Link between autism and individualism?

[Suzette]

I was providing a silly picture to try to clarify the point that aggression ALWAYS wins. There's no two ways about this. I understand that there are situations, like in a hospital, where a nurse calmly deals with an angry and aggressive person and then subsides, and that this is interpreted to mean that the nurse was in the superior position with respect to the aggressive person. Nothing of the sort is playing out in this dynamic. Instead, the aggressive person calms down simply because he or she isnt being challenged, and he or she then retains his or her "top-of-the-heap" status. Meanwhile, unless the aggressive person is dirt stupid, he or she is forced to recognize that the nurse performs a vital and valuable "support" position, and interference with that risks people's lives. There is no "win" going on here by the nurse over the aggressive person at all.

You refute your own point that "the aggressive person always wins". You effectively demonstrated this isn't true.

 

[Bill Brenne]

I think that being an aspie has made me very independent. I was out of the house very young. And I've always had a very moral right/wrong ethic, and done things my way instead of what everyone else was doing.

Being very moral and concerned about right and wrong, in my opinion, is the province of individualists, rather than collectivists. True collectivists live in a self-referential context, rather than one tied to the ground beneath their feet. For them, talk basically rules the day over work and action. My own stance is that the world and universe is a Tapestry that unfolds moment-by-moment at the Hand of God. That, in turn, means that I am to be real in my words and actions if I want to be in sync with God--something that collectivists technically cant do because being "socialized" means learning, first and foremost, that in order to survive in and navigate society, one must pose and pretend--posture--in order to do so. For as long as I can remember it has seemed to me to be fundamentally illogical to think that survival in a real world means being unreal. Society is an exception, because in a very real sense (pardon the pun ) society is not real. So kudos!

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Okay, from the top: Indifference is the most chronically misunderstood state that is found in human beings, as even the word, "Indifference" suggests. That word is a "man-made" label attached to this state, betraying the biases of the humans who coined it.
Let's take your first case: Indifference confronted by aggression. Common sense practically screams that aggression ALWAYS wins. With the nurse and the dog, neither of these is showing aggression in return, which let's the aggressor know that he or she is not being challenged. Meanwhile, especially with the nurse, the nurse is recognized by the aggressor as performing a vital "support" function. Unless the aggressor is dirt-stupid, he or she knows that the nurse must be allowed to perform her function, because lives are literally on the line.
Now then, let's address another common misconception: "Indifference" is not to be taken as representing lack of motivation or indecision--it represents an active purpose and function--just in a way that's unfamiliar to the average person unless they stop and think about it. If people really had an "off-switch" (which is the implication of your understanding--at least with regards to motivational triggers and indecision), then the Indifferent person would literally "cease to function". Human beings do not cease to function until they die. That's the real truth of the matter.

Aggression in the face of someone appearing stoic or indifferent is a common technique used to diffuse the aggression. Basically, you let the other person "punch himself into exhaustion" from an emotional perspective,...then you do what needs to be done after they back down. My dog apparently has a knack for that technique. In both situations, the quiet, calm, but decisively dominant individual wins, without having to do anything but hold ground and not actively back off. In both cases, the aggressor "looses".

I agree that indifference is not a result of some "off-switch",...quite the opposite. There is an active thought process required. Choosing not to physically, mentally, and/or emotionally engage in, or mimic the aggressor's behavior,...which only serves to cause the aggressor to amplify,...is not, in any way, a subservient behavior. Having the wear withal and mental strength to,...in a way,...manipulate aggressive behavior,...is a dominant behavior.

 

[Bill Brenne]

You refute your own point that "the aggressive person always wins". You effectively demonstrated this isn't true.

There is a difference between cause-and-effect in terms of winning over someone by being calm and rational, and, on the other hand, events following each other sequentially. In other words, the aggressor calming down is not because he or she has been "subdued in a fair fight". The nurse is not fighting the aggressor--that's what it means to not be an aggressor in the situation, technically and literally. We have the wrong idea if we attribute some sort of superior power over the aggressor by being calm. Rationality is never the winner in a contest with an aggressor. Instead, as I suggested, the dynamic simply shifts when the aggressor knows that he or she is not going to have their superiority directly challenged. There's a difference.

 

[Bill Brenne]

Aggression in the face of someone appearing stoic or indifferent is a common technique used to diffuse the aggression. Basically, you let the other person "punch himself into exhaustion" from an emotional perspective,...then you do what needs to be done after they back down. My dog apparently has a knack for that technique. In both situations, the quiet, calm, but decisively dominant individual wins, without having to do anything but hold ground and not actively back off. In both cases, the aggressor "looses".

I agree that indifference is not a result of some "off-switch",...quite the opposite. There is an active thought process required. Choosing not to physically, mentally, and/or emotionally engage in, or mimic the aggressor's behavior,...which only serves to cause the aggressor to amplify,...is not, in any way, a subservient behavior. Having the wear withal and mental strength to,...in a way,...manipulate aggressive behavior,...is a dominant behavior.

