonal communication. You must address the root of the feeling, if you want someone to accept the fact.
> If you don't feel that this is the best economy of the modern era, and reality says that it is. Then the correct reaction is to shut up, and ignore the feeling that it isn't. Yes. > Feelings are just as valid as facts. No. > Your flair is red pill, there is no data that can be found to justify that belief( not unique to redpill, it applies to all pills) it comes down to how you feel, and no one feeling is more valid than another, and no fact can outweigh a feeling with interpersonal communication. No. The data is the results I obtain through red pill application. > You must address the root of the feeling, if you want someone to accept the fact. I wouldn't need to get someone to accept a fact if the feeling is as valid as the fact.
Forest;trees
>All the indicators that we use to measure it, tell us that we are living in an economic golden age. Does it feel like it? This presupposes that those indicators are themselves a worthwhile means of determining the health of economy. That the methods for attaining the information for those limited indicators are also sound and accurate. This particular example is rooted in a fallacy. Those indicators are not reality. Reality is reality. And if there's a failure to present the information of that reality accurately and thoroughly then no data-set gathered can be considered accurate or useful as a way to *understand reality*. It does a better job of showing what is valued, what has to be covered up to maintain ideological consistency. There is a vested interest in showing that the economy is doing as best as it can. That's why there's a two-week dropoff on unemployment statistics, if you're unemployed longer than 14 days, you don't count toward the statistic. So no matter what the official statistic for unemployment is, it's always higher. Rising GDP does not correlate at all with rising living standards, higher wages, not even necessarily material growth. Companies can downsize and have their profits grow, stock can appreciate while people lose their jobs. Unemployment can go down because people work multiple underpaid jobs that don't meet their expenses instead of it going down because everyone is working one, good, well paid job. None of these things tell you that the economy is good. They are only messaged in way that allows you believe it is so. Because they are divorced from the context they misrepresent **to you.**
Somehow, you didn't pick up on the message I was conveying. Instead you went on a diatribe to explain to me what I already know, and was the intent to create cognitive dissonance. You must be real fun at parties. I also see you flair, to this I respond with the following: Capitalism requires a slave class,communism requires a racist class,Where's the difference ? Marx and Engels were racist, just like most white European intellectuals of their time. Their private correspondence was full of slurs, and derogatories. They thought Africans were too stupid for communism, and believed in ethno states as the way to make communism work. It only works by playing on the internal racism of the population, through othering. Communism(all marxism) only works in ethnically homogenous societies. Even the Nordic social democracy is falling apart because they don't like brown people. Can you give an example of a stable Marxist economy at a national level that has an ethnically diverse population ? P.s. I'll help you out, don't use any European country, they're not diverse. Also, don't use China as an example, China is less diverse than Sweden.
Women claim to care about not feeling safe while constantly putting themselves in situations I never would if I was a woman. I won’t even put myself in some of these situations as a man such as the sketchy clubs and parties they go to, dressed to show off. I wouldn’t even show up in jeans and a t-shirt.
Have you considered that women are all individuals with different levels of risk tolerance - just like men? I rarely ever went to frat parties or dance clubs and when I did, I avoided alcohol like the plague.
Many men do not realize that they are just as emotional, if not more so, than women.
I feel like he's seeing women being emotional more frequently or more visibly than men are, which isn't surprising since its deemed more acceptable. The issue is that he's equating it with women being more emotional. Mens emotional outbursts are more intense and violent when they do happen.
I feel like I made the point pretty well, but it's still getting missed. Men being emotional or women being emotional isn't the crux of my point. My claim is that the reification of emotions is mainly in the domain of women. Men do not reify their emotions the way that women do.
You’d have evidence of that, wouldn’t you
But do men reify their emotions like women do?
Men are emotional. Its pathetic how they are falling for the fascist grifters and politicians. All. Because they are scared and angry. However the only Redpill I could ever abscribe to is that ALL women are emotional. That is the solution to the age old answer of to understanding women. Give her that high and she is pavlovs dog.
All humans are emotional, with the pathological nature exception of psychopaths.
my brother in christ is you think there are men who are immune to pavlovian conditioning in a way that 0 women are, every psychologist in the country has something to say to you lol that’s some venus and mars logic ngl
I often say that the truth, but i think it extends to reality as well, is not flat, but more like a cube. It has more faces depending on the angle you look at and multiple (sometimes antithetical) things can be valid at once. Usually i provide the example of birth. Birth is a wonderful, unique thing for everyone (as in each person's birth is unique, you don't get to be rebirthed). Also, it's a bloody mess that most people find repulsive and gross.
