Men and women are different. And that's okay

LittleLetterLabels said:
Forgive me for saying it, but you sound pretty bitter to me. Reading between the lines, I get the feeling that you feel like you're less successful with dating women because you were led to believe the wrong things about what a man should be, by your culture. You were led to believe, for instance, that sensitivity is valuable, and that being romantic is a good thing, and other such philosophies that are considered soft. Then, later in life, you became convinced that you were wrong. That the only way to be really successful with women, and possible with life, is to be strong, competitive, and confident, and to work on your physical prowess so as to earn the respect and admiration of others.

Would you say this is accurate?
Click to expand...
I was definitely less successful when I was younger, softer, nicer.

BUT

That doesn't mean it's ever acceptable to treat women like shit. That needs to be said.
 
Pin said:
I was definitely less successful when I was younger, softer, nicer.
BUT That doesn't mean it's ever acceptable to treat women like shit. That needs to be said.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saying that! It's weird that we need to say that, huh?

As a person who has been doing a bit of self-growth, myself, and as someone who has been keenly interested in the perceptions of men (especially of the online male community) for a while now...I have some opinions on that philosophy that may or may not pertain to you. It's a philosophy I've come across before with other men, and I personally think it's a shame, because it can hinder males from realizing their full potential. However, I'm doing a hell of a lot of generalizing here, and since everyone is different, you might not really adhere to the philosophy I'm talking about. A lot of people mistake me for a feminazi, for instance, because one or two of my views are shared by that group of people. I find that to be obnoxious, if I'm being honest - so I'm trying not to box you in to a "type" here!

If you don't mind, I'm just going to message you about it in case its a topic you're open to hearing opinions about and interested in discussing with me. If you're not, feel free to ignore the message! I have work to do anyways. It's not like I'll be offended, lol!

Edit: Nevermind. Your privacy settings are set to not accept PMs. Well do you want to discuss the topic...or? I'm trying to be considerate of your feelings, here, as well as the feelings of everyone else on the thread, which is a bit foreign to me. I'm an INTP, not an INFJ, and I've been working on enhancing my Fe, but it doesn't come naturally.
 
LittleLetterLabels said:
Thanks for saying that! It's weird that we need to say that, huh?

As a person who has been doing a bit of self-growth, myself, and as someone who has been keenly interested in the perceptions of men (especially of the online male community) for a while now...I have some opinions on that philosophy that may or may not pertain to you. It's a philosophy I've come across before with other men, and I personally think it's a shame, because it can hinder males from realizing their full potential. However, I'm doing a hell of a lot of generalizing here, and since everyone is different, you might not really adhere to the philosophy I'm talking about. A lot of people mistake me for a feminazi, for instance, because one or two of my views are shared by that group of people. I find that to be obnoxious, if I'm being honest - so I'm trying not to box you in to a "type" here!

If you don't mind, I'm just going to message you about it in case its a topic you're open to hearing opinions about and interested in discussing with me. If you're not, feel free to ignore the message! I have work to do anyways. It's not like I'll be offended, lol!

Edit: Nevermind. Your privacy settings are set to not accept PMs. Well do you want to discuss the topic...or? I'm trying to be considerate of your feelings, here, as well as the feelings of everyone else on the thread, which is a bit foreign to me. I'm an INTP, not an INFJ, and I've been working on enhancing my Fe, but it doesn't come naturally.
Click to expand...
This reads like you’re trying to advertise something or invite him into a cult LOL.
 
barbad0s said:
This reads like you’re trying to advertise something or invite him into a cult LOL.
Click to expand...

:sweatsmile: I think this isn't the first laugh I'm going to get on this forum.

Yeah, I talk weird, and often, in socially awkward ways. It's my cross to bear. I'm too much of a hermit and too socially isolated to have experience in acting normal. The fact that it's funny to you is a plus! I find it to be hilarious, too, but usually only when people point it out to me. Out of morbid curiosity, at what point in the post did you get the "advertising" and "cult" vibes?
 