"Defusing aggression" and letting "the other person punch himself into exhaustion" are at the very least misleading expressions. They generally connote the idea that the aggressor can be and/or has been manipulated into surrendering, and conversely, that talk and rationality are inherently superior in a fight.
Alright then, DOES the aggressor actuallybliterally punch himself into exhaustion by means of the calm rationality of the other party? I don't see that as being realistic, and I dont see that period. Is the aggressor actually manipulated into surrendering? Again, I see no evidence of this in real life. The aggressor only backs down when he or she is convinced that his or her superiority is intact. That's the only conclusion that makes sense.
Josh McDowell, a Christian apologist who wrote a book called, "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", in the early 90s, said in the preface of that book, "My heart cannot rejoice in what my mind rejects as false". When people clearly construct mythos which serve mainly to bolster a favored point of view, rather than the truth, I can usually spot it without much difficulty. In human culture, for example, being Happy is supposed to be the state that one aims for in life. If we factor out "contentment" as defining what Happy is, then I have to seriously disagree, because emotional states are neither innocent nor harmless. But society helps keep itself together by concocting frameworks of belief which are ostensibly for the purpose of keeping society together. If it were understood and accepted that being Happy is not a state to be idolized, then people would be thrown into chaos in society, presumably. The same thing goes for the idea that rationality is capable of conquering anger. If the supposed power of rational people were to be stripped away, then where would that leave those who hope in constructing a life of their own choosing by, among other things, manipulating others to support them? But if people are more indifferent than anything else, the reality is that their position is in fact subservient and the power that they are supposed to be able to wield over Angry people is only an illusion. But I cant live in a world based on illusions and mere hopes of power over others.

 

[watersprite]

Some of what you talk about here reminds me of Matthieu Ricard’s writings.

edited to add:
Watch your own arguments.
“... ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
— Hume



Learning from a dialogue between Western science and Buddhism might interest you. That is if you are not averse to change.


Read what Ricard, a molecular biologist and monk, has to say about neuroscience.
See Matthieu Ricard and Wolf Singer’s book
Beyond The Self
Conversations Between Buddhism and Neuroscience

 

[Bill Brenne]

Some of what you talk about here reminds me of Matthieu Ricard’s writings.

I'll have to look into that. Thank you

 

[Neonatal RRT]

"Defusing aggression" and letting "the other person punch himself into exhaustion" are at the very least misleading expressions. They generally connote the idea that the aggressor can be and/or has been manipulated into surrendering, and conversely, that talk and rationality are inherently superior in a fight.
Alright then, DOES the aggressor actuallybliterally punch himself into exhaustion by means of the calm rationality of the other party? I don't see that as being realistic, and I dont see that period. Is the aggressor actually manipulated into surrendering? Again, I see no evidence of this in real life. The aggressor only backs down when he or she is convinced that his or her superiority is intact. That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

Actually,...I see this every day in multiple situations, whether it be martial arts, dealing with aggressive personalities as a police officer or healthcare worker, or even the parent dealing with the child having a meltdown in the grocery store. But, perhaps, we may be talking past each other here. Perhaps some better context and perspective, because what I see in many of these situations is more or less a battle of wits versus emotion. Emotions cloud the intellect. If I were a betting person, in these situations, I would choose the person who is calm, collected, assertive (a form of aggression),...but not emotionally aggressive. Martial arts,...the person who is emotionally aggressive,...9/10 times is going to make a mistake and end up on his back on the canvas. In war,...he's going to end up with a bullet between his eyes. On the street, he's going to end up in a jail cell, the hospital, or dead. In the hospital, he's going to be escorted out the door by security and probably end up in jail. A child having a meltdown in a store,...walked right out the door. In all of these cases,...who ended up being the superior aggressor? Sometimes, the person who is calm and assertive, is also an aggressor,...but not emotionally,...and absolutely YES, manipulate the emotional aggressor into submission. I've worked in health care for over 35 years,...seen it happen many, many times,...I works very well.

Now, in these cases, none of these conflicts were with an "indifferent" personality. So, admittedly, these examples do not fit your original argument of "the aggressor vs the indifferent". The calm, collected,...but assertive, personality may, at times, "present" as indifferent,...but there is still an end goal in mind. Picking apart my previous posts, I hadn't been clear enough,...you had to tease it out of me,...

At any rate, I think we haven't put context and perspective into our conversations yet. We may be, sort of dancing around the same concepts, but not agreeing with each other due to our different perspectives. I like this banter though.

 

[QuestJan]

Bill Brenne that women in times past had and/or were forced to a similar breaking point where society lost value and individualism ruled the day for them.

I may not be understanding what you are saying, Bill Brenne. I am confused why you are segregating your comments to a specific demographic: women

I specify women, as did Bill Brenne, but we can replace "women" with any non-anglocisheteropatriarchy identity and still maintain accuracy. Using experiences such as my generation being the first in my ancestry in which women were born with the right to vote in the USA (i.e. first nations people did not get the right to vote until 1946).

Women were not legally individual Americans, their citizenship was tethered to their marriage. Women did not own property, the right to the children they bore, nor the ability to earn wages. Birth control was illegal and maintained female oppression. Their status was defined by their marriage, within which they had no rights or protections - they were the property of their marriage, like the family cow. Individualism was difficult to achieve and maintain under this legal & cultural oppression.