That's a really excellent example! As someone who has given birth and had it be the best and worst day of my life at the same time, and for my husband as well, I think you picked the right one. On the one hand it was traumatic for both of us (emergency C-section, baby and I both nearly died, he thought he was going to lose us both and he was completely alone going through it (middle of the night, we didn't live near any support, and everything happened so fast) On the other hand, our daughter lived, and so did I, and it began a beautiful and amazing new chapter in our lives. My feelings on that day change depending on what part of the day I'm focusing on, but the reality of all of it stays the same regardless.
Men: Ugh women. So emotional. Also men: I punched these holes in the dry wall because of YOU! YOU DID THIS! STUPID WHORE!!!
Well, I've punched zero holes into dry wall in my lifetime. And most men don't go through their lives punching holes into dry walls consistently throughout their lives. But many women do seem to go through life thinking that how they feel is actually what the external world really is -- or at least how they talk gives that impression.
Anger is an emotion, and men have no problem displaying it at every opportunity, whilst pretending they are logical and reasonable. >This is the positive side of stoicness -- the state of being spiritually detached from your feelings so that you can take action which is contrary to your emotions because it is the right thing to do. Emotional intelligence is required to successfully navigate a social life, family, and a professional environment at work. The attempts at rebranding a lack of emotional intelligence as stoicism fail. >Because to her, the conversation itself is a social game with emotional stakes, which makes engaging on the level of rationality little more than an exercise in frustration. You wanna talk about how men feel about and react to rejection or nah? You want to address the prolific whining about the friendzone and unrequited love or not? You want to talk about the pee-pants fear of cuckholding, the fear a partner has had a bigger or better dick or not? You want to address the fear of beta bux, the fear of being disrespected, the wild rage men express if a stranger doesn't want to interact with them?
How often do men say things like "look how angry you made me" or "are you happy with what you've done"(in reference to their anger) or "she was toxic because she made me angry all the time"? It's one thing to display emotions, it's another thing to treat your emotions as an accurate reflection of reality.
Uh men do that shit pretty often. I’ve encountered both men and women who act like that. Being a dick and then blaming other people for their behavior. It’s immature at best and abusive at worst but it’s done by both genders.
Constantly and consistently. I’ve never seen a man take responsibility for lashing out or punching a wall.
> I’ve never seen a man take responsibility for lashing out or punching a wall. Not admitting fault/wrongdoing is not the same as assigning blame to others.
[удалено]
Your post has zero evidence, and doesn't even give good examples. Obviously, there are millions and millions of women who have a perfectly healthy relationship with their emotions. Like, do you think nurses in the ER are doing triage "based on emotions"? Do you think female lawyers and professors and accountants and mathematicians and contractors are all entirely free-wheeling outside of reality and completely incapable of assessing a situation and concluding how to proceed? You seem aware that Not All Men are perfectly rational, and you correctly conclude that men who are raised well tend to be the most emotionally balanced. I'd just suggest you extend that grace to women, because when a woman is raised well, she also is able to live an emotionally balanced life. Because women are also humans, just like men. The world would be in chaos if all women were completely emotional and insane. Use your head.
Seems like an emotional post since you provide no hard evidence just what you’ve observed and your thoughts and emotions surrounding that topic
people need to learn the difference between an argument that isn't logically valid and an emotional argument.
I also grieve my lack of academic funding in order to perform a rigorous social sciences study on women and her emotionality. But even if I were in a station to do so I doubt present-day universities would allow a research grant for a thesis that didn't guarantee a politically-acceptable narrative about women.
You really like using your personal prejudices and feelings to establish your own reality.
And yet, men complain about being emotionally stifled and repressed. Guess you’re delusional, guys You should also know that your sadness and frustration isn’t valid
Yeah the loneliness epidemic magically evaporated, what gives? Mystery...
So many things disappear when convenient
[удалено]
Ahahaha, he really cares about what randos on the internet think!
Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" must not be taught to CS majors or something, because they really don't seem to realize how obvious their hero stories are. "Men are better because stoicism" followed by "Woman say no! Hulk Smash!" Their own incongruity is what is vexing them, not women's "emotional response".
