Re: Paul Ehrlich: Human Natures
- From: Lennart Kiil <lennartAB@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:08:04 -0400 (EDT)
Tom Hendricks wrote:
> This is an antiquated remark at best. First of all, since the advent
> of female scientists, we learned that both sexes do NOT respond to
> stress in the same way.
What does this have to do what the advent of female scientist?
Either both sexes react in a similar fashion - or they do not.
It is an empirical question.
> Males react with mostly fight and flight
> Females with mostly 'tend and befriend".
> Though the healthiest person will safely use all 4 options of behavior.
Could you elaborate? This is far to general to signify anything
meaningful. A response is particular to the situation. This is why it is
called a REsponse. Consider the possibility that males are more often
than females put in situations the favor certain responses.
> The question Ehrlich should raise is this, are MALES inately aggresive.
> yet that is simplistic too.
So in your opinion it has been finally concluded that only males can be
aggresive? This is premature.
Futher, it goes against empiric evidence.
Tom Hendricks sharpen your critical sense, you seem to be buying to
easily into the misandric tendencies of our time.
> Are we not to be aggressive against harmful bacteria inside us?
> Or does he just mean aggressive in the 'wrong' way. But what is that?
>
> I suggest male aggressive behavior can be either good or bad.
> Good - equal that behavior that (option 2 and 4 of my 4 options)
> blocks out what is non nurturing from outside (#2) and
> excretes out what is non nurturing from inside (#4)
>
> What is harmful is those two behaviors that K. Horney suggests in her
> book Inner Conflicts
> a. Move against others (#2) and b. Moves away from others (#4).
Again, this depends more specifically on the particular situation.
Sometimes one has to behave agressively in a bad way in the short term
to reach what is the greater good in the long run.
> if we go a further step and ask, why do some have positive aggressive
> behavior, and others
> not. I suggest that a pattern of food in waste out in early childhood
> sets up
> the basic patterns of behavior on a subconscious or unconscious level
> that is almost
> impossible to change as an adult. When there is repressed problems then
> aggression
> builds up - and becomes neurotic or psychotic behavior. When it is
> released
> safely and harmlessly on a regular basis, aggression does not build to
> unhealthy
> levels.
This is simplified at best.
> Further I have suggested a therapy that releases blocked aggression
> slowly and
> safely and resolves not only problems of these two options but all 4
> major problems
> associated with the 4 options of behavior.
With all due respect - I doubt it
--
Best regards
Lennart Kiil
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- Next by Date: Re: Reproductive Excess: Is Required
- Previous by thread: Skin Hysteresis
- Next by thread: Re: Paul Ehrlich: Human Natures
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