My mother inherited my grandmother's friends and we would visit them often. They were addressed as "Miss". I found out as an adult that they were all PhDs. Women were not allowed to use the titles they earned that might elevate them above others, which was deemed unbecoming. They were not allowed to have their names on research, even when they were lead (only their births & deaths were acceptable for publishing). Marie Currie was an exception. Attempts to award the Nobel prize for her work to her husband were foiled by her husband. Few husbands stepped up to support the women they owned.

Asian cultures tend to be collective (all members, male-->female) while Individualism is a Western concept. Individualism may not be a goal for women / any non-anglocisheteropatriarchy identifying with this tradition. However, the yang/male rigid, phallic hierarchy is a concept that restricts individuality while the collective is yin/female and seems to have more tolerance for individual differences.

I have to be straight with you: How much of your picture of those who are Indifferent is simply informed by the culture? As for me, the truth of the cultural depiction of Indifferent people would be tested if an Indifferent person and an aggressive person were locked in a room together.

Bill, are you saying that it would be wrong / hypocritical / impossible for an indifferent person trapped with an aggressive to subdue the aggressive PITA? It is too bad that people (many who think they are smart, logical, and informed), who have fooled themselves into believing that their cult is libertarian even as they promote authoritarian conformity and are intent on violence to force others to submit to their cult - genocide to those who don't.

The true individual is indifferent - to each their own. The cult following "aggressives" remain unstable and prone to hysterics when an individual is nearby. They keep their eye on the anus-view in front of them and drink the kool-ade until the bullies can sneak in an attack.

As an autistic, the collective can be supportive to my individuality, but the hysterically violent conformity of a rigid, phallic hierarchy is a dangerous place to be. But mostly, I have nobody at all and must be fully self-reliant.

 

[watersprite]

This is able to be discussed and argued at length. There are serious and enormous social issues obviously affecting millions of hunans. Including myself.

Personally it becomes uncomfortable because the taking of a stand itself triggers emotions which then can cause less than logical reactions in others and myself. This to me becomes a waste of precious time.

Pyrrhoinsm offers me ways to get past the dissent, judgements & subsequent distress.

 

[QuestJan]

Personally it becomes uncomfortable because the taking of a stand itself triggers emotions which then can cause less than logical reactions in others and myself. This to me becomes a waste of precious time.

Pyrrhoinsm offers me ways to get past the dissent, judgements & subsequent distress.

Watersprite, I had to look Pyrrhonist up It is a practice the purpose of achieving epoché, i.e., suspension of judgment. The core practice is through setting argument against argument (Wikipedia).

Until recently, I assumed that I was a boring companion because I had so few opinions. As a libraesque thinker, I could not blind myself to the many valid perspectives diverse minds held. I worked hard to remedy this 'deficit'. Now I am full of opinions, a far worse companion, and am sick of them all. Opinions tend to unseat kindness.

Pyrrhoinsm seems a rather formal pursuit - do you use the 5 to 10 modes? How have they helped?

 

[QuestJan]

watersprite said: ↑

Being very moral and concerned about right and wrong, in my opinion, is the province of individualists, rather than collectivists.

It is a logistical challenge to make sweeping generalizations about large groups made up of diverse people. Watch...

It's difficult to make generalizations. Many words have been twisted into new meanings: for example, conservative=anarchist; evangelical=satanic; republican=fascist; etc. Those who claim to admire "individuals" are actually cult followers who violently suppress non-conforming identities (even unto death) and those of collectivism often respect & support individual identities.

"Individuals" who embrace Ayn Rand have become sociopaths (no common good). They are spearheading the demise of the USA democratic republic through violent sedition and are indenturing We The People in their pathological love of money.

Granted, they claim to be libertarian but it is just a "libertarian-posers cult" who deeply believe the anus-view of their authoritarian leader while they drink the kool-ade of bigotry, mayhem, and extreme conformity; fully embracing the hypocrisy. They believe in their own liberty while forcefully denying others their's - justifying any means to that end. Libertarians are now just a bunch of authoritarian fascist oppressors preparing for genocide of anyone they don't like the looks of. Are you putting these ignoramuses in the individual pile or the collective cult?

You refute your own point that "the aggressive person always wins". You effectively demonstrated this isn't true.

Thank you, Suzette. The indifferent do not want to rise to conflict. We avoid it to any extent possible. But sometimes a sick sociopath needs to be subdued. We do what is necessary. Then we return to our personal lives.

The secret goal of martial arts is to learn how to fight like a "girl". The colored belts are when the yang punching & kicking the "boys" like is being taught (e.g. Kempo).

As one progresses through the levels of black belt, yin circular responses to violence are introduced (e.g. Shaolin). When fighting like a girl, the opponent must throw their weight to empower the circular response. In other words, unless attacked there can be no response.

 

[watersprite]

Watersprite, I had to look Pyrrhonist up It is a practice the purpose of achieving epoché, i.e., suspension of judgment. The core practice is through setting argument against argument (Wikipedia).