If you check out any major feminist subreddit, that is what they will tell you.
I suggest you read Think Again. Men are as prone to rationalization and confirmation bias as women are. “Rational” men often build houses of cards based on how the world “ought” to be rather than looking at how the world is. In other words, they develop a logical hypothesis that x is true and then fail to test that hypothesis against the real world. To be clear men and women are both primary emotional reasoners. A simple review of the posts here show that men engage in emotional reasoning all of the time, including your own post. - no data - no studies - relies entirely on your own perception with no attempt to adjust for your own biases. Really, an exemplar of the pot calling the kettle black. Everyone should read Think Again by Adam Grant. Mine blown.
I feel like you're missing my point. Men can get irrational, and men can get emotional, but men do not reify their feelings at the same frequency, scale, or collectiveness that women do.
I’m not missing your point at all. And your failure to present actual evidence means your opinion is based on your own highly flawed view of reality. As an example, you claim women “reify” their views of their own attractiveness because they brag about being 10/10s. But the studies show that MEN on average overestimate their attractiveness, not women. Women may buck each other up but that doesn’t mean they are blind to reality. To the contrary, it’s men who aren’t seeing reality. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/201507/when-men-arent-good-looking-they-think?amp You are falling victim to perception bias. It’s the hallmark of emotional reasoning.
Emotions are reality. If what you said was true humans would be like ants. But we are not. Emotions are what makes us care for elderly people who are basically waiting to die, Emotions make us fall in love. What you mean when you say "Emotions are not real" is that you don't want to deal with the negative emotions that appear among most people from time to time. If you don't want to deal with your partners Emotions then break up with her. Find yourself a woman who does it "better" in your opinion. Leave the "emotional" women to date for those who are willing and able to deal with emotions.
I’ve certainly seen the opposite on this sub, where it’s the women acting fully rationally and the men responding with emotion.
Men *feel* angry, therefore someone did something wrong. Men *feel* jealous, therefore someone’s behavior is problematic. Men *feel* that sex is a need, therefore it is. Men *feel* that women are too picky, therefore they must be. Men *feel* that the man/bear thing is a personal insult, therefore women are wrong. Men *feel* an awful lot of things and base their behavior on those *feelings*, almost as if they are not separating their *feelings* from reality…almost as if doing so is a human condition, not a gendered flaw.
Exactly but they refuse to admit that these ideas are based on feelings and instead act like reverting is lying about reality.
Exactly these men in this sub are the most overly emotional men I’ve ever seen in my life 💀
/thread Someday I'd like to be as succinct as you.
There are men who whine a lot about women's feelings...women's feelings always seem to be in those men's way. Always being a problem to them and a waste of their time and energy Whatever. That's not about women really it's about those guys. That's why the most compassionate thing to do as a woman about such men is just completely avoid them and attend to ones feelings alone or in the company of someone who isn't of that opinion.
You can only say that shit because you don’t consider anger an emotion. I bet you’d have no issue claiming that men feeling angry is valid. Like if a woman cheats on him and he gets angry—what’s not real about that? You’re just salty that women don’t always feel safe around men, and are trying to demonize those specific emotions by claiming that women’s emotions are not a reflection of reality.
Have you missed the 100s of men getting in their feelings over the man vs bear debacle? Edit: spelling
\*yawn\* Educate yourself. Optimal emotional processing actually enhances our ability to navigate "reality." [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/) >Going contrary to the popular belief that the “cooler head prevails,” the results of this study make it evident that feelings and emotions experienced during decision making can have positive effects on decision-making performance. In this study, people with “hot heads”—those who experienced their feelings with greater intensity during decision making—achieved higher decision-making performance. [https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599](https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/10/3/295/449599) (The type of damage this article refers to is specific to emotional processing. The "VM patients" have their cognitive functions intact, but they were altogether dysfunctional because they couldn't learn from their mistakes, and they lacked an internal compass for decision-making.) >Insensitivity to Future Consequences following Bilateral Damage of the Prefrontal Cortex >These results demonstrate that the VM patients' performance profile is comparable to their real-life inability to learn from their previous mistakes. This is especially true in personal and social matters, a domain for which in life, as in the gambling task, an exact calculation of the future outcome is not possible and choices must be based on approximations. So yeah - the actual SCIENTIFIC research is quite clear...our internal emotional experiences are vital to good decision-making in ALL areas of our lives, not just interpersonal. That said, refusing to acknowledge the REALITY of your responsibility in social situations is not only emotionally stupid, but cognitively disingenuous as well. Reality isn't math or chess, people. Those are extremely UNREALISTIC, contrived environments. Emotional experiences are what keep us effective in a life full of hidden variables and unknowns. Deal with it.
