The greatest amount of pissing off occurs when you say something logical that interferes with a woman's emotional belief (in her mind). Even if it doesn't really interfere technically - if she perceives that the statement will interfere with the answer she wants emotionally, she'll get pissed off. I've noticed this with discussions about biological evolution, natural brain differences between males and females, and abortion rights. This is also true with men in all likelihood, although I haven't explored it as much with men. So, you have to consider what the expected emtional interpretation of your statement will be.
Ironically, it's not the topics that she's totally sure about that will cause the most emotional respond. The topics where their conflict in her mind cause the most emotional responce. As if the extra emotion is necessary to overpower the other non-emotional voice in those conflicted cases.
lets see, looking up sexist:
"discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men's attitude toward women)"
Hmmm, there are some cases where I consider gender... like when deciding if I'm sexually attracted to another human, gender comes into play.
Are you suggesting that I'm using gender to make decisions in an inappropriate way? Mathematically, are you suggesting that I'm treating the gender "bit" incorrectly when unconsciously evaluating people or choosing actions? If yes, give me an example.
I will say that statistically, men and women tend to have differences, morphologically and psychologically. In fact the morphology of the brain (which is different between sexes) almost surely implies that their are psychological differences.
Regardless of this, if you want to see if a human is good at science, there are ways to check, like giving the human a science project and seeing what happens. This method can be used on anything, human, alien, robots, whatever - gender need not come into play. The are both men and women who will "score high." Men and women will have a wide distribution of score, some women higher than men and some men higher than women.
Keep in mind that evolution forked the brain architecture of humanity, probably for some reason. (Fork is my geek term for splitting the code base of a program into two distinct versions.) Men and women are running two different operating systems... and some people are actually in between. But just like operating systems, choosing one is often open to debate - the OS's have different strengths and weaknesses. Also, the installed applications (education) can make a bigger difference.
Gossip has a bad rap, but it may have some function in the scheme of species development and evolution. I suppose that the compulsion to gossip is a mechanism evolved into human brains to encourage distribution of information throughout a society. As it often focuses on romantic relationships, maybe it's role is to distribute information and keep society up to date so that better relationship decisions can be made by individuals.
At the beginning of the documentary (that's what I'll call the video), she's upset with her parents because they are restricting her access to the outside - ultimately limiting her access to DNA that will infuse her offspring with the characteristics that she wants- so that she can have a genetic impact and increase the strength of the species. (They do this because it's a (possibly accidental) holdover from their child-protective instinct, but that's another story I won't dwell on here.)
She calls her friends to "have fun." Which means in this case, form a collective social unit that will be more successful in attracting and evaluating mates. As they go out, they'll use group-reasoning to evaluate potential mates - and check on how the mates respond to the group setting (checking on social skills).
"some boys take a beautiful girl and hide her away from the rest of the work" says Cindy. (An ape is depicted - referencing our evolutionary past which is out of scope to get into here, but interesting.) Point is, she wants to maximize her exposure to potential mates, not be hidden away. Girls expect to be approached and that will never happen unless they are spending time in reasonably social situations with peers.
Jewelry and clothing that Cindy and her friends wears is designed to attract attention (literally flashing - reflecting light that a human visual system to respond to dramatically) - to encourage the approach.
(Going play by play) OK, now the girls are dancing through a line of males - creating some attraction. Using dance - as most animals do - to demonstrate a degree of health, for the nervous system (and to identify the species - with spiders).
OK, now the girls have managed to coerce the situation to a co-ed party in the bedroom. Clearly setting the scene for possible genetic transfer with a carefully selected mate. And now... there's a kiss occurring, human nonverbal signal of consensual sexual attraction. But, with birth control - they're really just going to be activating reward pathways.
On this note, it may be best for me to characterize what I'm doing as "having fun" to the outside world. That is what they call it.
Let's refer to Cindy Lauper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A&ob=av2e
At the beginning of the documentary (that's what I'll call the video), she's upset with her parents because they are restricting her access to the outside - ultimately limiting her access to DNA that will infuse her offspring with the characteristics that she wants- so that she can have a genetic impact and increase the strength of the species. (They do this because it's a (possibly accidental) holdover from their child-protective instinct, but that's another story I won't dwell on here.)
She calls her friends to "have fun." Which means in this case, form a collective social unit that will be more successful in attracting and evaluating mates. As they go out, they'll use group-reasoning to evaluate potential mates - and check on how the mates respond to the group setting (checking on social skills).
"some boys take a beautiful girl and hide her away from the rest of the work" says Cindy. (An ape is depicted - referencing our evolutionary past which is out of scope to get into here, but interesting.) Point is, she wants to maximize her exposure to potential mates, not be hidden away. Girls expect to be approached and that will never happen unless they are spending time in reasonably social situations with peers.
Jewelry and clothing that Cindy and her friends wears is designed to attract attention (literally flashing - reflecting light that a human visual system to respond to dramatically) - to encourage the approach.
(Going play by play) OK, now the girls are dancing through a line of males - creating some attraction. Using dance - as most animals do - to demonstrate a degree of health, for the nervous system (and to identify the species - with spiders).
OK, now the girls have managed to coerce the situation to a co-ed party in the bedroom. Clearly setting the scene for possible genetic transfer with a carefully selected mate. And now... there's a kiss occurring, human nonverbal signal of consensual sexual attraction. But, with birth control - they're really just going to be activating reward pathways.
Honestly I think that when nature took something away from my brain, that which would have made me learn all this stuff 20 years ago, it created an ironic situation where I become hyper aware - and analyze the stuff at a level that most people never would. I understand people in terms of evolutionary theory, that's what makes sense, the typical technique of just naturally feeling how everybody else feels barely applies to me. I'm not Autistic, but I'm like half-way there. It may actually be easier to just be straight up Autistic and not care at all what society is up to - maybe - though being straight up Autistic is extremely challenging in other ways from what I've heard.
Here's an analogy: I guy lost the nerves that tell his body how it's positioned. (The American Life or maybe Radio Lab episode.) He had to literally learn how to stand up, walk, etc. He had to use his eyes (rather than Proprioception) to tell where his legs were. That's me. There's something that isn't there, so I'm using the logical side of my mind to do it instead.
I suppose appearance may create sort of a shunting effect [on the sexual perception metric] so that it would be critical to have muscle mass at like 100% of normal rather than like 30% that I have now. All of my personality efforts are being multiplied by 0.3. Then at about 120% it's a bit better, and getting higher would eventually lead to diminishing returns on the time investment.
Sally wrote:
> Dude, this guy started out as skinny as you.
>
> You should pick up lifting.
>
> http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/ivyvw/3_years_of_progress/