Until recently, I assumed that I was a boring companion because I had so few opinions. As a libraesque thinker, I could not blind myself to the many valid perspectives diverse minds held. I worked hard to remedy this 'deficit'. Now I am full of opinions, a far worse companion, and am sick of them all. Opinions tend to unseat kindness.

Pyrrhoinsm seems a rather formal pursuit - do you use the 5 to 10 modes? How have they helped?

I’m not using them in a formal way, is the short answer. How Pyrrhonism helps is to calm me, to gain an enjoyable control over some of the stuff which sets off the amygdalla, my tendency to argue positions on certain societal issues with myself or sometimes others, and it’s invaluable in that is often gives me the ability to use and satisfy/quiet thhe intellect to bring me back to a mindul state.

This way of being suits me for reasons that would take too long to explain here.

I am reading my way through a few books after a nudge in this direction while researching various ideas.
Perhaps listing them will indicate my current position better than me attempting to describe myself.
Problem solving can be obsissive for me but I have decided that detachment and mindfulness are a better practice.
If you want a list of the books just ask.

 

[Bill Brenne]

"Defusing aggression" and letting "the other person punch himself into exhaustion" are at the very least misleading expressions. They generally connote the idea that the aggressor can be and/or has been manipulated into surrendering, and conversely, that talk and rationality are inherently superior in a fight.
Alright then, DOES the aggressor actuallybliterally punch himself into exhaustion by means of the calm rationality of the other party? I don't see that as being realistic, and I dont see that period. Is the aggressor actually manipulated into surrendering? Again, I see no evidence of this in real life. The aggressor only backs down when he or she is convinced that his or her superiority is intact. That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

Actually,...I see this every day in multiple situations, whether it be martial arts, dealing with aggressive personalities as a police officer or healthcare worker, or even the parent dealing with the child having a meltdown in the grocery store. But, perhaps, we may be talking past each other here. Perhaps some better context and perspective, because what I see in many of these situations is more or less a battle of wits versus emotion. Emotions cloud the intellect. If I were a betting person, in these situations, I would choose the person who is calm, collected, assertive (a form of aggression),...but not emotionally aggressive. Martial arts,...the person who is emotionally aggressive,...9/10 times is going to make a mistake and end up on his back on the canvas. In war,...he's going to end up with a bullet between his eyes. On the street, he's going to end up in a jail cell, the hospital, or dead. In the hospital, he's going to be escorted out the door by security and probably end up in jail. A child having a meltdown in a store,...walked right out the door. In all of these cases,...who ended up being the superior aggressor? Sometimes, the person who is calm and assertive, is also an aggressor,...but not emotionally,...and absolutely YES, manipulate the emotional aggressor into submission. I've worked in health care for over 35 years,...seen it happen many, many times,...I works very well.

Now, in these cases, none of these conflicts were with an "indifferent" personality. So, admittedly, these examples do not fit your original argument of "the aggressor vs the indifferent". The calm, collected,...but assertive, personality may, at times, "present" as indifferent,...but there is still an end goal in mind. Picking apart my previous posts, I hadn't been clear enough,...you had to tease it out of me,...

At any rate, I think we haven't put context and perspective into our conversations yet. We may be, sort of dancing around the same concepts, but not agreeing with each other due to our different perspectives. I like this banter though.

Lol!
I would assert that aggression is perhaps shown to be generally non-viable in a societal context. On that, we could potentially agree. But the facts of life beyond the context of the Matrix of Society are still unavoidably to be faced. To be a member of society first means that a narrative must be constructed that endorses and affirms that society, is that not true? You say, "Sometimes the person who is calm and assertive, is also an aggressor,....but not emotionally...and absolutely YES, manipulate the emotional aggressor into submission.". There are so many things that are wrong with this statement that I'm not sure where to begin. It may just be simpler to say in response, that there are no two ways of being aggressive. Aggression is aggression, and being calm is neither assertive nor aggressive just on the basis of the bare facts of the matter. Mistaking the one for the other is a gross violation of the facts of life in the real world. It is a plain, flat contradiction to assert that calmness has anything to do with assertiveness or aggressiveness in any way. Anyone who parses your statement here objectively can see this. And I submit that what you're generally providing by this statement is part of the narrative that's used as a basis for thinking and behaving in society. More to the point, statements which contradict reality mean that reality can and will "strike back" against such assertions. I'm a student of the emotions. I worked out what is probably the world's first coherent and consistent working understanding of emotions in everyday life. My approach naturally had to apply scientific thinking rigidly to this case as in any other case. Towards that end, it had to be established from the get-go that each emotion is a thing into itself--related, but different in serving the same overarching purpose as the other emotions--predator-prey relations in human form. That meant that I had to sort out obvious misconceptions--very much including the confusions of one emotion with another. There are no such things as tears of joy, for example. When a woman wins the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes and is presented with the giant check on TV, and starts crying, it isnt PC to tell the truth about this, because practically the first thing that the woman thinks is that others are going to want a chunk of the money, and that if she refuses to give it to them, then she is liable to be socially ostracized. Her crying reflects her wanting desperately to defend herself from others' going up against her in this way. It may be unpleasant, but this is the truth of the matter, and is ALWAYS how things work. Let's take another case: Some people confuse obvious indifference with anger. But again, indifferent behavior is obviously very different than angry behavior. We conflate the emotions also to serve, to us, for romantic purposes, such as in novels. But if we're talking the real world, that's another matter.
This confusion of emotions is at the heart of your response and the general narrative that those in society run with, in my strong opinion.
May I remind you that we live in a "broken symmetry"? Just as the forces of nature--Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Strong & the Weak Nuclear forces--are thought to have once been a unified "Superforce" that split into the forces we know today at the moment of the Big Bang, so, too, human beings went through such a split especially when population rose, making tribal life infeasible and promoting society roughly as we know it today. Society--the collective--then, coexists with the stragglers, as in schools of fish and fish of the same species that dont participate in the collective. And other forms of life could be called into account here. Individualism and collectivism having to both exist means that neither is viable in and of itself, but human beings in collective are a force to be reckoned with, so, though being a member of society requires posing and pretending--posturing--for the purpose of navigating others for our own sake, the mere fact of the existence of collective humanity inspires its protection (the alternative being self-protection that the stragglers favor), and the production of a narrative that best fits this desire to maintain and promote society, even though that narrative runs up against the wall of basic reality.
So tell me that you aren't operating with the accepted societal narrative from your position(?).

