If sex instincts exist, shouldn't suppressing them cause pain?

[Donnadogsoth]

I had a brainwave:  the existence of Type is determinable through measurements of pain.

 

That is, if male "Types" and female "Types" exist as instinctual realities, rather than conditioned reflexes, then the suppression of Type should cause pain.  Not just a minor amount of pain, but a large amount of pain--psychic, spiritual pain.  If Type was purely indoctrination, then the pain experienced by generations increasingly raised with anti-Type conditioning should be increasingly minimal.  Children in Scandinavian countries for example should be blissfully adapted to their nearly-complete, ruling, androgynous order.

 

But is this what we find when we examine happiness indices?  I found a few articles on this; has anyone found anything more?

 

Liberated and Unhappy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html?_r=0

 

Women & Happiness: Is It Still Declining?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pressure-proof/201303/women-happiness-is-it-still-declining

 

Not a direct study of men's happiness but related:

 

The path to happiness for millennial men is ... kids

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/health/millennial-fathers-happiness-work-life-balance-study/

 

And another indirect measure of happiness, though its sex relevance is harder to see:

 

America’s Suicide Epidemic Is a National Security Crisis

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/28/americas-suicide-epidemic-is-a-national-security-crisis/

 

And:

 

Robert Whitley: Why men commit suicide

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robert-whitley-why-men-commit-suicide

[dsayers]

I had a brainwave:  the existence of Type is determinable through measurements of pain.

I don't understand. "Type" seems undefined.

 

That is, if male "Types" and female "Types" exist as instinctual realities, rather than conditioned reflexes, then the suppression of Type should cause pain.

Still undefined. Are you putting forth as a standard that which is instinctual always causes pain when suppressed? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Without this information, wouldn't this be an assertion?

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't understand. "Type" seems undefined.

 

Still undefined. Are you putting forth as a standard that which is instinctual always causes pain when suppressed? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Without this information, wouldn't this be an assertion?

 

"Type" as in sexual orientation + gender identity + sex-roles.  The things that feminism is trying to destroy by asserting these things are all "fluid" and conditioned.

 

Suppress your instinct to eat and see how much pain you experience.  Suppress your instinct to drink, to breathe, to interact with other human beings, to walk around, to do something meaningful in life.  Sublimation is possible in some times and cases, but overall it is healthier to express instincts as basically as possible, where possible.

[dsayers]

"Type" as in sexual orientation + gender identity + sex-roles.  The things that feminism is trying to destroy by asserting these things are all "fluid" and conditioned.

But we can easily throw all of that out, right? Because these things happen contrary to what is modeled, which sort of disproves the conditioning theory, eh?

 

Suppress your instinct to eat and see how much pain you experience.  Suppress your instinct to drink, to breathe, to interact with other human beings, to walk around, to do something meaningful in life.  Sublimation is possible in some times and cases, but overall it is healthier to express instincts as basically as possible, where possible.

Well not eating can manifest in several ways, pain just being one of them. Also, you should probably define instinct. Some of the things you listed there is biological imperatives. Which I think is different.

 

Also, I simply don't know what is meant by "it is healthier to express instincts as basically as possible." How does one express an instinct? How does one do so with complexity compared to simplistically? How do you measure which is "healthier"? Compared to what?

 

I'm not saying what you've put forth is inaccurate. I'm just having the damnedest time trying to figure out what you're saying because there's so much fluff and not much rigor.

[Donnadogsoth]

But we can easily throw all of that out, right? Because these things happen contrary to what is modeled, which sort of disproves the conditioning theory, eh?

 

Pardon?  I don't understand what you're saying.

 

Well not eating can manifest in several ways, pain just being one of them. Also, you should probably define instinct. Some of the things you listed there is biological imperatives. Which I think is different.

 

Also, I simply don't know what is meant by "it is healthier to express instincts as basically as possible." How does one express an instinct? How does one do so with complexity compared to simplistically? How do you measure which is "healthier"? Compared to what?

 

I'm not saying what you've put forth is inaccurate. I'm just having the damnedest time trying to figure out what you're saying because there's so much fluff and not much rigor.

 

"Biological imperative" would be the biological need for food.

"Instinct" would be the psychological drive to seek out food.

One expresses an instinct through physical or mental activity.

Examples of direct instinctual expressions are supping and cogitating.

Examples of indirect instinctual expressions for:

(a) the food-instinct might be anger, collecting images of food, talking about food.

(b) the cogitation-instinct might be confusion, contempt for logic, and vulnerability to illogical ideals.

[dsayers]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I seriously still do not know what you're trying to say while I continue to find logical flaws.

 

"Instinct" would be the psychological drive to seek out food.

Assuming it fits your unprovided definition, this would be an example of an instinct, not the definition.

 

One expresses an instinct through physical or mental activity.

Examples of direct instinctual expressions are supping and cogitating.

Isn't expression inherently external while mental activity and cogitation are inherently internal?

 

I'm glad you've made this error because it might be indicative of the fundamental flaw I challenged in my last post. According to Google, instinct means: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Stimuli comes from without, whereas a biological imperative comes from within. So my challenge was NOT a distinction without a difference.

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I seriously still do not know what you're trying to say while I continue to find logical flaws.

 

Assuming it fits your unprovided definition, this would be an example of an instinct, not the definition.

 

Isn't expression inherently external while mental activity and cogitation are inherently internal?

 

I'm glad you've made this error because it might be indicative of the fundamental flaw I challenged in my last post. According to Google, instinct means: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Stimuli comes from without, whereas a biological imperative comes from within. So my challenge was NOT a distinction without a difference.

