4 ms·

Part II I concluded: The subject of sex differences is MUCH deeper than we know, so deep that for nearly anything new it as if Mother Nature was there long be

Part II I concluded: The subject of sex differences is MUCH deeper than we know, so deep that for nearly anything new it as if Mother Nature was there long before we were. If you look like a really good candidate for being a good father and want her to be a good mommy, then likely you have something promising; for anything else very good for her, f'get about it. If she's not a mommy and soccer mom in an SUV, etc., then she can be a nurse, school teacher, HR staffer, customer service representative, retail clerk, pediatrician, OB/GYN, CPA, and a few more. How do we know? Just observe facts. Beginning to understand? In this case, for that old theme of "The Great Natural Order", take it seriously. Men: If you see your way clear to striking out in new directions on an adventure to do new things, then by all means go for it. When you get back with your fortune, then by all means sweep her off her feet with flowers, etc, and marry her and make her a mommy (maybe not in this order!), with a nice house with a white picket fence, her own SUV, etc. But if you bring her along on your adventure before you have your fortune, then far too soon she will be terrified and crying in her sleep. Remember the scene in the 1939 'Drums Along the Mohawk' with Henry Fonda and Claudette Colbert when as newly married they reached their frontier log cabin, an Indian friend dropped by to pay a visit, and she went all hysterical; movie audiences understood right away, and so should hackers. Candidate reason: For nearly anything we might try having women do what men now do, long ago there were things sufficiently similar and for those Mother Nature had her way: Mother Nature pruned weak, sick, and dead limbs on the tree. So, for anything we want women to do that is very different from the patterns of strong limbs on the tree, long ago women who did such things just are not our ancestors. Try hard enough to go against those patterns of strong limbs on the tree, and Mother Nature will open a Pandora's box of monsters. I've seen some of those monsters; you can't win against them; don't open that box; don't go against those patterns; don't try to fool Mother Nature. You can learn this lesson quickly, easily from me now or with great pain as you throw much of your life away later. I have to insert one crucial point so far omitted: Women are MUCH more emotional than men. So, whenever a man looks at some subject in ways that are rational, if the subject has to do with her own life mostly what will really concern her is what is emotional. Sorry about all that rationality guys: For her own life, her emotions overwhelm. It's not that she has no ability at rationality; she can be brilliant at rationality. It's just that for her own life her emotions overwhelm. The rationality is still there, and for subjects far from her own life can be fully meaningful and effective, but for her own life her emotions can and nearly always will overwhelm. Chalk up this mechanism to Mother Nature. What fraction of men really understood that Mother Nature could have such a rationality blocking mechanism, that is, have her be brilliant at rationality and carry around that brilliance but in crucial ways not be able to use it? What fraction, guys? Getting an idea of what you are up against, how strong are Mother Nature's defenses? Or, the Henry Fonda character, with his rationality, that he was comfortable with, saw his way clear to a good life starting with just that log cabin, but for the Claudette Colbert character, for that situation so close to her own life, his rationality was meaningless and her emotions overwhelmed.