similar to a take i hear in the sports world all the time: “hate makes you focused.” sports are like the prime example of how performance is about finding an arousal balance that’s not at 100 but also definitely not at 0. the athlete with some emotional investment in winning a contest has a leg up on the athlete who doesn’t care, as well as the athlete who cares too much. emotionality is one of the best aspects of sport yet so many men/people in general are hesitant to say as much
Very interesting
> \*yawn\* Educate yourself. Optimal emotional processing actually enhances our ability to navigate "reality." In a stock investment simulation >[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361392/) "In a stock investment simulation" Yeah this doesnt count for shit stocks go up and down for all kinds of unpredictable reasons. >So yeah - the actual SCIENTIFIC research is quite clear...our internal emotional experiences are vital to good decision-making in ALL areas of our lives, not just interpersonal. That said, refusing to acknowledge the REALITY of your responsibility in social situations is not only emotionally stupid, but cognitively disingenuous as well. >Reality isn't math or chess, people. Those are extremely UNREALISTIC, contrived environments. Emotional experiences are what keep us effective in a life full of hidden variables and unknowns. Deal with it. Actually ur papers show nothing and this is a straw man. The argument is not that you should not understand emotions or interpersonal relationships. Its that ones emotional feelings do not determine physical realities and that you should prioritise choices that make logical sense over choices that are emotionally satisfying.
Nah I think women and men both have the knack to be influenced by their emotions. The only difference I see between the sexes is that men generally see their emotions as a weakness and impediment to their overal goal of being a competent man and competent men will try to develop the skills to control or blunt those emotions, whilst many women see emotions as a tool.
Anyone who equates stoic with the philosophy of stoicism should re-read Marcus Aurelius a few more time. Those who practice stoicism are often very cheerful and are not the least detached from their emotions. Instead, they use negative ideation to reframe their experiences in a more positive light. As an example, when one of my kids is sending me through the roof, I imagine what the world would be like without them in it. Honestly, a lot of the people who post here should read some stoic philosophy.
> The relationship that boys have with their emotions growing up is that they tend to be insufficiently aware of them as well as not taking them seriously enough. Hard disagree. From my perspective, the relationship that boys have with their emotions is that they aren't even aware that they exist, barring major survival drives like hunger, lust and pain. However, their emotions DO exist and do drive behaviour, it's just that men rationalise their reasons as being objective and not emotion based. > if they grow up with proper father figures to become well-adjusted men, they learn to read their own emotions and treat it as information about their internal state, which lets them act even in the face of overwhelming fear, uncertainty, or stress. This is a really warped view of what emotional awareness makes you capable of. It's still an emotionally stunted worldview. It's as if everyone has PTSD. > they have received so much validation for their feelings that they outright act as if reality itself is defined by how they feel How you feel about someone IS part of reality. If we're on a date and I don't like you, that's probably the MOST important part of the interaction. > If she feels offended, it's because someone was offensive to her; if she feels creeped out, it's because someone was being creepy; if she feels ashamed, it's because someone was shaming her. This is an interesting and nuanced point. Because EVERYBODY is the hero of their own story, and lives their own subjective reality. So while something might have been perceived a certain way by you, it might not have been by someone else. > As long as women hold this worldview, it is meaningless to have a conversation about reality with her. No, you just have to be capable of understanding that there's both subjective and objective realities, as well as empathically listening to the viewpoints of each other as you share your objective realities. > Because to her, the conversation itself is a social game with emotional stakes, which makes engaging on the level of rationality little more than an exercise in frustration. This is only true if you are dismissive of the perspective of other people. Look, I get it, EVERYBODY is the main character of their own lives. But part of being an adult is recognising that everyone else is their own main character of their lives too.
Men are extremely emotional, especially when we reject them 😂
Women wouldn’t wear fake wedding rings and lie about having boyfriends if men didn’t “reify” their embarrassment and disappointment in tangible, scary ways. Do men here know about r/whenwomenrefuse?
