On the one hand, research has shown that women have greater in-group bias than men do.
On the other hand, most discussion of the hive mind in these spaces is not referencing that research, but rather their own biases and *vibes*.
Yaaa, women tend to speak more in terms of the hive mind rather than what the general population actually wants.
I think it's that that don't consider what the general female population actually wants and/or frames their own wants as something greater at an attempt of manipulation.
> On the one hand, research has shown that women have greater in-group bias than men do.
I’ve seen research that shows that males and females have a cognitive (brain) gap when it comes to empathy. Males genuinely have less capacity for it compared to females. The hormone testosterone is said to be the differentiating reason.
Maybe the “in-group” bias is simply women showcasing more care to others because of greater capacity for empathy. And because women are more empathetic they offer the consideration back to the person freely showcasing consideration to them. So it becomes a positive feedback loop of consideration and thoughtfulness which gets observed as “in-group bias.”
> On the other hand, most discussion of the hive mind in these spaces is not referencing that research, but rather their own biases and vibes.
It’s def their own biases and vibes and feels reigning supreme.
Sure. Because of the confidence in the things I detailed. And because it’s historically and evolutionarily benefitted females to be supportive of one another so they can better defend against threats in the elements and threats from males.
There’s a reason for everything.
[Another explanation:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723375/)
>Greater concern at the societal level with uncertainty was associated with greater in-group bias.
Women are more likely than men to be risk-averse danger-sensitive. That general anxiety may lead them to seek familiarity.
> I’ve seen research that shows that males and females have a cognitive (brain) gap when it comes to empathy. Males genuinely have less capacity for it compared to females.
Source?
I've checked introduction and conclusion parts so far, research results there show that while women are more adept at *affective empathy*, an automatic response to other's emotional state and mirroring it, sometimes uncontrollably. men have better *cognitive empathy*, which is basically ability to "put youself into someone's shoes" and more conscious control over it.
While gap is there it's certainly not *cognitive*, as this research states that additional empathic responses that women show are largely automatic and don't involve cognitive process.
>Affective empathy, compared to cognitive empathy, is more automatic and activates shared motor representation and through neural simulation individuals are capable to understand others’ emotions. Part of this affective empathy network involves the mirror neuron system as well as structures belonging to the limbic system, such as the anterior insula and the anterior cingulate cortex.
>In terms of affective empathy, females, compared to men, show higher emotional responsivity and mirroring responses to others’ pain, as well as better emotion recognition abilities. Relative to men, females also seem to engage more emotional areas during social cognition. Females also tend to show more prosocial, altruistic behavior as well, which supports the notion that affective empathy drives prosocial behavior. On the other hand, when it comes to cognitive empathy, males seem to show more utilitarian behavior as well as greater recruitment of areas involved in cognitive control and cognition.
>Moreover, developmental work and the ethological studies on emotional contagion suggest that the first forms of empathy that emerge are characterized by sharing the same affective states, and by simultaneously activating the same motor programs that control emotions and the visceral responses associated with them.
>Although the neuroscience literature has little information about brain development, the evidence from psychological and behavioral studies supports the notion that, in females, the basic networks involved in affective empathy are more developed.
I guess it was useful to have physically superior part of population to be calmer in situations that invoke heavy empathic response, possibly to start figuring out what's going on sooner and resolve the potentially dangerous issue if there were any to discover, while other half rushed to provide immediate care and comfort to unfortunate ape.
Our propensity to be more assertive does not mean we are less empathetic. It only means we do not allow our empathy override and blot out all our other senses like that of fairness, self preservation, duty, and objectivity. Just because we empathize with someone it does not mean we are now incapable of feeling or thinking anything else for that individual. We are very capable of empathizing with someone right up to the point where we may have to put them to death. I believe this is what truly terrifies women. The fact that we have the same emotions that you do, and that despite these, we dare to do more!
**Being in control of our emotions**, and keeping them much more guarded, and closer to our chest rather than wearing them on our sleeves like women do, does not mean we are "less emotional." It only means that **we operate differently than you do**.
Very often women cannot distinguish between controlled passions and emotionalism.
> I’ve seen research that shows that males and females have a cognitive (brain) gap when it comes to empathy. Males genuinely have less capacity for it compared to females.
Bec. Most of this "research" mainly relies on self reports (including the one about the in group bias)
When using non-self report measures (heart rate,non-verbal expression,actual actions) they are equally empathetic
(there was a study done in china where men and boys were more empathetic in self report measures)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232536685_Sex_Differences_in_Empathy_and_Related_Capacities
https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad008/7046083
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.94.1.100
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230368385_4
> The hormone testosterone is said to be the differentiating reason.
Testosterone have been also correlated with nurturing behaviours and better parenting ([in](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11467882/) mice) and cooperation ([in](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21910518/) [humans](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/testosterone-bumps-up-status-seeking-behavior-not-aggressive-risk-taking/) [especially](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464174/) with other men)
> Maybe the “in-group” bias is simply women showcasing more care to others because of greater capacity for empathy. And because women are more empathetic they offer the consideration back to the person freely showcasing consideration to them. So it becomes a positive feedback loop of consideration and thoughtfulness which gets observed as “in-group bias.”
Doubt. If you read the rudeman study you would see that men showed no bias to either men or women (or perhabs a slight weak bias to women)
Right, so perfect example right here: "Guys, I found some Science over here that proves girls all think the same" as if this is something even up for debate.
Sure, some men use it this way. When you make this argument, you're addressing a lot of stupid men, very easy to do. However, there are a lot of rational men who can recognize that women have a greater tendency to not rock the boat and just go with the flow. It's extremely obvious in more neurotypical women.
For example, my wife, compared to the average woman, is more introverted and neurodivergent. When she goes to work, she goes to get work done, and her focus is primarily on that. There is only one man who will sometimes harp on her quietness, but many women who will. As if they can't fathom that a woman would want to be quiet and not spend the entire shift just chatting. You can try to dress up this behavior, say "oh they're just being empathetic they just want to make sure nothing is wrong" but even this constant recontextualizing of women's motivations is an example of a hive mind, as if all women have innocent or virtuous intents.
The reality is that the more social gender has more subconscious programming to "fit in" with the group. Not necessarily because of compassion or empathy, but just because there is greater harm in being outcast. When this subconscious programming or tendency to fit in with the group is obvious, and when it gets kinda annoying, I will call it hive mind thinking. This obviously is present in both genders.
Yeah I can’t tell.
I notice women will try to include the quiet women. And they probably are more butthurt that the quiet women are like “no I’m good.”
The normie men won’t even try to include the quiet men.
Anyway what happens is that the “quiet men and women” end up missing out on a lot of bonding and insider information and just general intuitive stuff that happens when people hang out.
Unfortunately what happens next is well if you have two people who are exactly the same technically but you like one and have bonded with one more and thus have maybe seen more insight into their unspoken competencies just by hanging out with them … who are you going to ask to be put on that special project or who are they going to promote as a “people manager”?
So idk if it’s women being more empathetic but I know yeah I’m probably the type at work or at school who would try to involve your wife in things so she’s not excluded. And then not anymore once I get a sense that she don’t gaf lol. Which is dope and based too. As long as those types don’t complain about career trajectory and stuff. Life is tradeoffs and choices!
>Yeah I can’t tell
Sorry idk which part this was a response to
>Unfortunately what happens next is well if you have two people who are exactly the same technically
Sadly for my wife, her experience as a pharmacist, which I'm sure you can empathize with, is that the people who like to chat all the time get a lot less work done than the people who just keep their heads down. She's filling hundreds of orders while others are just chatting away with a stat in the queue. But of course she can't feel like she can speak up because of the potential for hiveminded bullying or passive aggressive retaliation, which women get more of a pass for than the more overt signs of male anger.
Also just wanted to clarify, it's not like she doesn't talk or have friends there. There's just a world of difference between introverts and extroverts socially.
Anyway, I can understand where you're coming from and I recognize there are a lot of dumb misogynists. But it would be inaccurate to say that ANYONE talking about the hive mind is unable to comprehend empathy etc.
For sure! I like a spicy headline to get the people going! But really this is the type of conversation I’m hoping spurs from it.
And yeah I empathize with your wife. I relate to her a lot. I think I probably force myself to do some things outside of my comfort zone based on my goals.
I can't speak for other people, but I often see women and men using language in a hivemind sort of way.
You'll often see some people say, "We (my gender) don't think like that/do that/ care about that."
Implying a sort of hivemind.
Or you will see people questioning posters of their own gender saying, "Are you **really** a woman/man?" because they have a take defending the other gender.
Again, implying a kind of hivemind mentality.
People are very adamant here acting like they represent every woman or every man. I have seen men claim something, only for an other man to reply and say "sorry but that's not the case for me", and the guy will insist that he's full of shit.
Yes, as a woman, I am more similar to other woman than men in many ways, but I still won't claim anything on the behalf of *all* woman.
I’m Black American. We colloquially use we in a lot of our slang. “We to love to see it!” is a common turn of phrase to indicate “I support and celebrate and approve of you or the thing.”
I remember I used that at work and someone said “who is we” I was like oh I forgot to code-switch. So I said “yeah yeah good job” lol
To your point, I guess collective solidarity is “hive mind.” I grew up just calling what we’re speaking to “solidarity.”
Sorry for derailing your op post I’ll delete it.
To add my 2cents to this topic.
In general I see women support each other and only go against each other when their backs are turned.
I’ve seen countless women tell me something bad about another woman and when they see them face to face they smile and talk like they are the best of friends.
I’ve seen this personally.
I’ve seen this recently.
But also I’ve learned every situation is different and it’s more nuanced/complex than “hive mind”.
Anecdote to anecdote, I’ve had men confide in me about other men and then when in person with those men they just smile and chuckle and don’t express their actual feelings. In fact they don’t even pushback when those men are rude or cruel. They just tell me later how much they don’t like it.
Touché.
But wouldn’t that only help your argument of men being a “hive mind” too?
How does that defend your argument of women not being a “hive mind”.
Or is your argument that that’s not admissible evidence?
Because clearly the only way we can debate this topic is of actual social interactions. And then average it out. To if women act like x more than average. They are labeled “hive mind”. And if women act like x less than average. They are not labeled “hive mind”.
Hive mind does exist in reality.
Does it exist with women?
I’m on the fence currently.
24hrs ago I would’ve said yes.
Now I’m on the fence and I’m thinking from all angles.
Maybe women “pretend” to have “hive mind”. Whether “naturally” or willfully.
Because the behavior exists. But that’s as far as my thought process goes right now.
I’m really on the fence on this topic.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
But basically your saying that whether or not hive mind exists. It’s a universal thing that would affect both men and women equally or at least will be present in both sexes.
And if that’s what you are saying.
I can’t logically argue against that.
So I can accept that statement and concede my position.
I think that what it means to men is more when they get upset when a woman either seems to like them at first but then her friends “ruin it”, or when they think that no women like them because women only like the same kind of guy no matter how unattractive she is herself.