 

Try understanding first, finding logical flaws in the presentation later.  It's really very simple.  Traditional understanding is that men and women are intrinsically psychologically different, hence the different sex-roles or sets of sex-roles men and women have filled throughout recorded history.  Feminist understanding is that there are no intrinsic psychological differences between men and women and therefore all sex differences are inculcated and therefore capable and worthy of dismantlement, creating an androgynous society.

 

My question is, if sex-differences were intrinsic, how would we know?  And my answer is, we would know if the dismantlement of the sex-differences through government and media propaganda and the concordant popular shift in consciousness it tweedles, leads to an overall malaise in the populace.

[dsayers]

Try understanding first, finding logical flaws in the presentation later.

Not even close. That's the nice thing about rationality: I don't care how elaborate a presentation you have, the moment you start talking about a square triangle, I know you're wrong. Read: Understanding isn't possible. I was trying to help you clear up your position. You have yet to even define your terms despite being challenged to do so and shown that what you offered wasn't one.

[Donnadogsoth]

You're not helping dsayers.  If you want to help, understand, then advise.

[dsayers]

If you want to tell people that 4 + purple = unicorn, there's nothing I can do to help. Pointing our the irrationality IS helpful. Just not to those who wish to propagate irrationality. I have no interest in being party to confusing my brothers and sisters.

[rosencrantz]

I had a brainwave:  the existence of Type is determinable through measurements of pain.

 

More like a brainfart. The next time that happens, think again and do some research. You will find that there are numerous experiments done without using torture. One of the more prominent researchers is Simon Baron-Cohen, of neurology fame. 

[Donnadogsoth]

More like a brainfart. The next time that happens, think again and do some research. You will find that there are numerous experiments done without using torture. One of the more prominent researchers is Simon Baron-Cohen, of neurology fame. 

 

I'm guessing you support the feminist narrative about sexual conditioning (Type)?

 

Baron-Cohen talks about the existence of sexual Type and its suppression, leading possibly to psychic pain?

 

Or better, such suppression plausibly leads to what Bruce K. Alexander terms "psychosocial dislocation" akin to what happens when a group is bereft of cultural, linguistic, and religious continuity which increases its vulnerability to expressions of "poverty of the spirit" such as addictive behaviours.

[Kikker]

You're not helping dsayers.  If you want to help, understand, then advise.

The point is that you're very unhelpful, you can't seem to present your case in a comprehensible way. You even don't seem to understand why it is incomprehensive. To start of you use several re-definitions of concepts like pain, instinct, instinctual realities, type and anti-type.

 

To elaborate, you seem to expand the meaning of pain to the meaning of discomfort but why you don't use that term remains a mystery. You seem to diminish the meaning of instinct till the point where it may just be called an urge. The term instinctual realities is confusing at best since one person saying his/her instinctual reality doesn't fit your description completely destroys any argument using it as a premise, people have to believe your description first in order for you to prove that the description is right. Type is utterly confusing since gender identity is per definition conditioned and not instinctual. Anti-type is even more confusing since it isn't even clear whether anti-type is the denial of types or a classification which is conflicting with your use of types.

 

Furthermore your second source (https://www.psycholo...still-declining) is advertisement for self-help expert, not research about declining women's happiness. I don't know why you would include that. Your third source (http://www.cnn.com/2...-balance-study/) supports equalitarian marriage without gender roles as why to have a happy marriage, that seems to contradict your whole argument.

[Donnadogsoth]

The point is that you're very unhelpful, you can't seem to present your case in a comprehensible way. You even don't seem to understand why it is incomprehensive. To start of you use several re-definitions of concepts like pain, instinct, instinctual realities, type and anti-type.

 

To elaborate, you seem to expand the meaning of pain to the meaning of discomfort but why you don't use that term remains a mystery. You seem to diminish the meaning of instinct till the point where it may just be called an urge. The term instinctual realities is confusing at best since one person saying his/her instinctual reality doesn't fit your description completely destroys any argument using it as a premise, people have to believe your description first in order for you to prove that the description is right. Type is utterly confusing since gender identity is per definition conditioned and not instinctual. Anti-type is even more confusing since it isn't even clear whether anti-type is the denial of types or a classification which is conflicting with your use of types.

 

Furthermore your second source (https://www.psycholo...still-declining) is advertisement for self-help expert, not research about declining women's happiness. I don't know why you would include that. Your third source (http://www.cnn.com/2...-balance-study/) supports equalitarian marriage without gender roles as why to have a happy marriage, that seems to contradict your whole argument.

 

Try rereading post #7.  This idea shouldn't be that difficult to fathom for normal, intelligent people.  Once you've understood it, rephrase it however you desire if you think how I have phrased it is confusing.  (It's not, but you're making it out as if it were.)

[Kikker]

Try rereading post #7.  This idea shouldn't be that difficult to fathom for normal, intelligent people.  Once you've understood it, rephrase it however you desire if you think how I have phrased it is confusing.  (It's not, but you're making it out as if it were.)

It's disappointing that you just ignored all but two of the remarks I had on your "brainwave". Besides, you never took distance from your original statement so my critique is valid. In addition post #7 conflicts with your previous posts so I don 't understand how reading that would make your position clearly understandable.

 

And no i'm not going to write your statement for you.

[Donnadogsoth]

It's disappointing that you just ignored all but two of the remarks I had on your "brainwave". Besides, you never took distance from your original statement so my critique is valid. In addition post #7 conflicts with your previous posts so I don 't understand how reading that would make your position clearly understandable.

 

And no i'm not going to write your statement for you.

 

You're being intentionally obtuse.  I'm done with you.