LittleLetterLabels said:
:sweatsmile: I think this isn't the first laugh I'm going to get on this forum.

Yeah, I talk weird, and often, in socially awkward ways. It's my cross to bear. I'm too much of a hermit and too socially isolated to have experience in acting normal. The fact that it's funny to you is a plus! I find it to be hilarious, too, but usually only when people point it out to me. Out of morbid curiosity, at what point in the post did you get the "advertising" and "cult" vibes?
Click to expand...
The PM part was the nail in the coffin lol. Before that I could just see it as rambling.
 
I’m a bit manly and I strongly prefer more feminine men.

I actually saw pictures of a transgender (female to male) person who I didn’t know was transgender, and I found them more attractive closer to the beginning of their transition, before they had been taking male hormones for a very long time yet.

I don’t feel attracted to women though.

Anyway I guess there are general trends between the sexes, but I think that within reason, honoring differences between individuals is more important overall. You can’t fit a round peg into a square hole. I think focusing on that and freedom is good. Eventually all of the ridiculous extra stuff like allowing transgender atheletes to set world records will subside.
 
LittleLetterLabels said:
Yes, I agree. It's a narrative. Also, a certain degree of it is inaccurate, because most things most people say are inaccurate to a certain degree, and the trick is to find out how inaccurate you think they are. At least, that's my personal philosophy.

The "things we do" aren't necessary different from what we naturally inherit though, at least, not according to the current scientific perspective of evolutionary psychology...which, I find to be dubious anyways. There are things we do socially, and things we do naturally. When you're talking about subjectivity though, you place its importance beneath that of the natural order, and I personally disagree with that opinion. Reason being, we are all highly subjective animals and as long as you are conscious, everything you think, do, and say, is the product of your subjective experience of life. This is all kind of vague though, so let me give an example of a controversial belief I have that is relevant to this topic.

Some people will say that natural selection dictates human attraction. Or that, we choose who to be attracted to, based on our instincts. However, if you look at history, and different examples of culture, it becomes pretty apparent that a large majority of our selection is due to subjective preferences. For example, Marilyn Monroe used to be considered the height of attraction in her generation, but now, we consider size zero super models the height of attraction, and in this day and age, Marilyn Monroe is considered "fat". There's a civilization or country somewhere, though I'm forgetting what they're called, where unibrows are considered attractive. Here in the US, we tend to think they're hideous.

Please don't misunderstand me though. I'm not praising or condoning superficiality. I'm not particularly superficial myself....but when I talk about subjects like this, I have to use generalizations, even though they don't apply to everyone. It doesn't make sense to speak on this topic without describing the majority. Or at least, my perception of what the majority is.

So when we look at what is "nature" and what is "nurture" - well, nurture is the subjective, cultural aspect, and it matters a great deal. As nurture is so overwhelmingly influential, it's really difficult for us to actually discern what the "natural order", as you call it, is. We have a tendency to think we can discover the "natural order" of humans by observing humans themselves, but I believe we often mistake subjective tendencies for natural ones. The better way to study the "natural order" is to examine other mammalian species, and in particular, primates. What we find in every other mammal is that the differences between males and females are typically slight, if they are there at all. In primates, the differences are a bit more pronounced, but even then, most of those differences in primates seem to revolve around dimorphism - because male Orangutans are notably larger than female Orangutans for instance - and mating behaviors. Which, of course, mating behaviors are always different between male and female animals.

If we compare that to the things we think and commonly believe are "naturally inherent" in humans - we have a laundry list full of suppositions we've made that really seem to have little basis in reality. For instance, the idea that there are significant differences in the structures of male and female brains. The idea that men are dominant and women are submissive. The idea that women are naturally more gregarious. The concept that men are better at working with their hands and women are better at organization. Almost all of these things are probably due substantially, if not entirely, to nurture and culture - to our subjective experience of life.

