Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

Now, for men, you know, we get stressed trying to preserve an edifice, but we’ll eventually adapt to one if it means membership in a Team – because we have quite a bit of agency. Men tend to physically demonstrate anti social behavior. But ‘Crazy Chicks’ have a much harder time: they demonstrate anti-social behavior interpersonally and socially and they have lower agency – greater impulse – on average in the first place. Men are also more likely to live in physical and abstract reality where women more likely to live in (spend cognitive prediction in) emotional, interpersonal and social reality – all of us spend time in different distributions of sensory, physical, emotional, social, and abstract thought, which only reinforces the same emphasis over time. This means that while men and women have similar difficulties suppressing anti-social behavior, that (a) men’s are less tolerable but harder to mask (b) women’s are less visible and easier to mask. And the principle problem with ‘crazy chicks’ is that they can preserve the mask until they can’t, and when they can’t they hyper-react interpersonally and socially and never stop, whereas men hyper-react physically but eventually stop. All identified categories of human action are of necessity hyperbolic – maximizing our ability to disambiguate causality, and search and identify causes of instances – and all individual instances consist of multiple competing influences each of which we categorize hyperbolically out of necessity. This is the scientific method applied to high causal density. The opposite technique – again favored by women who engage largely in empathy(experiential, specific, and inter-personal) rather than largely systematizing(material, general, and political) – is to conflate and not disambiguate and instead empathize for the purpose of education or compromise. Where men disambiguate and aggregate, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining or defending LIMITS. so women are much more bottom up in their social intuition (opportunities) and men much more top down (limits). So crazy chicks are far higher a population problem than ‘crazy men’ at present principally because they are not regulated as are crazy men, and they are not regulated as are crazy men because the range of their damage is interpersonal and rather than material and political. As such we must spend time either regulating crazy chick behavior as we have crazy men behavior, or we must reverse the influence of crazy chicks in politics. I know we can accept defeat and remove crazy chicks from politics. But I’m exploring how we can regulate and retrain crazy chicks like we do crazy men. Although it appears nearly impossible, there is some evidence that the use of psychedelics and training may help. Mental illness cannot be cured – and even rarely improved. But aberrant behavior might be curable. Trauma certainly is, and much of that behavior appears to be caused by trauma – even though many of those traumas are cumulative grains of sands rather than distinct catastrophic events.