 

[Bill Brenne]

watersprite said: ↑


It is a logistical challenge to make sweeping generalizations about large groups made up of diverse people. Watch...

It's difficult to make generalizations. Many words have been twisted into new meanings: for example, conservative=anarchist; evangelical=satanic; republican=fascist; etc. Those who claim to admire "individuals" are actually cult followers who violently suppress non-conforming identities (even unto death) and those of collectivism often respect & support individual identities.

"Individuals" who embrace Ayn Rand have become sociopaths (no common good). They are spearheading the demise of the USA democratic republic through violent sedition and are indenturing We The People in their pathological love of money.

Granted, they claim to be libertarian but it is just a "libertarian-posers cult" who deeply believe the anus-view of their authoritarian leader while they drink the kool-ade of bigotry, mayhem, and extreme conformity; fully embracing the hypocrisy. They believe in their own liberty while forcefully denying others their's - justifying any means to that end. Libertarians are now just a bunch of authoritarian fascist oppressors preparing for genocide of anyone they don't like the looks of. Are you putting these ignoramuses in the individual pile or the collective cult?



Thank you, Suzette. The indifferent do not want to rise to conflict. We avoid it to any extent possible. But sometimes a sick sociopath needs to be subdued. We do what is necessary. Then we return to our personal lives.

The secret goal of martial arts is to learn how to fight like a "girl". The colored belts are when the yang punching & kicking the "boys" like is being taught (e.g. Kempo).

As one progresses through the levels of black belt, yin circular responses to violence are introduced (e.g. Shaolin). When fighting like a girl, the opponent must throw their weight to empower the circular response. In other words, unless attacked there can be no response.

Lol
Your point is well-taken. It's not the first time I've been challenged in this way. Maybe the best response I can offer is that it's a far greater challenge for those in society to cling to and pursue the idea of there being a Right and a Wrong way to see and handle life, how's that?
Isnt it true that belonging to the social collective necessarily means posing and pretending--posturing? Surely this is taken as a given(?). But--if we're on the same page here (and I dont want to blithely assume that we are), then doesn't that mean that the pursuit of Right and Wrong is immediately shot in the foot? The writer of Ecclesiastes was a curiosity for me for some time, until one day it hit me that his, "Vanity of vanities" was a simple reflection of the baggage that goes along with functioning in a collective environment. Not only do members of society--understandably--pose and pretend--posture with one another, but do they not do this explicitly for the purpose of "navigating" others like a medium, as fish navigate water and birds navigate air? That means, in more benign ways, people are accustomed to taking the view that they are to "benefit from" others, and, at worst, they manipulate and exploit them for their own personal gain. Society is very much occupied with sorting out what forms of using others, shall we say, are acceptable and what forms are not okay.
As for me, this doesn't put me on a pedestal. We are invariably sold on trying to function collectively and individually in a non-ideal world. And this comes back to bite us all in the butt when individualism must actively rebel against the collective, as is going on now and in the 60s and 70s. Still, there are those, in the majority, who favor group-protection, and those who favor self-protection. I'm one of the latter.
The bottom-line for me is that I'm very much a believer in morality and Right and Wrong, but I incorporate this in my life in a very simple way: I believe that the world and universe is a Tapestry that unfolds moment-by-moment at the Hand of God. That being the case, my duty is to therefore be real in my words and actions, which, as I pointed out, must be a huge challenge to those in society, since posturing is the name of the game for membership in society. Without it, society would surely collapse.

 

[Bill Brenne]

I may not be understanding what you are saying, Bill Brenne. I am confused why you are segregating your comments to a specific demographic: women

I specify women, as did Bill Brenne, but we can replace "women" with any non-anglocisheteropatriarchy identity and still maintain accuracy. Using experiences such as my generation being the first in my ancestry in which women were born with the right to vote in the USA (i.e. first nations people did not get the right to vote until 1946).

