Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
If you appeal to logical rigor, a few pairs of contradictory statements should be cleaned up.

What goes a little beyond general principles and statistical queries is actually following human emotions and active behavior. It's fascinating - though tricky to formalize.

by das monde on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 09:15:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it's an error to attempt to formalize it from the very tenuous elements of research and personal experience that you have outlined in this thread.

You appear to be asserting -- sorry to box you in -- that men and women will be happier if they embrace their respective dominant and submissive roles. You seem to be claiming that this is what "nature" or evolution fitted us for; that we should struggle to embrace the idealized archetypes.

This is flatly contradicted by my own experience, but that's merely anecdotal. More importantly, my bullshit detectors are set off by the fact that your conclusions match those of the theorists of just about every oppressive political or religious power structure since the dawn of humanity. Doesn't it trouble you that all those who would maximise their own power and wealth at the expense of those they dominate, and who invent elaborate doctrines to justify their dominance, start out from a position, and a doctrine, of unquestioned male dominance over women?

Dominance and submission are a bad paradigm to build society on, and they are a bad paradigm for relationships too.  

This is not to ignore the fact that many people feel the need to be dominant or submissive in a relationship. My suggestion is that the best way to deal with this may be as a formalised, consenting S&M game, rather than in real life applications.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 10:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I do not necessarily care about maximizing the total happiness. I am just saying that whatever we want to do, emotional realities have to be taken into account. Those in power do well largely because they have a more realistic view and knowledge of human nature. Or at least, of their own nature.

If we the Modest Progressives only have a logical wish list, very likely the impact will be petty. If we want the societies to go a certain way, we better seek and take leader roles, and then know how to play them. Even if my current understanding is most likely incomplete, I see it as a substantially better approximation than the stagnant progressive theories I spot.

by das monde on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 11:19:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If what you're trying to say is "in my milieu, I need to exhibit certain things in order to get laid" then that's fine, you end up having to play the hand you're dealt or not play. It's not a basis for assessing underlying human nature.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 10:59:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Last months I studied and applied tested knowledge, see consistent difference. So it is not just about me.
by das monde on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 12:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Didn't say it was: I said it was about your social environment.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 12:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Read then: So it is not just about me and my environment.
by das monde on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 12:14:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You applied it outside your environment? I'm impressed.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 17th, 2014 at 04:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6

Occasional Series