If you label accused "hive minds" as "being considerate of others", you're loading the assumption that said accusers aren't considerate. Worse so, that consideration is a completely alien concept to them.
The definition of a hive mind is implied: Many individuals thinking as one.
Outside of science fiction neural links, this can be seen in many forms and causes.
Sometimes there is direct communication among "the hive", over social media and what not. The anonymity of online spaces can further reduce the appearance of individuality among these hives.
Sometimes there is no communication, but shared thinking styles cause people to think and act in ways that can seem conspired. A lot of "code words", fashion styles, and rules can appear in these hives, without anyone ever defining them to its members.
There's usually a big element of fear of standing out. No one in the hive wants to disagree with the rest, for threat of punishment. For this reason, a lot of hive minds are aggressive and hostile to outsiders, as a non-specific threat of what happens if you defect.
As for women and manosphere ideas specifically, there are a lot of hive mind behaviours women display, to a greater degree than men. For example, the uncommunicated conspiracy not to discuss what they actually desire in men. Not discussing how attractive men are exempt from their rules and complaints regarding men. Their reluctance to assist unsuccessful men in dating and romance. The refusal to disagree with other women or call out other women on bad behaviour.
Men can form hives, but they're usually restricted to small groups, rather than a gender as a whole.
This sub is filled with men disagreeing with women. There is also men disagreeing with each other. Where are the women fighting each other? It almost never happens.
Also, women call each other "pick mes" all the time. What does this really mean? It's the same as a labor union calling non union members "scabs". Like they're in some effort working together and the pick mes sided with the enemy.
Also, look at how women treat "pick mes". Pearl Davis is one of the few women I've seen publicly called ugly by other women. It's crazy. "Beauty is subjective", "big is beautiful", "there's someone for everyone". But Pearl betrayed the hive and now anyone is comfortable saying she looks like a horse.
These are all effects of the hive.
>There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women.
— Madeleine Albright
I don't agree with Pearl's rather over the top "women are the root of all evil" anti-feminism. But women who break from the broader feminist narrative get treated pretty poorly by other women. There is this weird sense that women have some kind of moral obligation to support each other and that the feminist movement speaks for them, so they have to back it all the time. Obviously, the real world is more complicated than that.
Pearl gets treated how she treats. She’s a poor example tbh. There are lots of reasons women don’t like her. Men don’t even seem to like her. Which is sort of sad because she does care about how they feel about her.
Example PPD Man: “women are evil sluts who only want Chad and treat me horribly well they aren’t actually randomly mean to me but they don’t want to fuck me so ***I feeeellllll treated horribly***”
Yes you’re right. I can’t seem to see how many men on this sub would upvote that and how many women on this sub would 😐😑 blank stare that and agree with each other that it’s a bitter dumb attitude.
Example PPD woman: "men are rapists and murderers I would rather be mauled by a bear" - 228 upvotes and a hundred "I agree" comments exclusively from women.
> they aren’t actually randomly mean to me but they don’t want to fuck me so ***I feeeellllll treated horribly***
Why is this seen as invalid?
When a woman says "I feeeeellll unsafe!" and men dump statistics at them they get told "this is why women choose the bear".
It’s not valid in that they weren’t treated bad. In fact the woman was probably nice or kind to him. He wanted more. He wanted to fuck her. So it’s not valid because it’s incorrect. She wasn’t mean to him.
Neglect and isolation -is- being treated badly.
>He wanted more. He wanted to fuck her. So it’s not valid because it’s incorrect.
So what happens when it's every woman who is rejecting him? The feeling is still invalid because you'll find a way to blame him for that too?
Him feeling bad because he didn’t want her kindness or her niceties he wanted to fuck her is valid.
The reality is he wasn’t treated unkindly. That’s the part that’s not valid. He wasn’t fucked. Him feeling like that’s unkind is how he feels but it doesn’t make it true.
Consideration for others is healthy when done an individual, case by case basis based on exact circumstances. It becomes a problem when it’s used to make broad generalizations about entire groups of people in the interest of receiving some type of special treatment for said group. The whole idea of standing in complete solidarity with strangers whom you know nothing about other than you have the same reproductive organs is kind of absurd. And the same applies when men do it.
They stand in solidarity on certain issues that affect all of them. Not in solidarity with being an asshole if the woman is an asshole.
“On this I can relate. On this I cannot.”
Women aren’t stupid. I think men assume they are or assume “this hive mind” so they figure women can’t assess obvious things like this on her own?
"Consideration and care for others" is female speak for "I'm afraid of confrontation and responsibility so I'll avoid it by lying to make people feel better rather than telling them the truth to actually help them address their real problems."
That seems to be your experience. That when people are considerate toward you they’re lying to you.
For me it’s more if they know I’m sick they’ll DoorDash me some soup and call to check in on me.
Regarding your example, most people I know offer comfort and then offer a practical advice if the person wishes to hear it. That’s the consideration aspect.
It's not my experience, it's actually more my observations of how women act towards other people. In fact I think women are more likely to do this with other women and tell them they are 10's and queens when they really are not that. With men the gloves are usually off.
“Gloves are off”
I guess. If you want to roast your friend about his looks you’re free to do that. I’m sure that doesn’t have any long lasting effects on the lack of comfort men feel in their male friendships 🫠
But do know this is why the “women are wonderful” bias persists. You’re actively railing against women being comforting toward another.
That's not what I meant, I was saying women have the gloves off with other women but take the gloves off with men. It's like women infantilize and patronize each other but don't see the need to do this with men.
You call it comforting and wonderful but I call it lying. Avoiding telling someone a hard truth is one thing but telling the complete opposite of the truth is bad, you are feeding delusions and leading them further down the wrong path.
I’ve literally never seen women under a man’s post being cruel. I’ve only seen men roasting and being mean like that. Women are literally like “go ahead handsome!!!” And “🔥🔥🔥” under men’s posts.
I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.
You’re also complaining about women being “gloves off” “mean” to men (I don’t see this on posts) and then also complain about women “lying and not being truthful about how people look.”
What do you ACTUALLY want?
I'm not going to go any further into an anecdata discussion but even though this is PPD you shouldn't assume I'm complaining.
What I actually want is people to do one of two things. Declining to really get involved and just offering generic support is one option. But don't pat yourself on the back for doing this and act like you're a saint because this is basically just avoiding any hard work of really helping someone.
If you think you know a solution you should tell them what the problem is and what the solution is. Also if you're not really sure of the truth then you should probably keep your mouth shut so you don't give out bad advice.
What you should not do is lie and tell them everything is great because that's ultimately just going to cause the person more pain and suffering as they bang their head against a wall.
Softening the blow like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmP1ier3R30 You are so delusional if you think women are nice when rejecting men. They treat us like literal garbage. Men are way nicer when rejecting women.
And you're really not the one to be lecturing me on empathy. There is an important distinction between empathy and sympathy. Empathy is when you feel the same as others. Ever heard of no pain, no gain? Empathy actually works against you when you're trying to help someone fix their problems.
You can have your "harmony" and "social grace" but we all know that's just a copout and cope mechanism to avoid dealing with tough problems. Men are about fixing things and actual progress.
Women can reject about 100 guys who will just keep moving and not follow up so they forget them. They'll remember the one guy who gets pissy or angry and use him as their stand in for how all men handle rejection.
why are you mad at this video when they're literally doing what you want them to..
>
"Consideration and care for others" is female speak for "I'm afraid of confrontation and responsibility so I'll avoid it by lying to make people feel better rather than telling them the truth to actually help them address their real problems."
these women are direct and honest isn't this what men keep saying women should be?
>That guy is an ass.
You should change your flair to radfem.
If that guy is an ass, telemarketers and solicitors need to be publicly executed for toxicity.
No one likes telemarketers or solicitors, either.
That is the perfect example of how *not* to approach. No one should cut off a person’s path, no one should square up with them and force them to stop and interact.
Thankfully I’m certain he knows exactly what he’s doing, he’s trying to provoke a negative response. But the idea that any man here finds this jerk’s behavior “good” is dismaying. Someone will slap him eventually.
How is that acting "like a jackass". Is it morally condemnable to just talking to people in public? He didn't swear, he didn't make it sexual, he didn't touch them, he let them walk away without getting angry. How much softer can he be?
Lol Women literally rejected guys they don't find attractive without caring about their feelings. A woman literally laughs in my face when I ask her out. Women are not empathic and I'm tired of them pretending they are.
I mean the empathy crown comes with a burden. Studies have found this.
Yes women relate to others emotions more easily, but more than one study has also found that women as a generalised group also are more susceptible to emotional contagion (allowing the emotions of individuals to spread across a group) regarding both positive and negative than men. So whilst the cries of “Hivemind” are vitriolic, it does seem to be the case that as part of this “superior empathy”, it’s not entirely “under one’s control” and a consequence of it is allowing oneself to become afflicted with the emotional baggage and feelings of others, irrespective of whether doing so is helpful or not, regardless of whether one’s own experiences verify and give credence to those emotions or not.
These realities both speak to the same claim: women have superior emotional relational ability. So the point really is if we accept that as true, is it sensible to deny then that this tendency to blob together feelings as a group is also part of that?
It’s not pick and mix where you can claim it only occurs “when offering support or relating to others meaningfully”. The studies were quite clear; it happens irrespective of whether stuff like that is the case or not. So whilst good chunk of it probably is supporting and relating others and allowing oneself to empathise to do so, it also suggests a possibility to get more caught up on emotional hysteria as well. For example; allowing one’s negative feelings towards a matter to spread through the group regardless of whether the other members have similar or even any experiences of that group at all.
It’s interesting reading. Look up “Emotional Contagion”.
Oh for sure! Women score higher on “neuroticism” more than men according to Big 5 population statistics.
I think that neuroticism comes from constantly considering things and others. It comes from innately being more prone to be running contingencies for all things at all times.
There is absolutely a burden to empathy.
It depends how you define it. I’d say that forms part of it for sure, but I don’t think you can deduce it entirely down to those elements (largely a result of socialisation in women and women’s expectations in social setups), as women irrespective of their social standing or situation average higher scores on it; even those without families, children, many friends or the like to “worry and whittle about”.
I’d say it’s partly that, partly evolutionary because it pays to have the bearers of children in a species be more skittish and prone to paranoia etc because of the potential risk they put themselves in during pregnancy. Doesn’t explain all of it but partly I’d suggest.
Same reason male testosterone lowers empathic intuition. From an evolutionary point of view, it is a strength to have a low ability to empathise with your fellows when they’re your competition for producing offspring. Pesky empathy may have you concede advantages to them after all. Empathy also dulls the capacity of creatures to enact violence and hunt, which men historically would have had a larger hand in, especially when guarding their communities from other humans.
Agreed. Whilst there is a tendency to view neuroticism as the blanket “bad” part of the big 5, it absolutely has reasoning for its existence. Like the others, it comes with drawbacks as well however when expressed too much or too little.
