Maxims, rules of thumb and other observations on human cognition and sociocultural affectations

This will be added to on an irregular basis...
  • What is said to humans directly is received with skepticism and considered with dubiousness while that which is heard in passing, especially that which most conforms to their mentality or prejudices, is readily believed.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive latency between exposure to new information or experiences and the ability to think dispassionately and intellectually about it.
  • Humans have a certain cognitive spectrum starting with the moment of exposure to new information or experiences and ending with some point at which the thing is effectively "in the past" for them.
  • This cognitive spectrum is linked to the emotional process often referred to as shock, anger, denial and acceptance.
  • The more and faster information or experiences are presented to people and the closer the quarters and the lesser the distance between people, the more their early reactions in the passionate emotional stage are reflected back to them in the manner of responses to those reactions from others in light of those responses.
  • The more outrages which are suffered without sufficient time to allow emotional bleed-off, the farther the bar for subsequent reaction and outrage are pushed, and the more further events must progress before reaction and outrage.
  • It is possible for serious detriments to eventually sit below this threshold for long enough for their damaging effects to build and multiply until their entire society undergoes some reactive convulsion.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

My wisdom continues unabated...'s some stuff I've written in replies elsewhere netside.

Over at Say Anything, this with regard to gay marriage...

Whether people want to face it or not, human males and females are different. Females generally need seduction, males not. Females are usually the prey in the situation, males the predator. Females passive, men aggressive. It is a natural limiter of reproduction rates or else if females were entirely receptive to every male advance, and females made as many advances as men, and males were equally entirely receptive, human population numbers would grow out of control for their environment almost immediately, not to mention increase STD rates to the point of biological system collapse.

When females seek females, there is still the passive-aggressive dynamic, but females are decidedly less aggressive and more circumspect than men are, using passive techniques. Males on the other hand while following the same dominant-submissive pattern, are both born to sexual aggression. When men want each other, its really not hard to see that the answer is going to be yes when they find each other.

It isn’t lesbians who had the bathhouse culture of San Francisco. It isn’t lesbians who are given to promiscuity in public. It isn’t lesbians who were noticeably represented in large number during the AIDS years. It isn’t lesbians who have the largest STD rates. It isn’t women on whom the focus of safe sex has to be put.

It’s gay men. And the anti-gay sentiment is largely from other men who know their own gender well. People should stop pretending that humans are other than they are. We behave the ways we do for good reasons related to our sense of survival. We can through choice manage and oppose our own natures, but straight male misgiving of their innate sense of their gender’s nature should not be tossed aside or as we’ve seen with this blind rush to be pro-gay-everything or the sexually aggressive nature of men aimed at other men will go unopposed and unmanaged.

The result of that helps who exactly?

Until gay males are held to standards expected of straight men and women regarding public sexual behavior and promiscuity, and encouraged to practice self-control in sexual relationships and choices the way straight men and women are, no, I am not for gay marriage and I’m not sorry about that.

Submitted to Daniel Pipes but awaiting moderation, in response to Sam and quoted here for clarity a little:

Please read Maudidi (an influential thinker in pre 1947 India). Many islamic scholars formed the core thinking in asking for an islamic state by emphasizing that Islam and Koran have to be the law of the land.
They said, they have to subjugate Hindu population and make them pay jiziya, as Allah as asked them to do.
It's not that it must be the law of the land in absolute but by the choice of individuals. Christianity and Judaism both do not give wriggle room if one is strictly observant. Both have expressions of intolerance for all those who do not subscribe. The difference is that the Jews according to all archaeological evidence never practiced those intolerant aspects and have a very long legal history that engages in monumental backflips of logic to avoid meting out harsh penalties in religious jurisprudence nevermind the death penalty in the old state of Israel. The Christian Crusades and Inquistions have been over for centuries and all Christendom is chastened by the recognition of what they in madness did.

Islam has not as a culture renounced those darker negative aspects of the religion. Composed of individuals as all agglomerations of humans are, they may choose to do so freely. Can they do as Jews and Christians do, simultaneously hold the entirety of their religious texts to be the word of G-d, and yet still hold that those things which they find repugnant in light of the findings of the evolving human society entire are inadmissible to practice and as the Jews so many times have, find a transcendent way to see them which gives another meaning that negates the plain one read out?

Well, they are humans so of course they can. But the desire to do so must be there and those darker negative things are more appealing to the baser aspects of man. All human history is an ongoing fight to overcome man's baser aspects and willfully abrogate those things.

Tolerance from a position of strength is mercy and from weakness folly and that false mercy of weakness is always the most cruel for it is done always with fear aforethought. If the only tolerance Islam can extend to the non-Muslim is from a position of absolute supremacy, then it is from the position of weakness of being unable to face opposition which is itself intolerance born of fear.