HilbertSpace 16y ago
Part III One more big, huge point so far omitted here: I want to be short and clear and don't want to be crude, but in simple terms human females are herd animals. They are desperate to join groups, mostly of other females, and to be in the center of those groups, receiving approval. Then they feel MUCH more secure. If they can be the leader of such a group, then they can feel even more secure; so, they are social climbers. Yes, they are very cooperative within their groups and very competitive outside their groups: One of their main means for both is gossip. As in D. Tannen, gossip, especially expressing emotions, is how they form group bonds. Cell phones? Social media? Gossip -- female bonding. Hackers form bonds by sharing work (ever hear of open source?); women, sharing emotions! For little girls and pink dresses, big skirts, puffy sleeves, flimsy and, thus, delicate cloth, pastel colors, tied up with ribbons and bows, a standard explanation is: Children are just desperate for adult competence, that is, want to grow up. Little girls quickly realize that they are little versions of Mommy, and boys, Daddy. Ever look at pictures of girls and young women, just the faces, without clues to age from hairstyle and makeup, and try to guess the age? Tough to do, ain't it? E.g., Elizabeth Taylor was born in 1932; if just look at her face, JUST her face, in the 1943 'Lassie Come Home' and in the 1951 'A Place in the Sun', darned tough to say how many years are between them. Why? Mother Nature has arranged, the way her face is endearing at age 7-10 is much the same as at age 17. Net, Mother Nature wants her to be endearing and to have her husband care for her much (but not exactly!) like her father did. The Claudette Colbert character had been very carefully cared for by her very strong father; then she expected the same from her new husband, the Henry Fonda character. To her that log cabin didn't look much the same, and that Indian friend was the last straw! Her emotions had her sense that she wasn't being cared for, and she went hysterical. Rationally Fonda knew that that Indian friend was GOOD to have; emotionally Colbert went hysterical. Actually, what she did was self-destructive; the level 102 course goes into that, but I omit it here (hint: It can create dependency and, thus, have reproductive advantage). Remember the Dr. Carol Nadelson, "Traditional marriage is about offspring, security, and caretaking". A human female is supposed to be CARED FOR, first by her father and then by her husband. In particular, she is not supposed to be out there, on rationality and little more, facing dangers, taking big risks, being the first in something very new and different in information technology entrepreneurship. Mother Nature was there LONG before Silicon Valley. Sorry 'bout that. Or, we shouldn't forget the old psychology experiment of the wire mother and the cloth mother. Well, a mother in lots of soft, flowing cloth is much closer to the cloth mother; a mother dressed up in a navy suit and carrying a leather brief case into a tall glass and aluminum office building is much closer to the wire mother. Guess which one will be the stronger limb on the tree, what good mommies will be more like, and, thus, what little girls will want to be like. So, how does a girl of 3-4 get interested in pretty, pink dresses? A woman who is a mommy has likely strongly followed at least some of the standard patterns. So, a little girl sees from Mommy and other mothers and other little girls what little girls should look like and, thus, wants pretty, pink dresses.

HilbertSpace 16y ago

Part III One more big, huge point so far omitted here: I want to be short and clear and don't want to be crude, but in simple terms human females are herd animals. They are desperate to join groups, mostly of other females, and to be in the center of those groups, receiving approval. Then they feel MUCH more secure. If they can be the leader of such a group, then they can feel even more secure; so, they are social climbers. Yes, they are very cooperative within their groups and very competitive outside their groups: One of their main means for both is gossip. As in D. Tannen, gossip, especially expressing emotions, is how they form group bonds. Cell phones? Social media? Gossip -- female bonding. Hackers form bonds by sharing work (ever hear of open source?); women, sharing emotions! For little girls and pink dresses, big skirts, puffy sleeves, flimsy and, thus, delicate cloth, pastel colors, tied up with ribbons and bows, a standard explanation is: Children are just desperate for adult competence, that is, want to grow up. Little girls quickly realize that they are little versions of Mommy, and boys, Daddy. Ever look at pictures of girls and young women, just the faces, without clues to age from hairstyle and makeup, and try to guess the age? Tough to do, ain't it? E.g., Elizabeth Taylor was born in 1932; if just look at her face, JUST her face, in the 1943 'Lassie Come Home' and in the 1951 'A Place in the Sun', darned tough to say how many years are between them. Why? Mother Nature has arranged, the way her face is endearing at age 7-10 is much the same as at age 17. Net, Mother Nature wants her to be endearing and to have her husband care for her much (but not exactly!) like her father did. The Claudette Colbert character had been very carefully cared for by her very strong father; then she expected the same from her new husband, the Henry Fonda character. To her that log cabin didn't look much the same, and that Indian friend was the last straw! Her emotions had her sense that she wasn't being cared for, and she went hysterical. Rationally Fonda knew that that Indian friend was GOOD to have; emotionally Colbert went hysterical. Actually, what she did was self-destructive; the level 102 course goes into that, but I omit it here (hint: It can create dependency and, thus, have reproductive advantage). Remember the Dr. Carol Nadelson, "Traditional marriage is about offspring, security, and caretaking". A human female is supposed to be CARED FOR, first by her father and then by her husband. In particular, she is not supposed to be out there, on rationality and little more, facing dangers, taking big risks, being the first in something very new and different in information technology entrepreneurship. Mother Nature was there LONG before Silicon Valley. Sorry 'bout that. Or, we shouldn't forget the old psychology experiment of the wire mother and the cloth mother. Well, a mother in lots of soft, flowing cloth is much closer to the cloth mother; a mother dressed up in a navy suit and carrying a leather brief case into a tall glass and aluminum office building is much closer to the wire mother. Guess which one will be the stronger limb on the tree, what good mommies will be more like, and, thus, what little girls will want to be like. So, how does a girl of 3-4 get interested in pretty, pink dresses? A woman who is a mommy has likely strongly followed at least some of the standard patterns. So, a little girl sees from Mommy and other mothers and other little girls what little girls should look like and, thus, wants pretty, pink dresses.