Re: Paul Ehrlich: Human Natures
- From: "Tom Hendricks" <tomhendricks474@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:15:56 -0400 (EDT)
Lennart Kiil wrote:
> 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?
Male scientists were prejudice to see their stress response as
a universal one. It is not.
> Either both sexes react in a similar fashion - or they do not.
> It is an empirical question.
They do not. And when we finally got discoveries from
them such as symbiosis from Lynn Margulis or the 3 inner conflicts
from K. Horney, or the tend and befriend studies from women, we find
discoveries that are about tend and befriend instead of 'male
orieinted'
studies. The sex unfortunately biases the science.
>
> > 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.
Google "tend and befriend" and read the study.
>
> > 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.
Where did I say ONLY?
>
> Futher, it goes against empiric evidence.
show evidence of crime statistics that show females as more violent.
>
> 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.
But that is mostly a male response.
>
>
> > 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.
Show me your studies.
>
> > 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
Study it some more.
>
>
> --
> Best regards
>
> Lennart Kiil
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Paul Ehrlich: Human Natures
- From: Lennart Kiil
- Re: Paul Ehrlich: Human Natures
- Prev by Date: Article: Has bubble burst over exploding toad tale?
- Next by Date: Article: Climate change alters genes on the fly
- Previous by thread: Re: Paul Ehrlich: Human Natures
- Next by thread: Re: Paul Ehrlich: Human Natures
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|