I know I probably sound patronizing or condescending. If that's the case, could you please give me some feedback as to what you find to be offensive? I'm not an INFJ like most of you, I'm an INTP, but my best friend is an INFJ and she has a lot of traits I respect and value. I recently started typology counseling to help me understand some of the personality traits in myself that I don't like, and it's come to my attention that I don't take enough responsibility for the feelings of others when I speak. I do value feelings and think they're both highly important and highly relevant to discussions...but it's hard for me to switch between thinking about someones feelings, and processing information. You don't have to worry about offending me by telling me how it is, so if you feel my behavior is socially unacceptable, please let me know where I'm going wrong! Thanks!



This statement really wasn't meant to be haughty, but I know it's very controversial. Also, again, it's my opinion. Probably, I should have written a disclaimer about that. I was on break and didn't take the time to be as careful with my words as I should have. Also, I'm actually really unfamiliar with the people who push "these" narratives. Certainly you don't mean the concept that traditionally male characteristics are becoming irrelevant in modern society? I've actually never heard anyone else voice that opinion, and I've talked to quite a few people. (Then again, most of them are men, so maybe that's why!)



A game of semantics....could you please specify? Where is the semantics game? I think if you ask me to clarify a particularly ambiguous point, I can respond to that opinion more effectively.



Well, I don't think anyone can discuss trends in history, evolution, culture, and so forth, without discussing these terms on the surface level. Surface level discussions are extremely important and useful, because they help us to see the bigger picture, and to make abstractions. Without them, we get so lost in the trees we can't see the forest. If I had to go into detail about every decade I mentioned, and discuss, at length, human biology, genetic makeup, darwinism, primate behaviors, and so forth, nobody would read what I would have to say (because it would be a book at that point), and you and I wouldn't be able to take a look at a macro-scale, abstracted opinion, that has been simplified to the extent of being realistic for practical use, and discuss this subject.

Just because something only scratches the surface, does not make it less true. Truth is everywhere, and it's on a spectrum. Some things are less true than others.

As far as the "illusion" of valid? I suppose you could make that argument...maybe. I'm trying to wrap my head around it, to be honest. To suggest something is valid would be to suggest it is logical, and I don't think any of the points I've made have been intended to be logical points - although, I hope they're not fallacious. This isn't really a debate, though, so what I'm doing is discussing what I've learned and my philosophies on that information. If we had to have a debate on this, I would have to be able to reduce my argument to mathematical rules which would be nonsense - we don't have enough information to logically prove any of this...I think....

Maybe what you meant to say is that my points are unreasonable. If that's the case - by all means, please contradict them! I really enjoy talking to people who have different opinions because it helps me develop my own opinions in a stronger, hopefully more truthful direction.

-----

I would just like to make one more point. I think, here, and I'm just going on a whim - but I think you might be thinking I'm a "feminazi". That I don't value or appreciate men, that I detest the patriarchy, and that I feel like women have been abused and repressed, and that it's time for us to "stick up" for ourselves. Or that I think women are "just like" men. I don't think any of these things. However, to be as fair and honest with you as possible, I will say that I am a female who has struggled with sexism in the past. I had some bad relationships, and in particular, I had a relationship with one person who had particularly toxic philosophies. He was a male, and it influenced the way I viewed men. That was a while ago, and since then, I've sought out a lot of male friends and asked them questions about how they think and feel, and what they believe, and I've researched the modern male struggle. I think sexism usually breeds itself in people who don't understand the opposite sex very well. So the more you understand the opposite sex, the less sexist you should inherently become - generally speaking.

I don't want you to get the impression that I don't value men, or that I look down on them. I absolutely value men. In fact, I tend to get along a lot better with men than I do women, because they're more interested in discussing philosophy and science with me. There are things I appreciate about the cultural, subjective differences in men. I like that men in our culture are courageous, emotionally resilient, and competitive. I like that, in general, men of our culture (I live in the US, btw), value strength, learning how to defend themselves and protect people they love, and that they don't sweat the small stuff. There's a lot to love about the persona of the "cultural man" that we've constructed over time.
I think that is what an earlier commenter was talking about when she was discussing the "beauty" of the differences between males and females. There is a lot of beauty there - but I think most of it is of our own making. The strong, protective defender of a male. The lovely, generous, nurturing female...We created these personalities for the genders because they're things we think are very appealing.