Women were not legally individual Americans, their citizenship was tethered to their marriage. Women did not own property, the right to the children they bore, nor the ability to earn wages. Birth control was illegal and maintained female oppression. Their status was defined by their marriage, within which they had no rights or protections - they were the property of their marriage, like the family cow. Individualism was difficult to achieve and maintain under this legal & cultural oppression.

My mother inherited my grandmother's friends and we would visit them often. They were addressed as "Miss". I found out as an adult that they were all PhDs. Women were not allowed to use the titles they earned that might elevate them above others, which was deemed unbecoming. They were not allowed to have their names on research, even when they were lead (only their births & deaths were acceptable for publishing). Marie Currie was an exception. Attempts to award the Nobel prize for her work to her husband were foiled by her husband. Few husbands stepped up to support the women they owned.

Asian cultures tend to be collective (all members, male-->female) while Individualism is a Western concept. Individualism may not be a goal for women / any non-anglocisheteropatriarchy identifying with this tradition. However, the yang/male rigid, phallic hierarchy is a concept that restricts individuality while the collective is yin/female and seems to have more tolerance for individual differences.



Bill, are you saying that it would be wrong / hypocritical / impossible for an indifferent person trapped with an aggressive to subdue the aggressive PITA? It is too bad that people (many who think they are smart, logical, and informed), who have fooled themselves into believing that their cult is libertarian even as they promote authoritarian conformity and are intent on violence to force others to submit to their cult - genocide to those who don't.

The true individual is indifferent - to each their own. The cult following "aggressives" remain unstable and prone to hysterics when an individual is nearby. They keep their eye on the anus-view in front of them and drink the kool-ade until the bullies can sneak in an attack.

As an autistic, the collective can be supportive to my individuality, but the hysterically violent conformity of a rigid, phallic hierarchy is a dangerous place to be. But mostly, I have nobody at all and must be fully self-reliant.

I am, by no means denigrating or otherwise downplaying women. To be absolutely honest, I'm not sure where and how you got any other idea from me. In fact, I believe in a way that women are superior to men. I see many men as being like neanderthals, and I'm not impressed, even if society itself encourages men to behave as they do(?). Can you explain?
What is "PITA" outside of a bread product? I simply maintain that indifference and aggression are two entirely different and distinct modes in life, and therefore, indifference has nothing to do with subduing an aggressive person--literally by definition. This is common sense. The notion that an Indifferent person can and does subdue an aggressive person is simply a narrative that's popular in society. I'm not a member of society, so I see myself being more objective than that, that's all.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Lol!
I would assert that aggression is perhaps shown to be generally non-viable in a societal context. On that, we could potentially agree. But the facts of life beyond the context of the Matrix of Society are still unavoidably to be faced. To be a member of society first means that a narrative must be constructed that endorses and affirms that society, is that not true? You say, "Sometimes the person who is calm and assertive, is also an aggressor,....but not emotionally...and absolutely YES, manipulate the emotional aggressor into submission.". There are so many things that are wrong with this statement that I'm not sure where to begin. It may just be simpler to say in response, that there are no two ways of being aggressive. Aggression is aggression, and being calm is neither assertive nor aggressive just on the basis of the bare facts of the matter. Mistaking the one for the other is a gross violation of the facts of life in the real world. It is a plain, flat contradiction to assert that calmness has anything to do with assertiveness or aggressiveness in any way. Anyone who parses your statement here objectively can see this. And I submit that what you're generally providing by this statement is part of the narrative that's used as a basis for thinking and behaving in society. More to the point, statements which contradict reality mean that reality can and will "strike back" against such assertions. I'm a student of the emotions. I worked out what is probably the world's first coherent and consistent working understanding of emotions in everyday life. My approach naturally had to apply scientific thinking rigidly to this case as in any other case. Towards that end, it had to be established from the get-go that each emotion is a thing into itself--related, but different in serving the same overarching purpose as the other emotions--predator-prey relations in human form. That meant that I had to sort out obvious misconceptions--very much including the confusions of one emotion with another. There are no such things as tears of joy, for example. When a woman wins the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes and is presented with the giant check on TV, and starts crying, it isnt PC to tell the truth about this, because practically the first thing that the woman thinks is that others are going to want a chunk of the money, and that if she refuses to give it to them, then she is liable to be socially ostracized. Her crying reflects her wanting desperately to defend herself from others' going up against her in this way. It may be unpleasant, but this is the truth of the matter, and is ALWAYS how things work. Let's take another case: Some people confuse obvious indifference with anger. But again, indifferent behavior is obviously very different than angry behavior. We conflate the emotions also to serve, to us, for romantic purposes, such as in novels. But if we're talking the real world, that's another matter.
This confusion of emotions is at the heart of your response and the general narrative that those in society run with, in my strong opinion.
May I remind you that we live in a "broken symmetry"? Just as the forces of nature--Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Strong & the Weak Nuclear forces--are thought to have once been a unified "Superforce" that split into the forces we know today at the moment of the Big Bang, so, too, human beings went through such a split especially when population rose, making tribal life infeasible and promoting society roughly as we know it today. Society--the collective--then, coexists with the stragglers, as in schools of fish and fish of the same species that dont participate in the collective. And other forms of life could be called into account here. Individualism and collectivism having to both exist means that neither is viable in and of itself, but human beings in collective are a force to be reckoned with, so, though being a member of society requires posing and pretending--posturing--for the purpose of navigating others for our own sake, the mere fact of the existence of collective humanity inspires its protection (the alternative being self-protection that the stragglers favor), and the production of a narrative that best fits this desire to maintain and promote society, even though that narrative runs up against the wall of basic reality.
So tell me that you aren't operating with the accepted societal narrative from your position(?).

