I started out reading Goleman's "Working with Social Intelligence" then I ran across another book of his "Social Intelligence" which I like even more. I guess I like the "Social Intelligence" better book because I'm more interested in the general relevance rather than the specific intelligence of the working topic book.

In one subchapter of the book entitled "Social Engineering" it says "Martin Buber believed that the growing preponderance of I-It relationships in modern societies threatens human well-being. He warned against the "thingification" of people-the depersonalization of relationships that corrodes our quality of life and the human spirit itself."

In another paragraph Goleman states "the exquisite social responsiveness of the brain demands that we realize that not just our own emotions but our very biology is being driven and molded, for better or for worse, by others-and in turn, that we take responsibility for how we affect the people in our lives."

Is Buber right? Is this "thingification" going on in society right now and to what extent?

Another thing I particularly like about this book is its on the edge of the mind-body health connection.

http://www.danielgoleman.info/blog/social-intelligence/

tldr but emotions are for pussies and emos just don't be a douchebag and you're doing alright

ROFL...I think you just exhibited the prototypical "male brain" in this post...

An excerpt: "Boys are four times as likely as girls to develop autism and ten times more likely to be diagnosed with Asperger's. Simon Baron-Cohen makes the radical proposal that the neural profile of people with these disorders represents the utter extreme of the prototypical "male" brain.
The extreme male brain, he argues, has no clue when it comes to mindsight; its circuitry for empathy remains stunted. But that deficiency comes with paired intellectual strengths, like the mind-boggling laser-focused abilities of savants who can solve complex math problems at rates matched only by computers. Although mindblind, such hypermale brains can be gifted when it comes to understanding systems, such as the stock market, software and quantum physics.
The most extreme "female" brain, in contrast, excels at empathy and understanding others' thoughts and feelings. Those with this pattern shine at callings like teaching and counseling: as psychotherapists, they are wonderfully empathic and attuned to the inner world of their clients. But those with the ultrafemale pattern have grave difficulties with systematizing, be it applying directions to that fork in the road up ahead or studying theoretical physics. They are, in his word, "systemblind"."

Goleman goes on to say that women outscore men in understanding what would be a faux pas in a social situation, are better at intuiting what another person is feeling and that women outscore men on Baron-Cohen's test of reading a person's feelings from their eyes alone.

Men outscore women on systems thinking and in the intuitive knack of mechanics, in detecting hidden figures in complex designs and visual searches in general.

2nd excerpt:

"But Baron-Cohen would abhor any attempts to use his theory to discourage women from becoming engineers-or men from entering the ranks of psychotherapists, for that matter. For the vast majority of people, Baron-Cohen finds, men's and women's brains are in the same ability range for empathy and systems thinking; moreover many women are brilliant at systematizing, while many men are superb at empathy."

This sounds like the bottom of the barrel self-congratulatory sexism we've had enough of by now.

It used to be thought that women were incapable of higher feeling or understanding, and in some cultures it still is. That is one reason they are not allowed to hold office or be priests or enter churches and in some traditional cultures even speak or dine with men, even of their own family, or even become literate. Now that it is popular to say "men bad, women good," we have the same sort of idiocy in reverse.

Either idea is extremely attractive to people who like to see their own lack of understanding justified and codified into an easy mental shorthand or societal dogma, no matter how creaky. I think we're all pretty screwed, across sexual, racial, ethnic, class, political, and ageist lines until we stop making so much simplistic and usually dehumanizing stuff up about people and just take them as individuals.

I agree with you in part Blarg. You can't let the stereotypes close doors to the individual but you also can't let the "politically correct" get in the way of understanding key differences between the sexes that have profound social and health implications and consequences. Understanding the differences allows you to understand behavior and also to correct and/or compensate for negative behaviors.

The fact that the area of the brain that regulates sex is twice as big in men as the area in women's brains is one example of how important these differences are and directly relates to why the average women think of sex one to four times a day while the average male thinks of it continuously throughout the day.

Also hormones have profound implications in how they regulate the sexes thinking patterns in this area. Its all very interesting. If you can understand the biology better you can actually come up with better solutions to social problems.