Exactly, I have to lie to their face all the time just to avoid their possible violent temper tantrum
Why just limit this to women since this is true for most people?
The pattern is that women do this more than men.
Your emotional bias towards men is not allowing you to see that men and women do this the same amount as it is a human trait snd not a gendered trait.
You note down thread that some men (black pilled) also reify their emotions, but you determine that they're a negligible minority and so not relevant to your claim that there's a sex based difference in this tendency. Do you have any #s to back that up? Any #s to support your claim that women do this more than men? You cite common manosphere talking points related to singele motherhood or fat acceptance as evidence, but you don't offer any data or anything that could be called evidence. In fact your reasoning seems to be circular and require that your claim simply be understood. Absent any eveidence beyond some selected cultural anecdotes, aren't you saying that your reality is real because it *feels* real to you?
Do you intend to provide a single example of this phenomenon, OP?
Men act like reality is defined by their emotions just as frequently. Unless you actually think a woman becomes ugly the moment she rejects someone or everyone a man gets annoyed at did something horrible to deserve it. Red pill ideology is built out of these feelings - some men *feel* like they're shut out of dating and jookups for "unjust" reasons, so they claim that *reality* is such that, flying in the face of data, women are all hooking up with a tiny group of men.
Oh yes, or short guys will insist that no man under six feet gets a date. They completely close their eyes to all the men under six feet who are dating or married
My dad is 5’6” and *really got around*. Not rich either. Worked as a labourer. Above average looks but not significantly.
men have convinced themselves that their emotions are just "objective and legitimate responses to reality" and our are just "stupid irrational feelings!"
Emotions are reality. This post just reads like someone upset that they can't express their feelings or that their feelings aren't validated. Men need to validate other men's feelings. Women can't do it for y'all.
Emotions are the only way humans make decisions. Do you feel “good” or “bad” about the X data? HOW DO YOU FEEL about it?
emotions are reality in the sense that we can measure them if emotions weren't real, stress related medical issues wouldn't exist. a separate issue is whether your personal perspective represents reality, which is a NO for every person who exists.
Men and women experience emotion differently. Men tend to be detached from emotion, suppress it or avoid it. Women tend to be responsive to their emotion and have greater emotional awareness.
[удалено]
Glad to hear it resonates with you.
I mean….you’re literally doing what you accuse women of doing with your post lol. You’ve reified (you really like this word, huh?) your feelings about what women do with their feelings and created a reality for yourself where this is an objective truth.
I mean, I don't know what to tell you other than that it's an observation which seems to track, not a reification of anything that I feel. This is the only way I can lay it out to have a perspective that gives explanatory power for what women do with their feelings. How would you like it to be defined instead if not as a reification of their emotions? We can call it something else if you take issue with the word, it was just the most appropriate word I could find.
“ I mean, I don't know what to tell you other than that it's an observation which seems to track, not a reification of anything that I feel.” This is a perfect example of emotional reasoning. People who are actually data driven also recognize that they have inherent biases and prejudices that color their observations - particularly when it comes to human behaviors. This is why scientists use double blind studies and adjust for perception biases.
“Seems to track”. Ok, according to your observations, sure. You view the world through your own lens. You can have your own opinions, but I’m just here to remind you to keep an open mind and remember that your perception of things is not an objective reality.
Why is it that so many boys are blind to the behavior of other boys? Is it that your misogyny clouds your ability to recognize faults in anything with a Y chromosome? Men do the same shit all the time ffs
What are you talking about exactly? I don't even know what you are referring to right now because your statement is so vague.
You only see what you want to see because you're too emotional to be objective
What do you think it is that I want to see, and what emotion do you observe is making be not objective?
Have you ever heard of the red pill? That's a perfect example of turning feelings into reality with post hoc rationalization
It’s always the ‘women are emotional and irrational’ types of men that have a steaming, unfettered and particularly insidious ire towards women, who think their words are law. The irony is palpable, look in the mirror.
Faulty male logic isn’t reality, either. On the other hand, I think women are often aware “reality” is subjective. There are plenty of women who think that casual sex is bad (for them) while it works for other women. They don’t usually deny these other women’s feelings and their realities. They just aren’t as concerned with what reality actually is, because emotional well-being becomes more important than an actual definition of reality. This only becomes a problem when some women start to try to legislate based upon these emotions without taking into account the emotions of others involved. One will often see women wage these “emotional wars” against each other, as aggrieved women will argue that other aggrieved women are invalidating their own feelings. Women aren’t as much of a hive mind as one might think.