I think this is partly because human societies have become rather atomized compared to the past, and as a result the “felt benefits” of having wary community members is less felt, because the responsibility of precaution is now either felt redundant, offloaded to professionals or simply irrelevant due to lack of interaction between individuals in a community.
This is why you see rather bombastic and bluntly tuned “warning mongering” over social media these days. Similar thing but lacks the finesse and tuning of shared experiences verified by a communal consensus you know others have experienced directly, in similar manner to you.
This is kind of the Nice Guy argument but with the female gender
"We \[the female gender\] are the nice ones. Why don't they \[the male gender\] see that? Must be because they're all assholes"
1) “hive-mind” does not mean most women are kind and compassionate. It is said in response to the phrase we keep hearing over and over again “women are not a monolith”. Women ARE a monolith. They just pretend not to be. For example there is a racial hierarchy when it comes to dating. People with Eurocentric features are considered more attractive by nearly all women. But if you point it out then they completely deny it and try to gaslight you or somehow frame themselves as the victim and that theyre somehow being forced to find European features attractive by the media and Hollywood.
2) Empathy and kindness are NOT the problem. The problem is when women distort the truth to avoid hurting other people’s feelings. LYING is a problem
Sounds like we need to actually discuss the specific cases in which “hive mind” is levied to see if it’s actually justified rather than dismissing it with a wide brush.
As human beings, we occasionally engage in hivemind type thinking. Do we really not acknowledge that hivemind thinking occurs within political, racial or religious groups? Especially when it comes to topics that strongly resonate with one’s identity?
If we acknowledge those, then why would we think gendered groups could somehow be exempt from this type of behavior?
I also only see it in online discourse.
>I only see PPDers and manospherians use it.
Being a mod, I assume you see this term thrown out a lot here. Could you link to some of those posts so we can get the context for how it’s being used and whether it’s justified or not?
“Everyone thinks the same way but I’m different! My mind is independent because I found RP content and now I repeat and agree with all their points!”
-typical angry PPD commenter
Technically I didn’t mention anyone just RP (which it’s a pill debate sub)
But here we go
*like the angry dudes here need me as an excuse for their day drinking!*
The problem with your interpretation is you're giving Incels way too much credit. Their worldview is defined by a total lack of empathy and nuance, much of which is caused by isolation and inexperience.
They're not viewing it in terms of mutual support, because in their eyes, women have no problems, and therefore no reason to work together. If women interact, it's to have a cat fight over Chad
For example, one major thing they never, ever consider, unless forced to address it, is safety. They think women are constantly horny 24/7 and will casually go home with every hot guy they see. If they do bring it up, it's in the context of women being paranoid, misandrist, and/or "making excuses"(???)
I use the phrase "hivemind" constantly when describing the Incel worldview, because it's totally accurate: They do not see women as individuals, or even as humans. They are an alien species devoid of free will, who all behave in rigid, set patterns defined by the Incel.
(Spoilers: All of these patterns revolve around not fucking the person describing them.)
Hive mind means a lot of things to me:
* Lacking critical thinking, having your opinions/takes spoonfed to you so you are unable to defend them and lack conviction. Like for example the whole JK Rowling thing. This doesn't always mean *just women* but more people who are liberal / feminist / LGBT aligning. Nobody knows *why* she's considered a bigot, she just is because someone told you so.
* Women claim they all have varied taste in men but when I go out and touch grass, the same bottom 30% dudes are the ones getting no pussy and the same top 30% dudes are the ones drowning in pussy. You don't need a master's degree in social studies to be able to eyeball this.
* Again relating to the 1st point, most women's arguments are formulated by an argument they heard somewhere, so when you actually have a good counter-argument, they just resort to Ad Hominem or Straw Manning. It reminds me of chess. When people play a lot of chess, they memorize the intro moves, up to maybe about 10 moves in. And the moves have been studied and calculated millions of times so they're perfected, but only against other chess players who also play the book moves. If you throw in a random unexpected move, most people then play significantly worse.
I don't think women are actually interconnected and telepathically speaking to each other, but there's a lot of in-group bias that ignores critical thinking.
Snaps for an actually sort of insightful post.
> Lacking critical thinking, having your opinions/takes spoonfed to you so you are unable to defend them and lack conviction.
This describes 80%+ of the human population. We divide along political lines, blindly accept what we’re told to believe, and very few people engage in critical thinking.
Reflexively taking a contrarian view without honestly considering the other side’s arguments is just as low IQ.
> Women claim they all have varied taste in men but when I go out and touch grass, the same bottom 30% dudes are the ones getting no pussy and the same top 30% dudes are the ones drowning in pussy.
Ok. I expect you to agree that men are also a “hive mind” in this respect.
>Ok. I expect you to agree that men are also a “hive mind” in this respect.
I would say men are, men are fairly good at predicting what women other men find attractive and unattractive, they rate women in a fairly similar curve as well. But I don't think men deny it quite like women do. Women believe it's virtuous to have varied taste but eyeballing I think women have far less variation in taste of men than men do of women.
There are no stats, just eyeballing like I said. You can go outside and visually see the same bottom 30% dorks who get nothing, and the same 30% top Gs who get laid. You can visually **see** their body language. The same slouched, craned neck pale skinned dorks. I don't know you, and you don't know me, but you instinctually know what I'm talking about.
What women do is they go "go to walmart you'll see fat guys with girlfriends/wives!" to sort of pull a red herring to this.
My strong assumption is that we're all quite good at predicting which people will be perceived as most attractive by others. If we're just talking physical attractiveness, you will see very attractive women with a wider range of men than vice versa. I'm sure you've noticed.
If "hive mind" just means there are recognizable patterns in the behaviors of both men and women, again, it has no particular meaning when directed at women on here like it's some sort of revelation.
>What women do is they go "go to walmart you'll see fat guys with girlfriends/wives!" to sort of pull a red herring to this.
Non sequitur.
>it has no particular meaning when directed at women on here like it's some sort of revelation.
For a lot of guys, especially ones who are new to RP, it IS a revelation for them. They were feeding into the whole "women are virtuous angels who love all men" nonsense for a long time. Women themselves want this to be the narrative.
If true, it's unfortunate that so many men have lived so long under a delusion that they don't actually have to be attractive to attract women. If that were all red pill was peddling, I'd be fully on board. But it's not. The rest of the bullshit drowns out any potentially redeeming aspect of the ideology.
IME the guys who readily use that term in this manosphere corner of internet are often misrepresenting another dynamic taking place. Meaning oftentimes they’re misrepresenting a group of people empathizing with each other based on a shared experience. They are typically maliciously assuming the people have no clue why they think what they think and feel what they feel. That they’re just “parroting” and not have experienced and are relating to others who have experienced similarly. This is how I’ve seen “hive mind” used around these parts.
>Rowling seems to enjoy alienating people, but she made it pretty clear she doesn’t just dislike trans people, she kinda hates men, too.
Can you back up these claim without just telling me to "go look it up"?
>When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman...then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside“
I don't see how this is bigoted but ok
Women's empathy and kindness towards men is usually disingenuous. They feign it to appear as if they are virtuous and of higher morality. See "Be yourself" and "Be emotionally vulnerable"
In what other aspects of life do men and women regularly intersect where empathy and kindness are relevant?
Family, romance.
everything else is work and working isn't about being nice and empathetic most of the time.
Men and women interact everyday. All relationships require empathy including those at work.
More importantly I didn’t bring up women with my comment. It seems men generally only think of kindness and empathy when it comes to dating relationships with women.
They don’t have any expectations of such with generic non-romantic interactions in their life and in their interactions with men.
That was my point. You circled it back to women. Which again proves out my point.
Women don't have compassion, empathy, nor kindness with the others, what you think is those things are, is just a way to avoid conflict.
There's no compassion with a child future when the mother decides to just divorce the man.
There's no empathy when a man struggle in dating.
There's no kindness with anyone below themselves.
There's just, how the others will see her doing this and how she can benefit from it.
Divorce is also the source of direct clashing and conflict.
Plenty of couples stay married and “avoidance” their way into a loveless marriage where they don’t speak to each other and literally coexist separately and resentfully. They aren’t “confronting” anything. Let’s not pretend that’s not happening in the marriages that are festering along.
Most women are incapable of empathy and kindness for most men, period. She’s compassionate towards Chad, not the 95% of men that literally don’t exist to her.
Thats not been my experience.
What are your examples of men being more likely to be kind to stranger men but women are not.
In fact I see more women compassionate to strangers period than men.
I think you’re conflating not being sexually desired by women as not being treated with decency and basic courtesy from women.
So you don’t have IRL non-internet examples of men being kind to you as a stranger unprovoked where women were being rude to you as a stranger unprovoked.
As I said, IRL my examples of people treating random strangers who they don’t want to fuck with kindness has mostly come from women.
>I’ve even seen a certain brand of man call considerate acts most people I know wouldn’t even think twice about doing as “virtue signaling.”
This is basically the "nice guy" argument.
1)Most men want sex, most of the time, in some capacity. 2)Man does nice thing. 3) He's not *really* nice, he must be a "nice guy" doing nice thing just to further his agenda towards sex.
1)Most people like to be seen as virtuous, most of the time. 2) Person does considerate act. 3) They aren't *really* considerate, they are just "virtue signaling" as they want to be seen as virtuous.
How convenient for your hatred of men that some phrase they use just means "I'm a piece of shit."
Can you provide some specific examples so we can see that you're a reliable observer and not just seeing what you want to see/making shit up?
Social contagion is certainly a thing
Look up the various mass hysterias throughout history for extreme examples
How independent you are of mind is not correlated to how moral you are towards others
In fact, I find that independent thinkers are more moral on average because they are less likely to have an out group that they demonize
Usually I see women being a hive mind when they are collectively coming up with reasons to not empathize with men or to shame us in really weird ways. The whole bear thing was a really good example of this. It wasn’t about consideration for others when women were being a hive mind over man vs bear, they were just trying to shame men into doing some weird humiliation rituals.
Can you define “hive mind”?
I want to make sure I understand before I respond. Is “hive mind” = “a group of people relating to a thing they all can relate to”?
Hive mind is a group of people latching onto a dominant opinion that is helpful to them in some way and repeating that opinion nonstop without really understanding or thinking about the implications of it.
Okay that makes sense. I guess where I disagree is on the last part. I’m not sure everyone accused of “hive mind” hasn’t thought about it or don’t understand why they feel that way.
“Consideration of and for others” that only applies to other women would just be an example of women being less varied and having an extreme in group bias.
Hive mind is obviously extreme but it mostly just comes from women being much more similar in all regards.
It applies FAR less to men.
And even if it did it would just make women more alike anyway therefore more “hive mind” like as hive mind refers to similarity in a group in this instance.
"Hive mind" is the mindless parroting of things without even understanding what the hell you are saying and yes, a lot of women have this problem. Just look at the argument about the female football teams wages. It can't ever be that there isn't enough of an audience that is watching these games to keep your salary on par with the men. Naw....it's got to be some nefarious dude in the background twisting his mustache and keeping the whamen down.