Oh, my ****ing god. Do you really believe this drivel?

Study:

Scientist hooked up diodes to men and women and had them watch porn: lesbian, gay, animal sex, and straight.
The men admitted that they were turned on by the straight and lesbian porn, the diodes confirmed this.
The women claimed that they were not turned on by anything. The diodes showed that they were turned on by ALL of the sex scenes.
Smaller "regulation" is smaller or more control.

I'm sorry, but why do people feel it is okay to tell people how others think. No man wants to *only have sex, the "number one fantasy" is not a threesome, just like all women don't hate sex and have penis envy.

To finish, I think the "battle of the sexes" debate is over-washed an entirely pointless. Why can't people start with we are all fundamentally the same, just as Baron-Cohen seems to suggest. Let's start here: we all want love, a good orgasm, some money, good times, good food, and some friggin happiness. By focusing on differences, we are exascerbating the problems and closing our minds from knowing other people, creating wars, etc.

I realized my post may have come off a little rude. So, uh, pretend it is nicer written or something. No offense meant.

Your brain also adapts to what you do.

What about not thinking in terms of being "systemblind" or not understanding systems and recognizing the cultural impact(including the way it can shape the brain) of the way we are socialized and the effect it can have upon what systems we are highly encouraged - sometimes even demanded by law -- to specialize in?

Men are raised to have disdain for trafficking in the emotions and seeing it as a sign of weakness. I've seen a study referenced that even with infants a few weeks old, mothers instinctively pay less attention to male babies crying than female ones. Men are also raised to think of themselves very strongly in terms of what their future careers will be and that math and science are naturally appropriate male outlets for intellectual endeavor and curiosity. These things must naturally have an impact on the skills men finally largely wind up with.

Women by contrast have historically been raised to first of all take care of the kids, which to be done at its best takes a high degree of emotional empathy and understanding. They are also socially encouraged, rather than discouraged, to talk up a storm and establish the family and community ties that will secure their own and their children and family's social positions and welfare. Concommitantly, they have been taught until very recently that work outside the home is anywhere from forbidden to merely an option, and it remains an option for a great many to this day, in traditional and modern cultures alike. Math and sciences, too, have been regarded as historically as inappropriate for either a woman's abilities or her "natural" place in life. What types of abilities, then, is our society most likely to produce in women?

What we have here is men and women specializing in different systems, not one being systemblind and the other having some unique special abilities of their own that are beyond the ken of the other sex. People are people; it's largely our love of jargon and feeling clever and insightful that makes us think any different. Either systems are useful and they aren't. The fact that men use them isn't by accident. It's because they are useful! It would be silly to suggest that women don't use that equally valid tool. They are just pointed toward different systems from infancy.

While it may be true that men and women often display different characteristics as adults, it is vastly underestimated how thorough and relentless, from the cradle, is our direction along certain developmental paths. There is no reason to dress up little girls like dolls who have yet to develop a concept of what is even going on in that regard, or tell them not to play with boy's toys, and no reason to encourage little boys who are equally mystified or overmatched to turn to fighting things out as part of their socialization rather than intervene in their scuffles, yet as adults we impose those things we wish them to internalize from without as a matter of course.

Many things that have been and are ascribed to people are not so genetic as popular mores and conceptions of particular geographical, cultural, and historical prejudices.

I'm not saying there may not be genetic differences, but we are so highly acclimated into a particular culture's prejudices that we come to our attempts to understand the subject with far from clean hands. As prejudice and sexism/racism/similar preconceptions are already so culturally ingrained, I think it's wisest to maintain an even keel when it comes to the cascade of studies and ideas trying to figure out what is truly genetic and what is cultural. As much as historians and social scientists are not doctors, it's at least as important to realize that neither are doctors, though as our society's modern day secular priests they are given enormous respect and approval, historians or social scientists. And having a degree of any type whatsoever doesn't put anyone's conclusions beyond judgment. A healthy skepticism is actually an affirmation, even an outright demand, of the scientific method.