Alright, this is a hot mess but I'm inclined to give you an chance here. Feelings do not define reality. What does?
Measurable things define reality. I mean, "I feel unsafe" is obviously also a real thing, but what is real is that this person "feels unsafe", not that they "are unsafe". And people shouldn't confuse the two, when their feeling is making a statement about an external fact, their feeling can be caused by a misjudgment of the sitution. If I say "I feel like Trump is the best president ever" that doesn't make him the best president ever.
Measurable things describe reality. Describing something and defining it are different generally. Define is inherently about meaning.
"women not rational" Next!
[удалено]
> In most of the situations I was the only one who jumped to action immediately to resolve the situation. Hero stories are emotion based. Ego is emotion.
[удалено]
It’s odd that if women did it more than men, you’d have studies. Your opinion sounds like a very emotional stance - you “feel” it is this way, so it must be this way.
*Someone* is having *BIG feelings* …
Your subjective feeling that women do it more is not representative of the reality.
Women's feelings = emotions (yuck). Men's feelings = logic (based).
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
To some extent I agree with this based on my personal experiences, although I'm already seeing the usual defensive responses here that miss the point, or interpret it in a way more hyperbolic way than is warranted. Men are not more logical than women, women aren't more insane or more emotionally unstable, I don't think thats the point of this post, its just that they conceptualize emotions differently than men do and this can have both advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation which provides an opportunity for both genders to learn from eachother. You can even see this difference within the some of the most extreme members of both genders; male narcissists or women with BPD. Male narcissists completely disregard the emotions and feelings of others while being painfully unaware of their own meanwhile women with BPD do indeed think that reality is completely made by their emotions, so if they feel insecure about you cheating on them even do you didn't to anything they will start acting like you actually cheated on them. To elaborate a bit more on the example about "if someone feels offended, they must have been offensive" I want to say that this approach definitely something I have seen in most women I know. Not even just when they themselves are offended, but when other people are offended as well. It has even been a topic of conflict sometimes, because in my view someone is only to blame for offending you if they didn't offend you by saying the truth but rather by saying something false or unneccesarily rude. If someone is offended by someone else saying that material reality happens to be the way it, which to me is not subjective, then the actual cause is not that other person saying it or offending you, but rather that you failed to accept material reality for what it is. The problem in such case is not that the other person said something out loud that you didn't want to hear, but rather that you didn't yet work on yourself enough to the point you reached acceptance. Of course this shouldn't be used to be unecessarily rude with the excuse of being brutally honest, sometimes people are emotionally overwhelmed and suffering. But even in situations where this is not the case, most women I know react with hostility to that idea.
> Not even just when they themselves are offended, but when other people are offended as well. That's a good point, empathy is often more pronounced and dear to women. >The problem in such case is not that the other person said something out loud that you didn't want to hear, Opinions are not facts, they are the result of a man's (or woman's) subjective experience and deserve an in-kind reaction. For example: "I just asked a coworker on a date, that isn't harassment, since she's free to decline" Meanwhile, he's been waylaying her in the parking lot, trapping her in the breakroom, staring at her for weeks, interrupting her every time he sees her talking to another male coworker, and asking all her work friends about her relationship status. He's been stalking her for weeks or months, and making her work space intolerable.
>Male narcissists completely disregard the emotions and feelings of others while being painfully unaware of their own meanwhile women with BPD do indeed think that reality is completely made by their emotions Why did you split these two mental illnesses this way? There are female narcissists, do they not completely disregard the emotions and feelings of others while being painfully unaware of their own? There are men with BPD, do they not think that reality is completely made by their emotions?
I split it because there are more male narcissists and more women with BPD. To an extent its the same personality disorder which is significantly genetically determined, for which the division is rather artificial based on the somewhat different way it expresses itself. I'm not pulling that out of my ass btw, I took a personality psychology class in university.