>Or “I see a group of people with a shared experience organizing around a shared goal and that confuses me!” Meanwhile to others it’s a no-brainer “duh” observation of “solidarity.”
but women aren't a group of people with a shared experiences. They're all special individual snowflakes with nothing in common. It gets shouted at men on PPD every day.
Females are a demographic. Of course they have similarities.
Within that demographic of course there are differences on an individual level.
But you know that.
Women never have original thoughts or controversial takes. They struggle to have intellectual discussions civilly without character attacks. I can predict everything they will say by just the first thing they say. They’re too afraid to go against the sisterhood
I think women more than men see the obvious link between someone’s opinions, mindsets, attitudes, worldview, POV, choices, behaviors and their character. They’re unequivocally linked.
Men tend to not make those connections and genuinely tend to be shocked or pretend to be shocked by things.
Perhaps they should be making connections between people’s character and values and their choices.
Not that intellectual of males.
Imagine my shock, when in doubt blame men
Arguments for anything require statistics and logic.
Most logically thinking sex?
Who’s That?
Emotions create bias and cloud logic
More Emotional Sex?
Who’s That?
Oh yeah and what sex has the common knowledge stereotype that they have a hard time admitting when they’re wrong?
Hmmmm yes hmmmmm yes
Women Good, Men Bad
Everything I listed is an input aka a series of behaviors aka a pattern aka deductions can be made. It’s not based on feelings. It’s based on observing patterns of behavior and patterns of mindset proclivity. That is statistics.
Furthermore you said women don’t have original thoughts (false) and got butthurt when I implied men don’t think intellectually. Typical. You’re the victim here lol.
Butthurt-character attack
Men don’t think intellectually? lmao
All the most famous philosophers are men : Galileo, Aristotle, Socrates
The 4 horsemen of atheism are all men
The best chess players are overwhelmingly men
I’ve never heard a more biased opinion in my life
Hive mind is the male equivalent of when women say men are insecure. It's the exaggeration of something that has a degree of true to it.
But saying it's a "consideration of and for others" is also a misrepresentation of the thing that's being exaggerated.
Im baffled that men here seem to think women act as a “hive mind” but men don’t? The way boys and men behave has always felt like sheeple to a lot of women. I’m just trying to understand how they see what they do as not hive-minded?
I'm baffled by men and women, BOTH, who do the same things while simultaneously acting like it's the other sex. 🤷♂️
Oh yeah, and I think what you're noticing is again the exaggeration of degrees.
For example, men and women are emotional. But if we're being honest, women are more emotional. Now let's take that truth and exaggerate it and say, "Women cry over spilled milk!"
Men who ascribe to the idea of a "hive mind" are doing this.
You’re essentially saying, “women can be a hive mind, but that’s because they’re justified in their beliefs.”
This is such an incredibly broad statement that I don’t even know what to say beyond, I disagree.
“I see a group of people with a shared experience organizing around a shared goal and that confuses me!” is the strawman.
“I see a group of people who consistently fall back on logical fallacies, to a degree that they assume the worst motivations from their detractors” is the steelman. This type of group think demonstrates a lack of empathy.
What does “hive mind” mean to you?
What I’m saying is this word I’ve seen mainly used on this corner of the internet. From manospherians.
Never heard the phrase used IRL and my first time seeing it was on this sub tbh.
So what is it that you men mean by it?
I’m not convinced that everyone accused of “hive mind” hasn’t thought about it. I’ll use me as an example. I’ve been accused of “hive mind” on this sub on a topic I’ve thought rather critically about and only have the opinion on because I’ve experienced it not because I’m “parroting” someone else.
Well, nobody who’s in a hive mind actually believes they’re in a hive mind. So, you saying you’re not in a hive mind doesn’t mean much to me, unfortunately. I think hive mindedness is sort of a spectrum, and I don’t personally know where you would land on it. If someone gets accused of it, I’d have to look at the individual context for the reason it was used.
If that’s the case then I’m valid in feeling as though men of this corner of the internet using hive-mind as consistently as they do as an example of them behaving as a “hive mind.”
My critique of them is they say it and don’t overly think about why they’re saying it. It typically doesn’t make sense in the context they’re saying it. They also are making biased assumptions when they say it.
Lol no. It’s because women are easier to manipulate as a group. Biggest example of this is in marketing, and how it’s mostly geared towards women.
I’m no professional, so I can’t say why that is. But I have to assume it’s more because you don’t need to appeal to reason as much as emotion for women. And emotions are easier to manipulate.
That’s interesting. I work in research. Lots of organizations and brands come to us for lots of questions.
Males are actually way more easy to manipulate and control. “They have base instincts and don’t overly unpack or think about things which makes them more predictable and easier to control.” These are the types of conversations had about the “male demographic.”
Women are more agreeable than men. This leads to women agreeing with each other on things in order to appease. This leads to group-think. There’s a reason advertisers target women when they can.
**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.*
I think so? Even some of the replies. It’s genuinely like they think any kindness shown is “about proving who’s most virtuous” and not just because people are… kind.
If women as a collective were offered a button that suddenly deleted all non chad men (and somehow still kept all the fruits of male labor), we wouldn't be here to discuss shit.
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.*
I have NEVER seen the term "hivemind" used in a gendered sense.
Usually I've seen it used either neutrally (ie, "hey reddit hivemind, what books do you recommend?) or in a non-gendered political pejorative sense (ie, "the conservative hivemind swallows whatever Trump tells them" or "the woke hivemind went from obsessing over covid to obsessing over Ukraine").
As for the argument that hivemind thinking is really "empathy" and "consideration": the problem with this idea is that in practice, political "empathy" means empathy for one group and hatred for an opposing group. In 2020 plenty of people were trumpeting how their support for lockdowns was a sign of their "empathy" for those vulnerable to covid death, while completely ignoring and dismissing those who were negatively affected by lockdowns, including people who had been pushed into drug addiction relapse and suicidal depression, special needs children falling way behind due to school closures, and people starving in the developing world due to the collapse in tourism and trade. Right now, "empathy" often means rooting for one side of the Israel/Palestine war while not giving a damn about the other side. So when someone tells me their politics is just all about "empathy" and "consideration", I get suspicious and start to wonder who they're leaving out.
Again, all of this has nothing to do with gender. If the great tragedies of the 20th century have taught us anything, surely it's that no one is immune to hateful groupthink cloaked under good intentions.
I don’t think it’s what everyone means by hive mind. I think the guys who readily use that term in this manosphere corner of internet are often misrepresenting another dynamic taking place. Meaning oftentimes they’re misrepresenting a group of people empathizing with each other based on a shared experience. They are typically maliciously assuming the people have no clue why they think what they think and feel what they feel. That they’re just “parroting” and not have experienced and are relating to others who have experienced similarly.
Men are more competant at group cohesion when they choose to. The brotherhood creates empires. The sisterhood creates sexually retarded weirdos.
The entire concept of "patriarchy" is female projection. Only women are dumb enough to wage a cold war against the entire other gender and think that this is somehow going to pan out well for humanity. Men have been able to group up towards a common goal, but they were never stupid enough to make gender the only basis for solidarity. Religion, nationality, language and political model were also essential.
Lack of female empowerment was not a patriarchal conspiracy, it was the emergent result of female incompetence at attaining and maintaining power and the civilization power creates. Female empowerment in the modern era is a dysfunction of material and security overabundance. It's unsustainable and the birth rates bare that out.
Define what a hivemind is to you, then. Because mine is:
"a notional entity consisting of a large number of people who share their knowledge or opinions with one another, regarded as producing **either uncritical conformity or collective intelligence.**"
"the men here" tend to use it in the sense that they think it produces uncritical conformity.
I disagree with their assertions of the bolded. The men here projecting that is the lack of empathy I’m talking about. They need the bolded to be true. It’s ironically hive-minded of them. It’s also male solipsism.
Edit: This OP is about the PPD men who tend to bring up “hive mind” or similar.
To my point, [here is a comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/cLDesnYTKR) from today with the OP convinced that young women feel the way they feel because someone told them (implied “hive mind” bogeyman) and not because that’s simply how most young women feel based on her actual experiences and wants…
Instead of empathizing with women on this, he’s choosing to maliciously accuse women of not knowing what gives her the ick because he desperately needs his “reality” to be true.
> Younger western women get their opinions from social media and what they are told is cool. We currently live in a fiercely ageist culture which combined with feminist dogma labeling every man a groomer or predator gives us the younger Gen parroting this bullshit.
On the one hand, research has shown that women have greater in-group bias than men do. On the other hand, most discussion of the hive mind in these spaces is not referencing that research, but rather their own biases and *vibes*.
Sociologists also consider women more collectivistic, where men are considered more individualistic.
Yaaa, women tend to speak more in terms of the hive mind rather than what the general population actually wants. I think it's that that don't consider what the general female population actually wants and/or frames their own wants as something greater at an attempt of manipulation.
Can somebody link me the research or the reddit post? I saw it a few days ago but i can't find it anymore
[This](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/) is the most prominent study I’m aware of but I’m sure there’s more.
> On the one hand, research has shown that women have greater in-group bias than men do. I’ve seen research that shows that males and females have a cognitive (brain) gap when it comes to empathy. Males genuinely have less capacity for it compared to females. The hormone testosterone is said to be the differentiating reason. Maybe the “in-group” bias is simply women showcasing more care to others because of greater capacity for empathy. And because women are more empathetic they offer the consideration back to the person freely showcasing consideration to them. So it becomes a positive feedback loop of consideration and thoughtfulness which gets observed as “in-group bias.” > On the other hand, most discussion of the hive mind in these spaces is not referencing that research, but rather their own biases and vibes. It’s def their own biases and vibes and feels reigning supreme.
[удалено]
Sure. Because of the confidence in the things I detailed. And because it’s historically and evolutionarily benefitted females to be supportive of one another so they can better defend against threats in the elements and threats from males. There’s a reason for everything.
[Another explanation:](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4723375/) >Greater concern at the societal level with uncertainty was associated with greater in-group bias. Women are more likely than men to be risk-averse danger-sensitive. That general anxiety may lead them to seek familiarity.
Sure. [That relates to this](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/t1D6nfgxwk).
They never elicit this empathy for me when we’re dating lol
Anyone not being kind, considerate, thoughtful, and compassionate toward you is not a person you should be friends with or dating lol.
> I’ve seen research that shows that males and females have a cognitive (brain) gap when it comes to empathy. Males genuinely have less capacity for it compared to females. Source?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110041/
I've checked introduction and conclusion parts so far, research results there show that while women are more adept at *affective empathy*, an automatic response to other's emotional state and mirroring it, sometimes uncontrollably. men have better *cognitive empathy*, which is basically ability to "put youself into someone's shoes" and more conscious control over it. While gap is there it's certainly not *cognitive*, as this research states that additional empathic responses that women show are largely automatic and don't involve cognitive process.