But, I do feel that, while male strength and aggression was necessary for humans to evolve to the extent that we have evolved today, those traits are no longer needed for survival, and in fact, can hinder the modern male. These days, with male and female social integration being what it is, strength can be seen as inherently threatening, and aggression is not only seen as dangerous, but is seen as a red flag that disqualifies a male as being a "good father figure". Many modern men can find ways to use these inherent traits to their advantage to do well socially. Sports and professional fighting, for instance. However, when you get right down to it, we've evolved a society that no longer requires you to be strong, physically adept at fighting, or willing to use imposing body language and behaviors to ward away potential danger. Nowadays, we have technology, instead. What is becoming heavily more prized in men, in my opinion, is their ability to socialize and integrate with a rapidly changing society. That is why you can look around and see so many men that are empathetic, politically correct, "woke", sensitive - what have you - that are very successful at dating. That ability to adapt has become attractive, because it is extremely relevant in our culture today, do to the rapidity with which our traditions and beliefs are currently changing.

It used to be the case that women needed men. In many places in the world, it's still the case. In the United States, however, women no longer need men, and men, as well, have never been more competent (I think) at living without the help of a woman. Technology has given us sexual independence. You don't need a wife to cook dinner for you. I don't need a husband to fix my deck.

I believe that, if we look at the historical trends of the past, we'll see that women and men are becoming more and more similar to one another. That men are becoming more feminized, and women more masculine. As we grow out of our strict, traditional gender roles, we grow into a model of human that is much more aligned with the natural world, because a lot of the cultural bias of what a gender should be is being stripped away. Like other mammals, men and women will probably become very similar to one another. Unlike primates, however, male will probably lose most of the dimorphism that makes them physically larger than females, because height, strength, and high testosterone are no longer factors that improve survivability.

Sorry to be really long-winded. I wish I didn't have to type so much to get my points across, but I'm not sure how to write any less and still be abundantly clear about my beliefs. Most of the time if I voice a controversial opinion, people assume I'm being sexist. Understandably. There's a lot of sexist people out there, and I've come to learn that my "detached" way of reasoning is the exception, not the rule, and that there are inherent defects in that approach. Even so - it's the personality I have to work with, so I do the best I can. Please don't be frustrated or upset by what I've said. I think I can really empathize with why my view would be offensive. I've been told, before, that empathy is a "weakness", and it's why women are inherently weaker, mentally, then men. I found that to be really offensive and frustrating. It makes sense to me why criticizing a typical quality in the male sex might be equally frustrating to someone else. The best I can say is to impress upon you that I value the male sex, and I view males and females as inherently equal. Also, that I'm sorry if my idea offended you, and that I'm well aware that what I say isn't gospel truth - a portion of everything I believe is most likely inaccurate.

Well, it was nice talking to you!
Click to expand...

I've taken in the points you're proposing and I agree with your underlying concept of progression. I think it's necessary for the evolution of society. However I do not agree with pushing society forward through radical changes. I think this would be best discovered at a pace fitting to the collective. You spoke of adjustment, I think any change brought forward should be willing by the participant. When you discuss points that lay siege on a collective belief system, using generalized concepts. It becomes a very dangerous game of war where discussion falls by the wayside. To convey a concept use your personal experience and observations. For example when you argue beauty standards using Marilyn Monroe you're looking to a time when she was the advertised standard of beauty. I think you're confusing the marketing machine with this generalized concept. You do not know anything of that time, only what you've read. As the same goes for most of your points. So my observation is your belief system is something someone has advertised to you.
 
barbad0s said:
I’m a bit manly and I strongly prefer more feminine men.

