Philosophy Now Forum

Women are widely understood to be more emotional than men (XX/XY, nevermind the "debate"). And there is good anthropological logic as well as historical common understanding to support that conclusion.
To the extent women are in fact more emotional, they are less evolved than men. (Group identity is bullshit, but anyhow...) To the extent a man is more emotional than a woman, he is less evolved than her. Our outer brain and the Reason it enables is the pinnacle of evolution by definition. Using our emotions is using our monkey-mind, in an almost literal sense.

Most forms of cognitive therapy considered productive today ( CBT, DBT, etc. ) are precisely of the nature of bringing your conscience, reasoning mind to the van and supplanting or controlling emotion.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:33 pm Women are widely understood to be more emotional than men (XX/XY, nevermind the "debate"). And there is good anthropological logic as well as historical common understanding to support that conclusion.
To the extent women are in fact more emotional, they are less evolved than men. (Group identity is bullshit, but anyhow...) To the extent a man is more emotional than a woman, he is less evolved than her. Our outer brain and the Reason it enables is the pinnacle of evolution by definition. Using our emotions is using our monkey-mind, in an almost literal sense.

Most forms of cognitive therapy considered productive today ( CBT, DBT, etc. ) are precisely of the nature of bringing your conscience, reasoning mind to the van and supplanting or controlling emotion.

it's not about emotions but investment, and it's tied to sex

generally...

man is reproductively profligate...under the best of circumstances: his mates often, indiscriminately, with multiple partners...he is inclined to be less invested in any one partner or offspring or outcome

woman is reproductively conservative...under any circumstances: she's finicky, mating with the select...she is inclined to be more invested in partner, offspring, and outcome

there's no need for therapy: just self-recognize

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=473175 time=1601060972 user_id=472]
it's not about emotions but [i]investment[/i], and it's tied to sex

generally...

man is reproductively profligate...under the best of circumstances: his mates often, indiscriminately, with multiple partners...he is inclined to be less invested in any one partner or offspring or outcome

woman is reproductively conservative...under any circumstances: she's finicky, mating with the select...she is inclined to be more invested in partner, offspring, and outcome

there's no need for therapy: just self-recognize
[/quote]

That's roughly the anthropological story as i understand it.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:33 pm Women are widely understood to be more emotional than men (XX/XY, nevermind the "debate"). And there is good anthropological logic as well as historical common understanding to support that conclusion.
To the extent women are in fact more emotional, they are less evolved than men. (Group identity is bullshit, but anyhow...) To the extent a man is more emotional than a woman, he is less evolved than her. Our outer brain and the Reason it enables is the pinnacle of evolution by definition. Using our emotions is using our monkey-mind, in an almost literal sense.

Most forms of cognitive therapy considered productive today ( CBT, DBT, etc. ) are precisely of the nature of bringing your conscience, reasoning mind to the van and supplanting or controlling emotion.

I have never read such nonsense before.

Have you not heard of 'emotional intelligence'?

Dammit man, your post is enough to justify the entire feminist movement.

I would say it is profoundly unintelligent to undervalue emotional depth in this way, although whether it's a consequence of your being male I can't say.

>Have you not heard of 'emotional intelligence'?

Have you ever heard of "psychological nonsense"?

Why do you use single quotes there? I use them to distinguish quotes within quotes or rough translations.

>Dammit man, your post is enough to justify the entire feminist movement.

They'd take it as justification. So would the misogynist movement. One of them would be emotionally based, the other - reason.

>I would say it is profoundly unintelligent to undervalue emotional depth in this way, although whether it's a consequence of your being male I can't say.

My valuation rests on reasons which you've dismissed without comment. I have said nothing of the value of emotional depth except in relation to reason. My own personal maleness is not in question and would not lend any insight to the factual nature of my claim here in any case.