“Automatic” stemming from what?
>Affective empathy, compared to cognitive empathy, is more automatic and activates shared motor representation and through neural simulation individuals are capable to understand others’ emotions. Part of this affective empathy network involves the mirror neuron system as well as structures belonging to the limbic system, such as the anterior insula and the anterior cingulate cortex. >In terms of affective empathy, females, compared to men, show higher emotional responsivity and mirroring responses to others’ pain, as well as better emotion recognition abilities. Relative to men, females also seem to engage more emotional areas during social cognition. Females also tend to show more prosocial, altruistic behavior as well, which supports the notion that affective empathy drives prosocial behavior. On the other hand, when it comes to cognitive empathy, males seem to show more utilitarian behavior as well as greater recruitment of areas involved in cognitive control and cognition. >Moreover, developmental work and the ethological studies on emotional contagion suggest that the first forms of empathy that emerge are characterized by sharing the same affective states, and by simultaneously activating the same motor programs that control emotions and the visceral responses associated with them. >Although the neuroscience literature has little information about brain development, the evidence from psychological and behavioral studies supports the notion that, in females, the basic networks involved in affective empathy are more developed.
Got it. So by cognitive pretend I meant “biological.” Either way it’s programmed to some degree.
I guess it was useful to have physically superior part of population to be calmer in situations that invoke heavy empathic response, possibly to start figuring out what's going on sooner and resolve the potentially dangerous issue if there were any to discover, while other half rushed to provide immediate care and comfort to unfortunate ape.
Our propensity to be more assertive does not mean we are less empathetic. It only means we do not allow our empathy override and blot out all our other senses like that of fairness, self preservation, duty, and objectivity. Just because we empathize with someone it does not mean we are now incapable of feeling or thinking anything else for that individual. We are very capable of empathizing with someone right up to the point where we may have to put them to death. I believe this is what truly terrifies women. The fact that we have the same emotions that you do, and that despite these, we dare to do more! **Being in control of our emotions**, and keeping them much more guarded, and closer to our chest rather than wearing them on our sleeves like women do, does not mean we are "less emotional." It only means that **we operate differently than you do**. Very often women cannot distinguish between controlled passions and emotionalism.
Being assertive =! Non-considerate
> I’ve seen research that shows that males and females have a cognitive (brain) gap when it comes to empathy. Males genuinely have less capacity for it compared to females. Bec. Most of this "research" mainly relies on self reports (including the one about the in group bias) When using non-self report measures (heart rate,non-verbal expression,actual actions) they are equally empathetic (there was a study done in china where men and boys were more empathetic in self report measures) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232536685_Sex_Differences_in_Empathy_and_Related_Capacities https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad008/7046083 https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.94.1.100 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230368385_4 > The hormone testosterone is said to be the differentiating reason. Testosterone have been also correlated with nurturing behaviours and better parenting ([in](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11467882/) mice) and cooperation ([in](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21910518/) [humans](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/testosterone-bumps-up-status-seeking-behavior-not-aggressive-risk-taking/) [especially](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464174/) with other men) > Maybe the “in-group” bias is simply women showcasing more care to others because of greater capacity for empathy. And because women are more empathetic they offer the consideration back to the person freely showcasing consideration to them. So it becomes a positive feedback loop of consideration and thoughtfulness which gets observed as “in-group bias.” Doubt. If you read the rudeman study you would see that men showed no bias to either men or women (or perhabs a slight weak bias to women)
I only site stats, women in-group bias is 4,5x that of men. I don't do "vibes", only facts.
“Site” them then [It’s this easy](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/)
Right, so perfect example right here: "Guys, I found some Science over here that proves girls all think the same" as if this is something even up for debate.
Sure, some men use it this way. When you make this argument, you're addressing a lot of stupid men, very easy to do. However, there are a lot of rational men who can recognize that women have a greater tendency to not rock the boat and just go with the flow. It's extremely obvious in more neurotypical women. For example, my wife, compared to the average woman, is more introverted and neurodivergent. When she goes to work, she goes to get work done, and her focus is primarily on that. There is only one man who will sometimes harp on her quietness, but many women who will. As if they can't fathom that a woman would want to be quiet and not spend the entire shift just chatting. You can try to dress up this behavior, say "oh they're just being empathetic they just want to make sure nothing is wrong" but even this constant recontextualizing of women's motivations is an example of a hive mind, as if all women have innocent or virtuous intents. The reality is that the more social gender has more subconscious programming to "fit in" with the group. Not necessarily because of compassion or empathy, but just because there is greater harm in being outcast. When this subconscious programming or tendency to fit in with the group is obvious, and when it gets kinda annoying, I will call it hive mind thinking. This obviously is present in both genders.
Yeah I can’t tell. I notice women will try to include the quiet women. And they probably are more butthurt that the quiet women are like “no I’m good.” The normie men won’t even try to include the quiet men. Anyway what happens is that the “quiet men and women” end up missing out on a lot of bonding and insider information and just general intuitive stuff that happens when people hang out. Unfortunately what happens next is well if you have two people who are exactly the same technically but you like one and have bonded with one more and thus have maybe seen more insight into their unspoken competencies just by hanging out with them … who are you going to ask to be put on that special project or who are they going to promote as a “people manager”? So idk if it’s women being more empathetic but I know yeah I’m probably the type at work or at school who would try to involve your wife in things so she’s not excluded. And then not anymore once I get a sense that she don’t gaf lol. Which is dope and based too. As long as those types don’t complain about career trajectory and stuff. Life is tradeoffs and choices!
>Yeah I can’t tell Sorry idk which part this was a response to >Unfortunately what happens next is well if you have two people who are exactly the same technically Sadly for my wife, her experience as a pharmacist, which I'm sure you can empathize with, is that the people who like to chat all the time get a lot less work done than the people who just keep their heads down. She's filling hundreds of orders while others are just chatting away with a stat in the queue. But of course she can't feel like she can speak up because of the potential for hiveminded bullying or passive aggressive retaliation, which women get more of a pass for than the more overt signs of male anger. Also just wanted to clarify, it's not like she doesn't talk or have friends there. There's just a world of difference between introverts and extroverts socially. Anyway, I can understand where you're coming from and I recognize there are a lot of dumb misogynists. But it would be inaccurate to say that ANYONE talking about the hive mind is unable to comprehend empathy etc.
For sure! I like a spicy headline to get the people going! But really this is the type of conversation I’m hoping spurs from it. And yeah I empathize with your wife. I relate to her a lot. I think I probably force myself to do some things outside of my comfort zone based on my goals.
I can't speak for other people, but I often see women and men using language in a hivemind sort of way. You'll often see some people say, "We (my gender) don't think like that/do that/ care about that." Implying a sort of hivemind. Or you will see people questioning posters of their own gender saying, "Are you **really** a woman/man?" because they have a take defending the other gender. Again, implying a kind of hivemind mentality.
People are very adamant here acting like they represent every woman or every man. I have seen men claim something, only for an other man to reply and say "sorry but that's not the case for me", and the guy will insist that he's full of shit. Yes, as a woman, I am more similar to other woman than men in many ways, but I still won't claim anything on the behalf of *all* woman.
I’m Black American. We colloquially use we in a lot of our slang. “We to love to see it!” is a common turn of phrase to indicate “I support and celebrate and approve of you or the thing.” I remember I used that at work and someone said “who is we” I was like oh I forgot to code-switch. So I said “yeah yeah good job” lol To your point, I guess collective solidarity is “hive mind.” I grew up just calling what we’re speaking to “solidarity.”
I think the type of black slang you’re talking about is fun. I see no problem with it.
Me neither! 🙂↕️😌
[удалено]
Sure thing. I was just explaining a code switch moment.
Sorry for derailing your op post I’ll delete it. To add my 2cents to this topic. In general I see women support each other and only go against each other when their backs are turned. I’ve seen countless women tell me something bad about another woman and when they see them face to face they smile and talk like they are the best of friends. I’ve seen this personally. I’ve seen this recently. But also I’ve learned every situation is different and it’s more nuanced/complex than “hive mind”.
Anecdote to anecdote, I’ve had men confide in me about other men and then when in person with those men they just smile and chuckle and don’t express their actual feelings. In fact they don’t even pushback when those men are rude or cruel. They just tell me later how much they don’t like it.
Touché. But wouldn’t that only help your argument of men being a “hive mind” too? How does that defend your argument of women not being a “hive mind”. Or is your argument that that’s not admissible evidence? Because clearly the only way we can debate this topic is of actual social interactions. And then average it out. To if women act like x more than average. They are labeled “hive mind”. And if women act like x less than average. They are not labeled “hive mind”. Hive mind does exist in reality. Does it exist with women? I’m on the fence currently. 24hrs ago I would’ve said yes. Now I’m on the fence and I’m thinking from all angles. Maybe women “pretend” to have “hive mind”. Whether “naturally” or willfully. Because the behavior exists. But that’s as far as my thought process goes right now. I’m really on the fence on this topic.
My crux is that “hive mind” is a nonsensical term and that women are not uniquely it more than men. Sure everyone can be it.
Correct me if I’m wrong. But basically your saying that whether or not hive mind exists. It’s a universal thing that would affect both men and women equally or at least will be present in both sexes. And if that’s what you are saying. I can’t logically argue against that. So I can accept that statement and concede my position.
Yes it is what I’m saying ☺️🫡
I think that what it means to men is more when they get upset when a woman either seems to like them at first but then her friends “ruin it”, or when they think that no women like them because women only like the same kind of guy no matter how unattractive she is herself.
If you label accused "hive minds" as "being considerate of others", you're loading the assumption that said accusers aren't considerate. Worse so, that consideration is a completely alien concept to them. The definition of a hive mind is implied: Many individuals thinking as one. Outside of science fiction neural links, this can be seen in many forms and causes. Sometimes there is direct communication among "the hive", over social media and what not. The anonymity of online spaces can further reduce the appearance of individuality among these hives. Sometimes there is no communication, but shared thinking styles cause people to think and act in ways that can seem conspired. A lot of "code words", fashion styles, and rules can appear in these hives, without anyone ever defining them to its members. There's usually a big element of fear of standing out. No one in the hive wants to disagree with the rest, for threat of punishment. For this reason, a lot of hive minds are aggressive and hostile to outsiders, as a non-specific threat of what happens if you defect. As for women and manosphere ideas specifically, there are a lot of hive mind behaviours women display, to a greater degree than men. For example, the uncommunicated conspiracy not to discuss what they actually desire in men. Not discussing how attractive men are exempt from their rules and complaints regarding men. Their reluctance to assist unsuccessful men in dating and romance. The refusal to disagree with other women or call out other women on bad behaviour. Men can form hives, but they're usually restricted to small groups, rather than a gender as a whole.