Well there's a lot of things to think about in your post. One women just aren't as in to porn as men. It doesn't mean they don't have their own form of soft porn. They do. Its just its not visual. Its called "romance novels". Plenty of soft porn in romance novels supplied the way women like it. As usual it just flies right by most men because it doesn't come in a male format men totally miss it.

As for penis envy. I've never felt a moment of that in my life. That was a concept that was arrived at by a man who's never been in a woman's skin (crazy Sigmund Freud...who probably wasn't crazy bout everything, but about penis envy he sure was). How could a woman ever miss having a penis? How the hell do you miss something you never had or experienced? My guess is penis envy is so strongly experienced by men that Ole Sigmund just had to go an misapply it to women....Just a little wishful thinking on Ole Sigmund's part don't ya think?

Of course the brain adapts. Humans are much more complex than the average animal and the complex cultures and civilizations we build are a testimony to that.

quote: While it may be true that men and women often display different characteristics as adults, it is vastly underestimated how thorough and relentless, from the cradle, is our direction along certain developmental paths. There is no reason to dress up little girls like dolls who have yet to develop a concept of what is even going on in that regard, or tell them not to play with boy's toys, and no reason to encourage little boys who are equally mystified or overmatched to turn to fighting things out as part of their socialization rather than intervene in their scuffles, yet as adults we impose those things we wish them to internalize from without as a matter of course."

Did you ever think that the relentlessness is natural? I'm not sure if I personally like it being natural but if you compare people to animals in the natural world animals seem to always precede in a set pattern of development. The males of the species following certain patterns and mating rituals as do the females. They don't buck the system.

I've been looking over books on the brain recently. In fact I spent a couple of hours pouring over some on the female brain and there IS a complex interplay between our hormones (brain chemicals) and our behavior and I'm guessing (strictly guessing here) that when you try to override certain biologically determined behaviors there will be times you get more than you bargained for. In other words people can be socially motivated by things that are not that easily biologically achieved.

Take a look at a few books on the human brain Blarg. Its very interesting that biology even comes into play in different stages of the human life.

They think that chemistry comes into play in schizophrenia. In fact a whole host of mental illnesses they try to manage with drugs. Sometimes with great success and sometimes without much success again depending on the complexity of the problem and its interplay with nurture and environment.

Affirm both points about Freud. The penis envy thing is ridiculous, and though he tends to be jettisoned wholesale these days because of some of his goofs, he was still a brilliant and useful thinker.

The opposite is also true (we shouldn't tell boys/girls not to play with boys/girls toys), but unfortunately there's a backlash to it in lots of progressive circles. Parents actively preventing their young boys and girls doing things that are traditionally done by them. I remember reading some blog or message board thread where parents discussed ways to keep their boys from playing cops and robbers (or other "boy" activities) with kids in the neighborhood.

I also find this quote interesting:
Maybe there's some data to back this up somewhere. The majority of my teacher's have been women (pre-college), and some were very good, but % wise, the male teachers I've had were much better. I might be biased, because A) I'm a male and B) I'm more of a math/science guy. Though a woman was my best math teacher in HS. Not even close, actually, but it had little to do with her ability to empathize, but rather her ability to explain calculus in a clear and concise manner. On the other hand, another of my best teacher's was my drama coach, a male, very good in the "life coach" vein, though I doubt most would see him as a typical male, either.

Just some thoughts.

Splendour I think just so this thread doesn't spin out of control like I've seen it happen with almost every other female/male dynamics thread, you can clarify WHAT you would like to see in this thread.

The initial post sounded like anti-consumerism to me. Are you trying to say that materialistic possessions are an issue? Or what would you like to see in this thread?

Yeah we went off on a heck of a tangent.

I think I am more concerned with Buber's idea of "thingification."

Are people losing some of their social development and or their social well being by the extreme gadgetry in our society?

I think that's what Buber mean by "thingification". Also does the medium of computers cost us any of our humanity or just a new version of humanity?

You realize you're IN tl;dr, right? I think you hit the wrong subforum.