I actually saw pictures of a transgender (female to male) person who I didn’t know was transgender, and I found them more attractive closer to the beginning of their transition, before they had been taking male hormones for a very long time yet.

I don’t feel attracted to women though.

Anyway I guess there are general trends between the sexes, but I think that within reason, honoring differences between individuals is more important overall. You can’t fit a round peg into a square hole. I think focusing on that and freedom is good. Eventually all of the ridiculous extra stuff like allowing transgender atheletes to set world records will subside.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you're a female. I don't think you're alone in this. It's a trend I've been observing. Many females prefer more feminine men. In fact, I would say in my own personal experiences with having female friends (as a female, myself), and hearing them talk about their love interests and sexual preferences (because I'm not this awkward in person, I promise), that women who prefer masculine men are the exception, not the general rule of thumb.

This is further evidenced by taking a look at the "heart throbs" we have today. There was Leonardo Di Caprio, Justin Bieber, and other such feminine looking men. Way back in the day, in the age of the hippies, there were male models who were particularly burly looking, and we considered that attractive. Times have changed significantly since then. Skinny jeans on men are now considered attractive, as is minimal body hair and feminine facial features like long eyelashes. Most women I've talked to don't like a lot of muscle.

It's true that everyone is different, but a lot of what we find appealing has to do with the environments we've grown up in. I think that these days, being sociable, empathetic, nurturing, and good at communicating are all traits we value in men far more than a man's ability to start a fist fight in a bar, or do x number of deadlifts. Because we value traits that are traditionally more feminine, more, now, it is possible we're more attracted to men with lower levels of testosterone. (Not necessarily higher levels of estrogen, though, there's a difference, I think.)
 
LittleLetterLabels said:
I'm guessing you're a female. I don't think you're alone in this. It's a trend I've been observing. Many females prefer more feminine men. In fact, I would say in my own personal experiences with having female friends (as a female, myself), and hearing them talk about their love interests and sexual preferences (because I'm not this awkward in person, I promise), that women who prefer masculine men are the exception, not the general rule of thumb.

This is further evidenced by taking a look at the "heart throbs" we have today. There was Leonardo Di Caprio, Justin Bieber, and other such feminine looking men. Way back in the day, in the age of the hippies, there were male models who were particularly burly looking, and we considered that attractive. Times have changed significantly since then. Skinny jeans on men are now considered attractive, as is minimal body hair and feminine facial features like long eyelashes. Most women I've talked to don't like a lot of muscle.

It's true that everyone is different, but a lot of what we find appealing has to do with the environments we've grown up in. I think that these days, being sociable, empathetic, nurturing, and good at communicating are all traits we value in men far more than a man's ability to start a fist fight in a bar, or do x number of deadlifts. Because we value traits that are traditionally more feminine, more, now, it is possible we're more attracted to men with lower levels of testosterone. (Not necessarily higher levels of estrogen, though, there's a difference, I think.)
Click to expand...
I completely agree and have had the same experiences hearing from other women as you.

Lmao I am honestly on the extreme end though I think. I don’t exclusively like only the most feminine ones, but I often have women completely unable to relate with some of the guys I like.
 
A Guy said:
I've taken in the points you're proposing and I agree with your underlying concept of progression. I think it's necessary for the evolution of society. However I do not agree with pushing society forward through radical changes. I think this would be best discovered at a pace fitting to the collective. You spoke of adjustment, I think any change brought forward should be willing by the participant. When you discuss points that lay siege on a collective belief system, using generalized concepts. It becomes a very dangerous game of war where discussion falls by the wayside. To convey a concept use your personal experience and observations. For example when you argue beauty standards using Marilyn Monroe you're looking to a time when she was the advertised standard of beauty. I think you're confusing the marketing machine with this generalized concept. You do not know anything of that time, only what you've read. As the same goes for most of your points. So my observation is your belief system is something someone has advertised to you.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how you concluded this about the poster when they made only one reference to something about the past, and it’s considered common knowledge that almost nobody would deny either. This person clearly deeply understands each of the points they are bringing up, which would not be something characteristic of someone mindlessly regurgitating something they heard elsewhere. Also they seem to have clearly used some personal experience within this and other posts on here in this thread.
 