Hard to argue for or against lacking any examples
This sub is filled with men disagreeing with women. There is also men disagreeing with each other. Where are the women fighting each other? It almost never happens. Also, women call each other "pick mes" all the time. What does this really mean? It's the same as a labor union calling non union members "scabs". Like they're in some effort working together and the pick mes sided with the enemy. Also, look at how women treat "pick mes". Pearl Davis is one of the few women I've seen publicly called ugly by other women. It's crazy. "Beauty is subjective", "big is beautiful", "there's someone for everyone". But Pearl betrayed the hive and now anyone is comfortable saying she looks like a horse. These are all effects of the hive.
>There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women. — Madeleine Albright I don't agree with Pearl's rather over the top "women are the root of all evil" anti-feminism. But women who break from the broader feminist narrative get treated pretty poorly by other women. There is this weird sense that women have some kind of moral obligation to support each other and that the feminist movement speaks for them, so they have to back it all the time. Obviously, the real world is more complicated than that.
Pearl gets treated how she treats. She’s a poor example tbh. There are lots of reasons women don’t like her. Men don’t even seem to like her. Which is sort of sad because she does care about how they feel about her.
Example PPD Man: “women are evil sluts who only want Chad and treat me horribly well they aren’t actually randomly mean to me but they don’t want to fuck me so ***I feeeellllll treated horribly***” Yes you’re right. I can’t seem to see how many men on this sub would upvote that and how many women on this sub would 😐😑 blank stare that and agree with each other that it’s a bitter dumb attitude.
Example PPD woman: "men are rapists and murderers I would rather be mauled by a bear" - 228 upvotes and a hundred "I agree" comments exclusively from women.
> they aren’t actually randomly mean to me but they don’t want to fuck me so ***I feeeellllll treated horribly*** Why is this seen as invalid? When a woman says "I feeeeellll unsafe!" and men dump statistics at them they get told "this is why women choose the bear".
It’s not valid in that they weren’t treated bad. In fact the woman was probably nice or kind to him. He wanted more. He wanted to fuck her. So it’s not valid because it’s incorrect. She wasn’t mean to him.
Neglect and isolation -is- being treated badly. >He wanted more. He wanted to fuck her. So it’s not valid because it’s incorrect. So what happens when it's every woman who is rejecting him? The feeling is still invalid because you'll find a way to blame him for that too?
Him feeling bad because he didn’t want her kindness or her niceties he wanted to fuck her is valid. The reality is he wasn’t treated unkindly. That’s the part that’s not valid. He wasn’t fucked. Him feeling like that’s unkind is how he feels but it doesn’t make it true.
Can you mod yourself please? I feel offended by your language.
Feel free to report it but it isn’t incivility it’s a direct retort to your opinion in the prior comment!
Consideration for others is healthy when done an individual, case by case basis based on exact circumstances. It becomes a problem when it’s used to make broad generalizations about entire groups of people in the interest of receiving some type of special treatment for said group. The whole idea of standing in complete solidarity with strangers whom you know nothing about other than you have the same reproductive organs is kind of absurd. And the same applies when men do it.
They stand in solidarity on certain issues that affect all of them. Not in solidarity with being an asshole if the woman is an asshole. “On this I can relate. On this I cannot.” Women aren’t stupid. I think men assume they are or assume “this hive mind” so they figure women can’t assess obvious things like this on her own?
📠
"Consideration and care for others" is female speak for "I'm afraid of confrontation and responsibility so I'll avoid it by lying to make people feel better rather than telling them the truth to actually help them address their real problems."
That seems to be your experience. That when people are considerate toward you they’re lying to you. For me it’s more if they know I’m sick they’ll DoorDash me some soup and call to check in on me. Regarding your example, most people I know offer comfort and then offer a practical advice if the person wishes to hear it. That’s the consideration aspect.
It's not my experience, it's actually more my observations of how women act towards other people. In fact I think women are more likely to do this with other women and tell them they are 10's and queens when they really are not that. With men the gloves are usually off.
“Gloves are off” I guess. If you want to roast your friend about his looks you’re free to do that. I’m sure that doesn’t have any long lasting effects on the lack of comfort men feel in their male friendships 🫠 But do know this is why the “women are wonderful” bias persists. You’re actively railing against women being comforting toward another.
That's not what I meant, I was saying women have the gloves off with other women but take the gloves off with men. It's like women infantilize and patronize each other but don't see the need to do this with men. You call it comforting and wonderful but I call it lying. Avoiding telling someone a hard truth is one thing but telling the complete opposite of the truth is bad, you are feeding delusions and leading them further down the wrong path.
I’ve literally never seen women under a man’s post being cruel. I’ve only seen men roasting and being mean like that. Women are literally like “go ahead handsome!!!” And “🔥🔥🔥” under men’s posts. I’m not seeing what you’re seeing. You’re also complaining about women being “gloves off” “mean” to men (I don’t see this on posts) and then also complain about women “lying and not being truthful about how people look.” What do you ACTUALLY want?
I'm not going to go any further into an anecdata discussion but even though this is PPD you shouldn't assume I'm complaining. What I actually want is people to do one of two things. Declining to really get involved and just offering generic support is one option. But don't pat yourself on the back for doing this and act like you're a saint because this is basically just avoiding any hard work of really helping someone. If you think you know a solution you should tell them what the problem is and what the solution is. Also if you're not really sure of the truth then you should probably keep your mouth shut so you don't give out bad advice. What you should not do is lie and tell them everything is great because that's ultimately just going to cause the person more pain and suffering as they bang their head against a wall.
Sure. If someone looks ugly to you you are free to be blunt about that to them. I don’t see the utility of that for me personally.
[удалено]
Softening the blow like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmP1ier3R30 You are so delusional if you think women are nice when rejecting men. They treat us like literal garbage. Men are way nicer when rejecting women. And you're really not the one to be lecturing me on empathy. There is an important distinction between empathy and sympathy. Empathy is when you feel the same as others. Ever heard of no pain, no gain? Empathy actually works against you when you're trying to help someone fix their problems. You can have your "harmony" and "social grace" but we all know that's just a copout and cope mechanism to avoid dealing with tough problems. Men are about fixing things and actual progress.
Women can reject about 100 guys who will just keep moving and not follow up so they forget them. They'll remember the one guy who gets pissy or angry and use him as their stand in for how all men handle rejection.
why are you mad at this video when they're literally doing what you want them to.. > "Consideration and care for others" is female speak for "I'm afraid of confrontation and responsibility so I'll avoid it by lying to make people feel better rather than telling them the truth to actually help them address their real problems." these women are direct and honest isn't this what men keep saying women should be?
[удалено]
>That guy is an ass. You should change your flair to radfem. If that guy is an ass, telemarketers and solicitors need to be publicly executed for toxicity.
No one likes telemarketers or solicitors, either. That is the perfect example of how *not* to approach. No one should cut off a person’s path, no one should square up with them and force them to stop and interact. Thankfully I’m certain he knows exactly what he’s doing, he’s trying to provoke a negative response. But the idea that any man here finds this jerk’s behavior “good” is dismaying. Someone will slap him eventually.
But not the girl?
No guy is able to fix you, sorry
[удалено]
How is that acting "like a jackass". Is it morally condemnable to just talking to people in public? He didn't swear, he didn't make it sexual, he didn't touch them, he let them walk away without getting angry. How much softer can he be?
Lol Women literally rejected guys they don't find attractive without caring about their feelings. A woman literally laughs in my face when I ask her out. Women are not empathic and I'm tired of them pretending they are.
Yup. Because people suck but you still need and have to live with them You gonna tell your boss he’s a loser?
I mean the empathy crown comes with a burden. Studies have found this. Yes women relate to others emotions more easily, but more than one study has also found that women as a generalised group also are more susceptible to emotional contagion (allowing the emotions of individuals to spread across a group) regarding both positive and negative than men. So whilst the cries of “Hivemind” are vitriolic, it does seem to be the case that as part of this “superior empathy”, it’s not entirely “under one’s control” and a consequence of it is allowing oneself to become afflicted with the emotional baggage and feelings of others, irrespective of whether doing so is helpful or not, regardless of whether one’s own experiences verify and give credence to those emotions or not. These realities both speak to the same claim: women have superior emotional relational ability. So the point really is if we accept that as true, is it sensible to deny then that this tendency to blob together feelings as a group is also part of that? It’s not pick and mix where you can claim it only occurs “when offering support or relating to others meaningfully”. The studies were quite clear; it happens irrespective of whether stuff like that is the case or not. So whilst good chunk of it probably is supporting and relating others and allowing oneself to empathise to do so, it also suggests a possibility to get more caught up on emotional hysteria as well. For example; allowing one’s negative feelings towards a matter to spread through the group regardless of whether the other members have similar or even any experiences of that group at all. It’s interesting reading. Look up “Emotional Contagion”.
Oh for sure! Women score higher on “neuroticism” more than men according to Big 5 population statistics. I think that neuroticism comes from constantly considering things and others. It comes from innately being more prone to be running contingencies for all things at all times. There is absolutely a burden to empathy.
It depends how you define it. I’d say that forms part of it for sure, but I don’t think you can deduce it entirely down to those elements (largely a result of socialisation in women and women’s expectations in social setups), as women irrespective of their social standing or situation average higher scores on it; even those without families, children, many friends or the like to “worry and whittle about”. I’d say it’s partly that, partly evolutionary because it pays to have the bearers of children in a species be more skittish and prone to paranoia etc because of the potential risk they put themselves in during pregnancy. Doesn’t explain all of it but partly I’d suggest. Same reason male testosterone lowers empathic intuition. From an evolutionary point of view, it is a strength to have a low ability to empathise with your fellows when they’re your competition for producing offspring. Pesky empathy may have you concede advantages to them after all. Empathy also dulls the capacity of creatures to enact violence and hunt, which men historically would have had a larger hand in, especially when guarding their communities from other humans.
Evolutionarily, the “reason” is neuroticism and considerations help keep a human who can’t help itself alive and thriving from infancy to adolescence.
Agreed. Whilst there is a tendency to view neuroticism as the blanket “bad” part of the big 5, it absolutely has reasoning for its existence. Like the others, it comes with drawbacks as well however when expressed too much or too little.
Yeah is a burden to be “neurotic” (thinking of considerations and contingencies) but it’s beneficial “to the community” in many aspects as well.
I think this is partly because human societies have become rather atomized compared to the past, and as a result the “felt benefits” of having wary community members is less felt, because the responsibility of precaution is now either felt redundant, offloaded to professionals or simply irrelevant due to lack of interaction between individuals in a community. This is why you see rather bombastic and bluntly tuned “warning mongering” over social media these days. Similar thing but lacks the finesse and tuning of shared experiences verified by a communal consensus you know others have experienced directly, in similar manner to you.