As for the topic at hand...

I feel like a lot of this discussion is going to be like playing racquetball with a blindfold on. More and more--and maybe this is the education world pounding on me--I'm looking for some research evidence for what I'm reading about and being told. Obviously a lot of the world, especially this topic, is going to go beyond that. When you're talking about something labeled "thingification," I think we might be throwing sound research findings out the window.

All I feel certain of about this conversation is that your own sex is going to influence your thoughts on this entire topic. Of course, even within gender we're going to have differing opinions on a great many aspects of this.

Personally, though, I think that people lose social development in some regards to "thingification" and technology. They also gain some, too. Kids these days are a lot better at getting their emotions out in different ways I think. It's a lot easier to let it out and talk to someone about your issues when you have a computer screen or cell phone (thinking texts) to hide behind. They get some social development there (but is it good or bad? if we want to label it). The opportunity cost is that they're losing some face to face social development which is still very much a part of our adult society. Who knows though, maybe our world is slowly drifting away from that...


How on topic was I? I wasn't sure what the topic was by this point.

I would say thingification is stunting human development. Try tearing someone away from the: ipod, cell phone, TV, computer and have a genuine conversation. Have you ever been talking to someone who has to interrupt the conversation to take an unimportant cell phone call? Isn't that what voice-mail is for? Have you ever had to work evening plans around someone's favorite TV shows? Tape it! I'm not a Luddite, but I do get tired of people putting their e-lives ahead of having a real life. In fact, I pride myself on spending more time in the gym, library, or a dingy corner bar full of interesting characters than online. All things in moderation, except maybe coffee and laughter.

Ty you are on topic.

Actually sex shouldn't influence this topic too much. I just found it amusing that in a thread about social intelligence someone said that emotion was inappropriate and it seemed to correlate with a section of the book being discussed about brain type.

You don't think that the people who need the social development the most are probably getting even less of it? Definitely things are changing. Now people can talk on the phone more than ever so there's contact of a sort but not face to face contact. You can't pat someone on the back over a cell phone. Also with ipods you can tune out the world even on the poker table a formerly social situation. Do we have more control than ever of what we like and don't like? Is having that control a good thing or does it make us weaker in handling the things we need to learn to handle like unpleasant social situations?

So this book was written by this guy?

These two still strike me as "technology" in some ways. They also, I'm guessing, tend to isolate you from others just as much as a television show could. Keep in mind that a lot of people watch tv shows together and discuss them.

TV shows are, in some ways, not all that different from curling up with a good book.

I do think it's natural and almost inevitable to do whatever comes before you, but that does not have to derive strictly from genetics. That's why human and animal mothers that don't get proper nurturing themselves often turn out to be bad mothers themselves. Genetically they can be the same.

Our relentless drive to do things they way we already know them is reflected throughout our daily lifes. I can drive from one end of town from another and not even remember an instant of the trip because that drive is so much a part of me I barely need to pay any attention at all. In fact I can pay so little attention it can actually be hazardous, as when I come to a familiar stop sign that usually let's me do a "California rolling stop" and then proceed through immediately, but find myself in busier traffic one day with the same attention and driving patterns and almost get hit or hit somebody because my brain is on auto-pilot and my instincts are out of commission. So even things like motherhood and putting yours and others life at risk in traffic, or just getting from one side of town to the other, can become pretty much unconscious endeavors.

Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily speak well of the results or for their genetic inevitability. Human volition, cultural values, and mere habit play an adequate part to get the job done without having to fall back on genetics as the moving force.

Usually they don't need to and don't benefit from it. People are capable of more and better though. We're not running down gnus on the savanna anymore.

Any time you do something different you definitely take a risk. That's where both failure and growth come from. (Cue Teddy Roosevelt speech.)

True. A lot of times, it should be noted, this is because we are not trying to get to a clear understanding from a point that is already clear. For instance, if you approach racial isues as a prejudiced black or a prejudiced white, it's garbage in, garbage out. Same if you approach things as a rigidly sexually conservative male or the garden variety feminist who has read too much and lived and cared to little outside herself.