Interesting,...I would have to say I am coming from life experience with this, as well as what has been part of our training in health care. It's part of martial arts training. It's part of parenting. I would also say, this type of training part of law enforcement training as well. So, with all the theoretical "book knowledge" you seem to have gleaned,...it doesn't apply in the real world. I was trying to be accommodating, interested in what you had to say,...I am always open to learning new things,...however, pretty much everything you said contradicted my life experience and training. I will stand by my statements,...it works very well in my world,...maybe not yours. You are free to give me the "LOL!",...my truth is what I have experienced and have been trained to do in these situations,...and pretty much without fail,...it works. Keep reading those books though,...for what it's worth to you. I may be autistic, but I do know when I am being carpet-bombed with BS.

 

[Bill Brenne]

Interesting,...I would have to say I am coming from life experience with this, as well as what has been part of our training in health care. It's part of martial arts training. It's part of parenting. I would also say, this type of training part of law enforcement training as well. So, with all the theoretical "book knowledge" you seem to have gleaned,...it doesn't apply in the real world. I was trying to be accommodating, interested in what you had to say,...I am always open to learning new things,...however, pretty much everything you said contradicted my life experience and training. I will stand by my statements,...it works very well in my world,...maybe not yours. You are free to give me the "LOL!",...my truth is what I have experienced and have been trained to do in these situations,...and pretty much without fail,...it works. Keep reading those books though,...for what it's worth to you. I may be autistic, but I do know when I am being carpet-bombed with BS.

From your world, as you say yourself. However, please be careful when using the epithet, BS. First, my world is just as real as yours. Secondly, your world isnt as stable as you apparently think it is. For the most part, I could agree that society pretty much goes on without disruption--until it doesn't. Think about the Roman empire, for example. I'm given to understand that complacency played as much a role in its downfall as anything else.
But I would like to point your attention to very recent history right here in the states. Few seem to understand that what we are going through right now is a very real instinctive, biological rebellion against the collective--society. This happened in the 60s and 70s as well, with the result that a new equilibrium was reached and the radicals were re-absorbed into that new equilibrium. But please allow me to point out one critical factor in the whole thing: the rebellion takes place BECAUSE people in society previously took their world for granted. And now that rationality is out the window for the participants in the rebellion, the only option that they have is to oppose anything and everything that society is deemed to stand for, including the reality of the virus and the value of the vaccines for that virus, and it may truly be said that there are quite a few people who are going to wake up one day and commit suicide because they were complicit in possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths in the process.
The moral of the story is obviously that you shouldnt be taking your world for granted, correct?

 

[Neonatal RRT]

From your world, as you say yourself. However, please be careful when using the epithet, BS. First, my world is just as real as yours. Secondly, your world isnt as stable as you apparently think it is. For the most part, I could agree that society pretty much goes on without disruption--until it doesn't. Think about the Roman empire, for example. I'm given to understand that complacency played as much a role in its downfall as anything else.
But I would like to point your attention to very recent history right here in the states. Few seem to understand that what we are going through right now is a very real instinctive, biological rebellion against the collective--society. This happened in the 60s and 70s as well, with the result that a new equilibrium was reached and the radicals were re-absorbed into that new equilibrium. But please allow me to point out one critical factor in the whole thing: the rebellion takes place BECAUSE people in society previously took their world for granted. And now that rationality is out the window for the participants in the rebellion, the only option that they have is to oppose anything and everything that society is deemed to stand for, including the reality of the virus and the value of the vaccines for that virus, and it may truly be said that there are quite a few people who are going to wake up one day and commit suicide because they were complicit in possibly hundreds of thousands of deaths in the process.
The moral of the story is obviously that you shouldnt be taking your world for granted, correct?