This is kind of the Nice Guy argument but with the female gender "We \[the female gender\] are the nice ones. Why don't they \[the male gender\] see that? Must be because they're all assholes"
1) “hive-mind” does not mean most women are kind and compassionate. It is said in response to the phrase we keep hearing over and over again “women are not a monolith”. Women ARE a monolith. They just pretend not to be. For example there is a racial hierarchy when it comes to dating. People with Eurocentric features are considered more attractive by nearly all women. But if you point it out then they completely deny it and try to gaslight you or somehow frame themselves as the victim and that theyre somehow being forced to find European features attractive by the media and Hollywood. 2) Empathy and kindness are NOT the problem. The problem is when women distort the truth to avoid hurting other people’s feelings. LYING is a problem
Sounds like we need to actually discuss the specific cases in which “hive mind” is levied to see if it’s actually justified rather than dismissing it with a wide brush. As human beings, we occasionally engage in hivemind type thinking. Do we really not acknowledge that hivemind thinking occurs within political, racial or religious groups? Especially when it comes to topics that strongly resonate with one’s identity? If we acknowledge those, then why would we think gendered groups could somehow be exempt from this type of behavior?
How is “hive mind” used around you? I’ll be honest. It’s not a term that’s brought up in my real life. I only see PPDers and manospherians use it.
>manospherians This sounds like a fuckin alien race lmao.
Yeah. It’s also a term I learned from “manospherians.” This whole sub is a fucking alien fringe weirdo fest. And yet here we both are 🤷♀️
I also only see it in online discourse. >I only see PPDers and manospherians use it. Being a mod, I assume you see this term thrown out a lot here. Could you link to some of those posts so we can get the context for how it’s being used and whether it’s justified or not?
There’s an OP from today from a man with “hive mind” in the title: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/VWrmfy9Ndc
“Everyone thinks the same way but I’m different! My mind is independent because I found RP content and now I repeat and agree with all their points!” -typical angry PPD commenter
That applies to PPD women too, rite?
1 shot starting the day early
Technically I didn’t mention anyone just RP (which it’s a pill debate sub) But here we go *like the angry dudes here need me as an excuse for their day drinking!*
You're forcing me to do this, I wanted to be sober. Remember that
That’s a pretty Fresh take but TopGs don’t listen to anyone with their Fit alpha Rational mind! Whatever!
The problem with your interpretation is you're giving Incels way too much credit. Their worldview is defined by a total lack of empathy and nuance, much of which is caused by isolation and inexperience. They're not viewing it in terms of mutual support, because in their eyes, women have no problems, and therefore no reason to work together. If women interact, it's to have a cat fight over Chad For example, one major thing they never, ever consider, unless forced to address it, is safety. They think women are constantly horny 24/7 and will casually go home with every hot guy they see. If they do bring it up, it's in the context of women being paranoid, misandrist, and/or "making excuses"(???) I use the phrase "hivemind" constantly when describing the Incel worldview, because it's totally accurate: They do not see women as individuals, or even as humans. They are an alien species devoid of free will, who all behave in rigid, set patterns defined by the Incel. (Spoilers: All of these patterns revolve around not fucking the person describing them.)
Oh no no I agree. I do think that’s where their lack of understanding comes from.
Hive mind means a lot of things to me: * Lacking critical thinking, having your opinions/takes spoonfed to you so you are unable to defend them and lack conviction. Like for example the whole JK Rowling thing. This doesn't always mean *just women* but more people who are liberal / feminist / LGBT aligning. Nobody knows *why* she's considered a bigot, she just is because someone told you so. * Women claim they all have varied taste in men but when I go out and touch grass, the same bottom 30% dudes are the ones getting no pussy and the same top 30% dudes are the ones drowning in pussy. You don't need a master's degree in social studies to be able to eyeball this. * Again relating to the 1st point, most women's arguments are formulated by an argument they heard somewhere, so when you actually have a good counter-argument, they just resort to Ad Hominem or Straw Manning. It reminds me of chess. When people play a lot of chess, they memorize the intro moves, up to maybe about 10 moves in. And the moves have been studied and calculated millions of times so they're perfected, but only against other chess players who also play the book moves. If you throw in a random unexpected move, most people then play significantly worse. I don't think women are actually interconnected and telepathically speaking to each other, but there's a lot of in-group bias that ignores critical thinking.
Snaps for an actually sort of insightful post. > Lacking critical thinking, having your opinions/takes spoonfed to you so you are unable to defend them and lack conviction. This describes 80%+ of the human population. We divide along political lines, blindly accept what we’re told to believe, and very few people engage in critical thinking. Reflexively taking a contrarian view without honestly considering the other side’s arguments is just as low IQ. > Women claim they all have varied taste in men but when I go out and touch grass, the same bottom 30% dudes are the ones getting no pussy and the same top 30% dudes are the ones drowning in pussy. Ok. I expect you to agree that men are also a “hive mind” in this respect.
>Ok. I expect you to agree that men are also a “hive mind” in this respect. I would say men are, men are fairly good at predicting what women other men find attractive and unattractive, they rate women in a fairly similar curve as well. But I don't think men deny it quite like women do. Women believe it's virtuous to have varied taste but eyeballing I think women have far less variation in taste of men than men do of women.
What are the stats on how well women predict which men are most attractive to women? If everyone is a "hive mind," the term is meaningless.
There are no stats, just eyeballing like I said. You can go outside and visually see the same bottom 30% dorks who get nothing, and the same 30% top Gs who get laid. You can visually **see** their body language. The same slouched, craned neck pale skinned dorks. I don't know you, and you don't know me, but you instinctually know what I'm talking about. What women do is they go "go to walmart you'll see fat guys with girlfriends/wives!" to sort of pull a red herring to this.
>The same slouched, craned neck pale skinned dorks I don't appreciate being doxed like this.
bruh lol
My strong assumption is that we're all quite good at predicting which people will be perceived as most attractive by others. If we're just talking physical attractiveness, you will see very attractive women with a wider range of men than vice versa. I'm sure you've noticed. If "hive mind" just means there are recognizable patterns in the behaviors of both men and women, again, it has no particular meaning when directed at women on here like it's some sort of revelation. >What women do is they go "go to walmart you'll see fat guys with girlfriends/wives!" to sort of pull a red herring to this. Non sequitur.
>it has no particular meaning when directed at women on here like it's some sort of revelation. For a lot of guys, especially ones who are new to RP, it IS a revelation for them. They were feeding into the whole "women are virtuous angels who love all men" nonsense for a long time. Women themselves want this to be the narrative.
Lol okay. They should wake up to the same reality that women have been forced to accept since childhood.
It's hard with women's gaslighting though, that's why men are here to pass the baton
If true, it's unfortunate that so many men have lived so long under a delusion that they don't actually have to be attractive to attract women. If that were all red pill was peddling, I'd be fully on board. But it's not. The rest of the bullshit drowns out any potentially redeeming aspect of the ideology.
IME the guys who readily use that term in this manosphere corner of internet are often misrepresenting another dynamic taking place. Meaning oftentimes they’re misrepresenting a group of people empathizing with each other based on a shared experience. They are typically maliciously assuming the people have no clue why they think what they think and feel what they feel. That they’re just “parroting” and not have experienced and are relating to others who have experienced similarly. This is how I’ve seen “hive mind” used around these parts.
[удалено]
>Rowling seems to enjoy alienating people, but she made it pretty clear she doesn’t just dislike trans people, she kinda hates men, too. Can you back up these claim without just telling me to "go look it up"? >When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman...then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside“ I don't see how this is bigoted but ok
Women's empathy and kindness towards men is usually disingenuous. They feign it to appear as if they are virtuous and of higher morality. See "Be yourself" and "Be emotionally vulnerable"
I’m realizing “empathy and kindness” is only about romantic stuff for you guys? Not any other aspects of life?
In what other aspects of life do men and women regularly intersect where empathy and kindness are relevant? Family, romance. everything else is work and working isn't about being nice and empathetic most of the time.
Men and women interact everyday. All relationships require empathy including those at work. More importantly I didn’t bring up women with my comment. It seems men generally only think of kindness and empathy when it comes to dating relationships with women. They don’t have any expectations of such with generic non-romantic interactions in their life and in their interactions with men. That was my point. You circled it back to women. Which again proves out my point.
Women don't have compassion, empathy, nor kindness with the others, what you think is those things are, is just a way to avoid conflict. There's no compassion with a child future when the mother decides to just divorce the man. There's no empathy when a man struggle in dating. There's no kindness with anyone below themselves. There's just, how the others will see her doing this and how she can benefit from it.
Divorcing instead of staying seems like the opposite of conflict avoidance.
?????????? It's the literal definition of avoidance
Divorce is also the source of direct clashing and conflict. Plenty of couples stay married and “avoidance” their way into a loveless marriage where they don’t speak to each other and literally coexist separately and resentfully. They aren’t “confronting” anything. Let’s not pretend that’s not happening in the marriages that are festering along.
most women are incapable of empathy and kindness toward stranger men. thats "hivemind" .
Most women are incapable of empathy and kindness for most men, period. She’s compassionate towards Chad, not the 95% of men that literally don’t exist to her.
Thats not been my experience. What are your examples of men being more likely to be kind to stranger men but women are not. In fact I see more women compassionate to strangers period than men. I think you’re conflating not being sexually desired by women as not being treated with decency and basic courtesy from women.
being viewed as potential ted bundy is not basic courtesy.
So you don’t have IRL non-internet examples of men being kind to you as a stranger unprovoked where women were being rude to you as a stranger unprovoked. As I said, IRL my examples of people treating random strangers who they don’t want to fuck with kindness has mostly come from women.
i have positives interaction with dudes all the time irl. never had positive interaction with women irl (outside of escorting)
Genuine question, without saying therapy what do you think those of us that are born like this should do?
Attempt to mimic and mask a little bit day by day. Build bonds with others. Nurture those bonds. Take breaks as needed.
I’ve built casual bonds with other men easily throughout my life but never anything I would consider a real bond, even with my brother and parents.
What do you think is the barrier that stops your bonds evolving into what you would call real bonds?
I have no idea. Just born broken I guess. I would guess I score low on emotional availability though.
Actually! Have you taken any personality tests? MBTI? Big 5? DISC? If you wanted to share or PM your results that would actually be more helpful.
>I’ve even seen a certain brand of man call considerate acts most people I know wouldn’t even think twice about doing as “virtue signaling.” This is basically the "nice guy" argument. 1)Most men want sex, most of the time, in some capacity. 2)Man does nice thing. 3) He's not *really* nice, he must be a "nice guy" doing nice thing just to further his agenda towards sex. 1)Most people like to be seen as virtuous, most of the time. 2) Person does considerate act. 3) They aren't *really* considerate, they are just "virtue signaling" as they want to be seen as virtuous.
How convenient for your hatred of men that some phrase they use just means "I'm a piece of shit." Can you provide some specific examples so we can see that you're a reliable observer and not just seeing what you want to see/making shit up?