I love reading stuff like this actually.


Basically we're all a chemical soup, so I'm sure a lot of what we call personality in general, including the healthy kind, comes down to nothing more than that. People who are hypoglycemic are a good quick example of that. They can often become very lethargic, but they can also become extremely angry and aggressive as a result of their low blood sugar, completely without knowing it. On a sexual level, women going on their periods often go a little berserk. I have often been able to calendar women at work as to their periods without their even telling me, and known to stay away at that time. Similarly, when I'm feeling like my, er, "needs" haven't been met for a while, it has an effect on my personality too.

Splendour you're basically asking for pros and cons of a hammer...

On one hand... you can now drive nails into wood! On the other hand... you can drive a hammer into someone's skull...

What do you think?


It's not the tools that make the person, it's the person that makes the tools. I mean, you're asking if more things being more accessible makes people less social? What about girls that go shopping all the time with their girlfriends? What would they be doing without all that stuff to buy? Probably the same thing except in a different location!

Humans are animals and evolution is very... very slow. Just because there's now an iPod, nothing has really changed. It's not like people would talk on the bus before there were iPods, lol.


Conclusion: nothing radical has happened and even if it has, who cares

Are you really, really so sure about this. Or has this happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

LOL.

I think you missed the point of the study. What they found is that women deny being turned on by visual porn, when the study suggests that on a biological level, they are turned on by all kinds of porn. Even watching two gorillas go at do something. The study opens up another problem of why the female brain doesn't register the biological signals. Theories abound if you want to read them.

I don't think he was stating the definition that you stated. I envy people with money and wonderful relationships although I never had either.

With that out of the way, you missed the point of me writing penis envy along with not liking sex, all men fantasizing about threesomes. This is all bull****.

I don't believe women have penis envy.
I am pretty sure a woman is capable of higher orgasm and libido than men.
If women didn't like sex, all men would be rapist
A fantasy is something impossible/ very hard to acquire. A threesome is pretty easy to come by. A man's true fantasy is to pleasure a woman fully and to have love with one that loves him with all her heart.

Schizophrenia is a genetic/ chemical problem. One that is born with the s-gene is going to have it. There is nothing that can be done about it. I find it surprising you are reading about brain chemistry and you still question this.

As for the rest of mental illness. Up until about ten years ago, doctors simply loaded up the patient and created a zombie. There are many new medicines on the market today, and there is no need to zombify people.

Among other chemical problems is bipolarity, depression, mania, etc. These all have different chemical properties with there own chemical problems, mostly dealing with seratonin and dopamine levels. If they are out of balance, or there is too little or too much of one, there are going to be problems.

I, among a few other loungers, are or have been on medicine. I take lexipro for depression/ anxiety/ insomnia/ hypersomnia/ and nightmares. The problem with medicine is that each person reacts differently to each medicine. For example, lexipro has no effect on some people, while is *was working fine until last week for me. Same with lithium. Although it works great for many with bipolar or schizophrenia, it fogs out many others, so they go on to another medicine.

To take a classic example, novacaine does not work on many people, but people still use it and it is accepted as a normal pain deterent. The fact that it does nothing for me is not ample reason to run out and create a conspiracy theory.

quote: "I think you missed the point of the study. What they found is that women deny being turned on by visual porn, when the study suggests that on a biological level, they are turned on by all kinds of porn. Even watching two gorillas go at do something. The study opens up another problem of why the female brain doesn't register the biological signals. Theories abound if you want to read them."

There is a very complex interplay in the female brain of certain hormones that may have some impact on a female brain registering these biological signals. Also there may be some reinforcement by social training or personal mores/preferences.

Women have certain hormones that sometimes work to temper their sex drive. I forget if its progesterone or oxytocin. Dr. LouAnn Brizendine's book The Female Brain talks about it at length. Women's hormones have a built in check factor and what triggers that is complicated.

Here's an interesting excerpt of her book. I don't think it deals with this exact question but its interesting to see just how far men are on Mars and women are on Venus.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/Story?id=2274147&page=1