As I am reading your posts, I've come to realize we ARE coming from very different perspectives,...so I would suggest, given that,...our world,...within the context of this discussion IS different. I am going to narrow this down to our discussion about aggression, because, you appear to be speaking from a more global, or societal perspective. I am speaking from the perspective of someone with over 35 years of health care experience,...dealing with people who are at their emotional and physical worst. People who work in health care deal with people face-to-face, very intimate interactions,...people at their worst with regards to their fears (both rational and irrational) and then put them into an environment where they have a sense of loss of control. It takes almost nothing to set them off into aggressive behavior. The type of behavior we see is not dissimilar to the frightened and cornered animal,...take a dog, for example and visualization,...tail between the legs, shaking in fear, snapping and barking at you. I know, without any doubt, right now, as your are reading this, there are hundreds of interactions like this in hospitals all over the world that health care workers,...and sometimes their security officers are being confronted with. We don't want any harm to be done,...we just want to diffuse the situation,...and as I have said earlier, we are specifically trained in using calm, assertive behavior to calm the subject down. Very rarely, do we have to call in armed security and the dogs to subdue someone. So, when you suggested that the aggressor always wins,...I had to clarify that statement,...if it was the emotional aggressor,...in most cases we deal with,...absolutely not. They are diffused into submission pretty quick, either by mental manipulation,...or,...worst case,...gun and dog. Now, if you are looking at this from a more global, societal perspective,...I will give you that latitude. In another statement you suggested that aggression is aggression,...as if there is only one kind,...again, face-to-face interactions do not support that,...there is actually a thing called "passive aggression", there is assertiveness, there is a wide-range of controlling behaviors, there is fear-aggression, there is rage,...I could go on and on,...there is a broad spectrum of what one could call aggression, and ways to deal with it on a personal level. If you are not in agreement with those statements,...we are at an impasse,...and we will simply have to walk away from this discussion.

 

[Bill Brenne]

As I am reading your posts, I've come to realize we ARE coming from very different perspectives,...so I would suggest, given that,...our world,...within the context of this discussion IS different. I am going to narrow this down to our discussion about aggression, because, you appear to be speaking from a more global, or societal perspective. I am speaking from the perspective of someone with over 35 years of health care experience,...dealing with people who are at their emotional and physical worst. People who work in health care deal with people face-to-face, very intimate interactions,...people at their worst with regards to their fears (both rational and irrational) and then put them into an environment where they have a sense of loss of control. It takes almost nothing to set them off into aggressive behavior. The type of behavior we see is not dissimilar to the frightened and cornered animal,...take a dog, for example and visualization,...tail between the legs, shaking in fear, snapping and barking at you. I know, without any doubt, right now, as your are reading this, there are hundreds of interactions like this in hospitals all over the world that health care workers,...and sometimes their security officers are being confronted with. We don't want any harm to be done,...we just want to diffuse the situation,...and as I have said earlier, we are specifically trained in using calm, assertive behavior to calm the subject down. Very rarely, do we have to call in armed security and the dogs to subdue someone. So, when you suggested that the aggressor always wins,...I had to clarify that statement,...if it was the emotional aggressor,...in most cases we deal with,...absolutely not. They are diffused into submission pretty quick, either by mental manipulation,...or,...worst case,...gun and dog. Now, if you are looking at this from a more global, societal perspective,...I will give you that latitude. In another statement you suggested that aggression is aggression,...as if there is only one kind,...again, face-to-face interactions do not support that,...there is actually a thing called "passive aggression", there is assertiveness, there is a wide-range of controlling behaviors, there is fear-aggression, there is rage,...I could go on and on,...there is a broad spectrum of what one could call aggression, and ways to deal with it on a personal level. If you are not in agreement with those statements,...we are at an impasse,...and we will simply have to walk away from this discussion.

Lol I laughed in my previous post for the same reason as this one: I'm laughing WITH you--not AT you. Honest. In this case, I couldn't resist reacting as though you had given me an ultimatum, and that this was an attempt at "mental manipulation"
I started to write out a post more clearly elucidating where I was coming from, pointing out that a reaction of submissiveness by the aggressor could be accounted for on the basis of the threat BEHIND the calm, quiet person--like threatening to call the cops, for example. That scenario worked for me until I tried to account for my dad and my brother, who were both extremely withdrawn, yet married, had kids and careers. I've seen their lives as being a monstrous lie, but I couldn't say for sure how they carried it out unless their spouses took over as their actual interfaces with society, which is possible. Both women were NOT lying-down welcome mats for others to trample on.
I'm a simple person, as you could maybe guess by my persistence in holding to the position that true indifference is NOT assertive in and of itself. On that note, maybe it would help if I relayed something that the Minister of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in Corvallis, Oregon, Rev. Gretchen Woods, said from time to time behind the pulpit: "We are not so much thinking creatures who feel, as we are FEELING creatures who may or may not think.". There is a lot of misunderstanding of what it means to be indifferent. In terms of analysis, it is the human form of running away and hiding. This is an active form of self-expression--NOT the mechanical doings of a robot or android, as popular fiction would have it. I oppose the concept of "tears of joy" for the same reason: Indifference is NOT assertiveness (or vice-versa), any more than being Sad and being Happy are the same thing. That would be impossible.
I've come to start looking at people in society as engaging in posturing--posing and pretending--because that's how survival in society is conceived. It's one thing to assert that a calm, quiet person actually manages to effect the subjugation and submission of an aggressive person in and of itself, and quite another for that to be reality. You and others evidently have a fair amount invested in the mental picture of the triumph of reason and rationality over aggression. But I ask you: Could you honestly make today's radical Republican kowtow to you? That would be the acid test, for sure.
I'm not saying that you're not sincere about what you've been telling me, but I know for a fact that narrative is sometimes everything in society.