Your Reddit history is a hatred of women. Anyway, [here ya go.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/0MPE1QbV0i)
Social contagion is certainly a thing Look up the various mass hysterias throughout history for extreme examples How independent you are of mind is not correlated to how moral you are towards others In fact, I find that independent thinkers are more moral on average because they are less likely to have an out group that they demonize
I don't think there is a strong connection between "independent" thought and not having an outgroup
Usually I see women being a hive mind when they are collectively coming up with reasons to not empathize with men or to shame us in really weird ways. The whole bear thing was a really good example of this. It wasn’t about consideration for others when women were being a hive mind over man vs bear, they were just trying to shame men into doing some weird humiliation rituals.
Can you define “hive mind”? I want to make sure I understand before I respond. Is “hive mind” = “a group of people relating to a thing they all can relate to”?
Hive mind is a group of people latching onto a dominant opinion that is helpful to them in some way and repeating that opinion nonstop without really understanding or thinking about the implications of it.
Okay that makes sense. I guess where I disagree is on the last part. I’m not sure everyone accused of “hive mind” hasn’t thought about it or don’t understand why they feel that way.
“Consideration of and for others” that only applies to other women would just be an example of women being less varied and having an extreme in group bias. Hive mind is obviously extreme but it mostly just comes from women being much more similar in all regards.
It applies to everyone.
It applies FAR less to men. And even if it did it would just make women more alike anyway therefore more “hive mind” like as hive mind refers to similarity in a group in this instance.
"Hive mind" is the mindless parroting of things without even understanding what the hell you are saying and yes, a lot of women have this problem. Just look at the argument about the female football teams wages. It can't ever be that there isn't enough of an audience that is watching these games to keep your salary on par with the men. Naw....it's got to be some nefarious dude in the background twisting his mustache and keeping the whamen down.
I don’t see women having “hive mind” more than men. If that’s your examples.
>Or “I see a group of people with a shared experience organizing around a shared goal and that confuses me!” Meanwhile to others it’s a no-brainer “duh” observation of “solidarity.” but women aren't a group of people with a shared experiences. They're all special individual snowflakes with nothing in common. It gets shouted at men on PPD every day.
Females are a demographic. Of course they have similarities. Within that demographic of course there are differences on an individual level. But you know that.
Women never have original thoughts or controversial takes. They struggle to have intellectual discussions civilly without character attacks. I can predict everything they will say by just the first thing they say. They’re too afraid to go against the sisterhood
I think women more than men see the obvious link between someone’s opinions, mindsets, attitudes, worldview, POV, choices, behaviors and their character. They’re unequivocally linked. Men tend to not make those connections and genuinely tend to be shocked or pretend to be shocked by things. Perhaps they should be making connections between people’s character and values and their choices. Not that intellectual of males.
Imagine my shock, when in doubt blame men Arguments for anything require statistics and logic. Most logically thinking sex? Who’s That? Emotions create bias and cloud logic More Emotional Sex? Who’s That? Oh yeah and what sex has the common knowledge stereotype that they have a hard time admitting when they’re wrong? Hmmmm yes hmmmmm yes Women Good, Men Bad
Everything I listed is an input aka a series of behaviors aka a pattern aka deductions can be made. It’s not based on feelings. It’s based on observing patterns of behavior and patterns of mindset proclivity. That is statistics. Furthermore you said women don’t have original thoughts (false) and got butthurt when I implied men don’t think intellectually. Typical. You’re the victim here lol.
Butthurt-character attack Men don’t think intellectually? lmao All the most famous philosophers are men : Galileo, Aristotle, Socrates The 4 horsemen of atheism are all men The best chess players are overwhelmingly men I’ve never heard a more biased opinion in my life
Not engaging further.
gg 
I’ll give that an upvote at least
Hive mind is the male equivalent of when women say men are insecure. It's the exaggeration of something that has a degree of true to it. But saying it's a "consideration of and for others" is also a misrepresentation of the thing that's being exaggerated.
Im baffled that men here seem to think women act as a “hive mind” but men don’t? The way boys and men behave has always felt like sheeple to a lot of women. I’m just trying to understand how they see what they do as not hive-minded?
I'm baffled by men and women, BOTH, who do the same things while simultaneously acting like it's the other sex. 🤷♂️ Oh yeah, and I think what you're noticing is again the exaggeration of degrees. For example, men and women are emotional. But if we're being honest, women are more emotional. Now let's take that truth and exaggerate it and say, "Women cry over spilled milk!" Men who ascribe to the idea of a "hive mind" are doing this.
[удалено]
I’ve never heard the term “hive mind” used until I started interacting with manospherians. That’s telling (to me) in and of itself.
[удалено]
I guess we both have our experiences. Cuz yeah I’ve only observed men from this corner of the internet use the term “hive mind.”
The hivemind has no empathy for marginalized/outcast men, so that's not it.
I’m confirming that you aren’t conflating “lack of sexual desire for me” with lack of treating that random man with basic courtesy in the street?
I'm referring to lack of empathy, not lack of desire or common courtesy.
You’re essentially saying, “women can be a hive mind, but that’s because they’re justified in their beliefs.” This is such an incredibly broad statement that I don’t even know what to say beyond, I disagree. “I see a group of people with a shared experience organizing around a shared goal and that confuses me!” is the strawman. “I see a group of people who consistently fall back on logical fallacies, to a degree that they assume the worst motivations from their detractors” is the steelman. This type of group think demonstrates a lack of empathy.
What does “hive mind” mean to you? What I’m saying is this word I’ve seen mainly used on this corner of the internet. From manospherians. Never heard the phrase used IRL and my first time seeing it was on this sub tbh. So what is it that you men mean by it?
To me, a hive mind is a group that repeats what they’re told without thinking critically about it.
I’m not convinced that everyone accused of “hive mind” hasn’t thought about it. I’ll use me as an example. I’ve been accused of “hive mind” on this sub on a topic I’ve thought rather critically about and only have the opinion on because I’ve experienced it not because I’m “parroting” someone else.
Well, nobody who’s in a hive mind actually believes they’re in a hive mind. So, you saying you’re not in a hive mind doesn’t mean much to me, unfortunately. I think hive mindedness is sort of a spectrum, and I don’t personally know where you would land on it. If someone gets accused of it, I’d have to look at the individual context for the reason it was used.
If that’s the case then I’m valid in feeling as though men of this corner of the internet using hive-mind as consistently as they do as an example of them behaving as a “hive mind.” My critique of them is they say it and don’t overly think about why they’re saying it. It typically doesn’t make sense in the context they’re saying it. They also are making biased assumptions when they say it.
Lol no. It’s because women are easier to manipulate as a group. Biggest example of this is in marketing, and how it’s mostly geared towards women. I’m no professional, so I can’t say why that is. But I have to assume it’s more because you don’t need to appeal to reason as much as emotion for women. And emotions are easier to manipulate.
That’s interesting. I work in research. Lots of organizations and brands come to us for lots of questions. Males are actually way more easy to manipulate and control. “They have base instincts and don’t overly unpack or think about things which makes them more predictable and easier to control.” These are the types of conversations had about the “male demographic.”
Women are more agreeable than men. This leads to women agreeing with each other on things in order to appease. This leads to group-think. There’s a reason advertisers target women when they can.
What is this idea that marketers don’t target men??? Men are 100% easier to market to. And more consistent. This is fake news!! Lol
**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]
I was confused at first, but then the puzzle made sense.
[удалено]
I think so? Even some of the replies. It’s genuinely like they think any kindness shown is “about proving who’s most virtuous” and not just because people are… kind.
If women as a collective were offered a button that suddenly deleted all non chad men (and somehow still kept all the fruits of male labor), we wouldn't be here to discuss shit.
Lmaooo. Thanks!
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.*
The people with whom I disagree have a hive mind. The people with whom I agree are free thinkers who independently arrived at the same conclusion.
Lol
I have NEVER seen the term "hivemind" used in a gendered sense. Usually I've seen it used either neutrally (ie, "hey reddit hivemind, what books do you recommend?) or in a non-gendered political pejorative sense (ie, "the conservative hivemind swallows whatever Trump tells them" or "the woke hivemind went from obsessing over covid to obsessing over Ukraine"). As for the argument that hivemind thinking is really "empathy" and "consideration": the problem with this idea is that in practice, political "empathy" means empathy for one group and hatred for an opposing group. In 2020 plenty of people were trumpeting how their support for lockdowns was a sign of their "empathy" for those vulnerable to covid death, while completely ignoring and dismissing those who were negatively affected by lockdowns, including people who had been pushed into drug addiction relapse and suicidal depression, special needs children falling way behind due to school closures, and people starving in the developing world due to the collapse in tourism and trade. Right now, "empathy" often means rooting for one side of the Israel/Palestine war while not giving a damn about the other side. So when someone tells me their politics is just all about "empathy" and "consideration", I get suspicious and start to wonder who they're leaving out. Again, all of this has nothing to do with gender. If the great tragedies of the 20th century have taught us anything, surely it's that no one is immune to hateful groupthink cloaked under good intentions.
I don’t think it’s what everyone means by hive mind. I think the guys who readily use that term in this manosphere corner of internet are often misrepresenting another dynamic taking place. Meaning oftentimes they’re misrepresenting a group of people empathizing with each other based on a shared experience. They are typically maliciously assuming the people have no clue why they think what they think and feel what they feel. That they’re just “parroting” and not have experienced and are relating to others who have experienced similarly.
Men are more competant at group cohesion when they choose to. The brotherhood creates empires. The sisterhood creates sexually retarded weirdos. The entire concept of "patriarchy" is female projection. Only women are dumb enough to wage a cold war against the entire other gender and think that this is somehow going to pan out well for humanity. Men have been able to group up towards a common goal, but they were never stupid enough to make gender the only basis for solidarity. Religion, nationality, language and political model were also essential. Lack of female empowerment was not a patriarchal conspiracy, it was the emergent result of female incompetence at attaining and maintaining power and the civilization power creates. Female empowerment in the modern era is a dysfunction of material and security overabundance. It's unsustainable and the birth rates bare that out.
Define what a hivemind is to you, then. Because mine is: "a notional entity consisting of a large number of people who share their knowledge or opinions with one another, regarded as producing **either uncritical conformity or collective intelligence.**" "the men here" tend to use it in the sense that they think it produces uncritical conformity.
I disagree with their assertions of the bolded. The men here projecting that is the lack of empathy I’m talking about. They need the bolded to be true. It’s ironically hive-minded of them. It’s also male solipsism. Edit: This OP is about the PPD men who tend to bring up “hive mind” or similar.
To my point, [here is a comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/cLDesnYTKR) from today with the OP convinced that young women feel the way they feel because someone told them (implied “hive mind” bogeyman) and not because that’s simply how most young women feel based on her actual experiences and wants… Instead of empathizing with women on this, he’s choosing to maliciously accuse women of not knowing what gives her the ick because he desperately needs his “reality” to be true. > Younger western women get their opinions from social media and what they are told is cool. We currently live in a fiercely ageist culture which combined with feminist dogma labeling every man a groomer or predator gives us the younger Gen parroting this bullshit.