A Guy said:
I've taken in the points you're proposing and I agree with your underlying concept of progression. I think it's necessary for the evolution of society.
Click to expand...

Thanks for finding a point to mention that you agree on before proceeding with your criticism! That was very tactful of you, and I appreciated the effort!

A Guy said:
However I do not agree with pushing society forward through radical changes. I think this would be best discovered at a pace fitting to the collective. You spoke of adjustment, I think any change brought forward should be willing by the participant.
Click to expand...

Oh, I 100% agree with you. I really affects my stance on politics, because I do not believe that an aggressive or forceful change is beneficial for us. If the change is inevitable in an evolutionary sense, it will evolve naturally. Forcing it to evolve can cause us to make mistakes by restricting freedoms and imposing extremist views and censorship on others. I think that socialism is our future. I think it's even possible that our future may be a matriarchy...I have reasons for thinking those things, but I rarely express these views, because they teeter on the edge of "idealism", which is dangerous and politics that use idealism as justification are not to be tolerated. The world in which we live in is the one we have. Everything else we talk about is just hypothetical entertainment. The only value in it is that by presenting possibilities like this, you give others the opportunity to see things your way, and that allows us to collectively move towards a certain future faster, and more peacefully. There needs to be mutual agreement, understanding, and acceptance, though. A society is defined by the feelings of the people, and when people are oppressed, repressed, or their freedoms are imposed upon, societies become restless, dangerous, and at risk of being uprooted.

A Guy said:
When you discuss points that lay siege on a collective belief system, using generalized concepts. It becomes a very dangerous game of war where discussion falls by the wayside. To convey a concept use your personal experience and observations.
Click to expand...

This is good advice. I think you might be right. I will think about what you've said and see how I can integrate it into the way I discuss my beliefs.

A Guy said:
For example when you argue beauty standards using Marilyn Monroe you're looking to a time when she was the advertised standard of beauty. I think you're confusing the marketing machine with this generalized concept. You do not know anything of that time, only what you've read. As the same goes for most of your points. So my observation is your belief system is something someone has advertised to you.
Click to expand...

Here I'll have to disagree, although, I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm a media marketer by trade, and because I've had a lot of research and practice in marketing psychology and I've learned a lot about marketing generations, I'm a bit more protected from this kind of bias than I am from other kinds of biases that would affect me.

Actually, it's because of my trade that I've looked so much into the advertising of the past. The thing about advertising is that it speaks to the will of the people. It has to, in order to be effective. That being said, it also (as I think you were suggesting) is often guilty of telling the people what to believe and how to feel.

However, advertising is actually incredibly effective at that. Advertising defines a very large portion of what our culture is, at least here in the United States. It defines beauty standards, beauty movements, which sex should play with which toy, what little girls should aspire to be when they grow up...A massive part of our culture is advertising.

But its like an equation. On one side, you have a function, which includes X. On the other side of the equals sign, you have your X. Here, X is essentially, the values and desires of the people. So for example, you have:

2X + .3X(976) = X

The function that advertisers use always has to involve X, which is the values of the people. However, in solving for what we think X should be, we redefine it.

In this way, advertising is both the product of human culture, and a major defining factor of human culture.

This is why it is useful to look at trends in fashion, beauty, toys, values - even children's storybooks and media - because they reveal a great deal about the way people thought back then.

However, all this will ever be is a persona. A sort of generalized, overreaching, abstract perspective of what people back then were like. So to enhance this understanding, we need to talk to our elders, who can tell us, from their first-hand experiences, what was a dramatic aspect of media, and what was not. That's why I have a lot of deep conversations with my grandma, for instance. She shares a lot of useful information with me.