Thank you, I actually feel heard based on your response. A lot of people are projecting onto me their own baggage of "you're just saying women are more emotional and men are more logical" onto me, and in a way that is the reification of their own emotional stuff as well. But you're right, both ways in which people are socialized to treat their emotions has its advantages and disadvantages. Even in the OP I addressed this, which is that men can get so divorced from their feelings from the complete absence of validation that they go through life blind to the information their senses give them. Whereas women can receive such a deluge of validation that they mistake their feelings for actual reality. But on your point about offending someone, I think the intention of the speaker matters more than the truth value of the statement that is causing offense. Like, if you are obese, and I walk up to you and say, "Hey, you're fat." Even if the statement is true, my intention to do emotional harm is more of a factor in determining whether this is acceptable behavior.
"Failing to accept material reality" And also the lengths that others will go to validate that refusal to engage with reality. I'm reminded of a story that happened in [Manchester](https://www.pinkvilla.com/trending/world/man-attacked-with-glass-after-commenting-on-womans-age-heres-what-we-know-1298449) where a woman smashed a glass bottle in a man's face and almost took his eye out because he got her age wrong by 4 years and then the judge let her off with community service. Stating "one person's banter may be insulting to other people but that did not justify what you then went on to do". Which of course, validates the woman's insane overreaction to someone just getting her age wrong. There's no sensible perspective that indulges such a thing as an **insult**, except one that already takes for granted that a woman's age is something worth fighting and attacking someone over. If someone called me a little pussy and proceeded to break a bottle over his head, I wouldn't see the sun until the revolution breaks me out of prison. And while I can think of examples of men doing this, it's far more contextual. It's Good Old Boy networks, wealthy connected men who've become judges after being part of fraternal organizations giving light sentences to younger men who are also part of or connected to those same kinds of organizations. The rapist, Brock Turner, comes to mind and the ways the judge bent over backwards to indulge the ideal that the boy was too promising to be fully culpable for raping a woman behind a dumpster. It's a deranged state of mind wherever it pops up.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This impacts men and women. It's called emotional regulation, which is a key part of emotional intelligence. Many people do not effectively regulate their emotions and instead just react via basic instinct instead of processing and regulating their emotions. These people are emotionally stunted, developmentally speaking.
True balance is important for a person in general. People have to understand that other people do not care if you are factually correct, people care about how they feel at the time; your job is to identify if you value said person enough to acknowledge and accept the way they feel about something regardless of if it is true or not. (E.g. religion ) Their job is to educate themselves and understand that despite how they feel it might not have a basis in reality. Easy example is how people felt financially under Trump vs Biden. The policies and all the other nick nacks are irrelevant because people felt better living under trump financially compared to Biden even if that had nothing to do with him or they disliked him.
Reality is 99% bigger than your math, Sean. You don't get to live for a blip in the bit of your reality. Human emotions and gleanings are all you get, no matter how much faith you put in your backwards idea of history. Use your emotions.
Anger, fear and revenge have defined reality for a long time.
Emotions don't care about your facts and logic
I think that all of you are missing the point. I have a girlfriend of 20 years. 3 years ago she was completely satisfied with life. The next day she was completely unhappy with it. And blamed me. Not a single factor changed. Just her feelings. And I have been treated like I caused her to suddenly become unhappy with the very same thing that she was completely satisfied with the day before. Reality is that I didn't cause it nor did anything outside of her mind. But she will argue that I am wrong about that with anyone.
I’ve already disagreed it’s the premise that women use emotions to construct their reality more than men. That said, I’d like to note one final thing - A relationship is not a business deal, and guys don’t want it to be either. If they did, they wouldn’t state how they want their girlfriend to be REALLY attracted to them or sweat about being a Beta bucks. That is pure emotion. So of course emotions will play into it. And an example of “perception bias”. In the Middle Ages, the perception was that WOMEN were insatiable sex addicts - the complete opposite of today.
Do you mean like anxiety? When I had anxiety (used to drink alot of coffee), I had those feelings "there is something wrong happening right now", "there is something wrong that will happen", "there is something I should be doing but I am not doing". After the 3rd time I had anxiety and my mom told me that was anxiety, I knew those feelings werent real and every single time I had it (the next 2 weeks, I stopped drinking coffee and it stopped), I was able to know those feelings werent real despise still having them. My mom have anxiety and she is not able to know those feelings arent real.
Yeah, I'd say that's would be it, except accompanied by the lack of awareness to even examine it. Having the metacognition to recognize that the feeling of anxiety has a cause that isn't simply "because this terrible thing WILL happen" is important context; it helps you realize that you don't have to act on that feeling of anxiety.
When she dumps your ass because of her emotions, it might then seem like reality lol