I suspect that my beliefs are slightly more rational than what you might be thinking they are.
 
barbad0s said:
I don’t understand how you concluded this about the poster when they made only one reference to something about the past, and it’s considered common knowledge that almost nobody would deny either. This person clearly deeply understands each of the points they are bringing up, which would not be something characteristic of someone mindlessly regurgitating something they heard elsewhere. Also they seem to have clearly used some personal experience within this and other posts on here in this thread.
Click to expand...

Aww, thanks! That's so nice of you to say!
 
LittleLetterLabels said:
Here I'll have to disagree, although, I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm a media marketer by trade, and because I've had a lot of research and practice in marketing psychology and I've learned a lot about marketing generations, I'm a bit more protected from this kind of bias than I am from other kinds of biases that would affect me.

Actually, it's because of my trade that I've looked so much into the advertising of the past. The thing about advertising is that it speaks to the will of the people. It has to, in order to be effective. That being said, it also (as I think you were suggesting) is often guilty of telling the people what to believe and how to feel.

However, advertising is actually incredibly effective at that. Advertising defines a very large portion of what our culture is, at least here in the United States. It defines beauty standards, beauty movements, which sex should play with which toy, what little girls should aspire to be when they grow up...A massive part of our culture is advertising.

But its like an equation. On one side, you have a function, which includes X. On the other side of the equals sign, you have your X. Here, X is essentially, the values and desires of the people. So for example, you have:

2X + .3X(976) = X

The function that advertisers use always has to involve X, which is the values of the people. However, in solving for what we think X should be, we redefine it.

In this way, advertising is both the product of human culture, and a major defining factor of human culture.

This is why it is useful to look at trends in fashion, beauty, toys, values - even children's storybooks and media - because they reveal a great deal about the way people thought back then.

However, all this will ever be is a persona. A sort of generalized, overreaching, abstract perspective of what people back then were like. So to enhance this understanding, we need to talk to our elders, who can tell us, from their first-hand experiences, what was a dramatic aspect of media, and what was not. That's why I have a lot of deep conversations with my grandma, for instance. She shares a lot of useful information with me.

I suspect that my beliefs are slightly more rational than what you might be thinking they are.
Click to expand...

I don't fully agree with the point that advertising is drawing out whats underlying in the collective conscious. I view it more as a lie told in repetition will persuade the collective to consume products in the long run, news media. This happens over the long run not so much short term. I think we agree on certain aspects and I respect your beliefs i'll just leave it at that for now. I appreciate people like yourself who would be considered high in openness based on the OCEAN model.

Take care
 
A Guy said:
I don't fully agree with the point that advertising is drawing out whats underlying in the collective conscious. I view it more as a lie told in repetition will persuade the collective to consume products in the long run, news media. This happens over the long run not so much short term. I think we agree on certain aspects and I respect your beliefs i'll just leave it at that for now. I appreciate people like yourself who would be considered high in openness based on the OCEAN model.

Take care
Click to expand...

Thanks for the well-reasoned discussion! I've never checked out the OCEAN model. I will have a look. I did rate high on openness in the Big 5, but also in neuroticism. Oh well! It's fitting. I am a neurotically open person! Lol.

Have a great day! It was nice chatting!
 
barbad0s said:
Lol it’s pretty wild to me that I got the impression you were advertising and the other guy used that wording for your posts too, and then you go to reveal that it’s your trade @LittleLetterLabels .
Click to expand...

Yep! I did pick up on that. Lol. It was a dramatic twist!

Advertising definitely affects the way I talk. Prior to doing advertising, I had a sort of "I don't give a flip what anyone else thinks" personality full of notions like "Science is fact, and subjectivity just distracts us from the truth". My experience in advertising has reformed my views and made me a better person, but in doing so, it's also made me highly aware of how my wording affects other people (I do a lot of SEO content writing, for instance), and it's made me take responsibility for how well I communicate and how my posts make other people feel. It's been good for me, really. I needed that self-growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top