Eiuol

Not really in "Viable Values", but definitely in "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics". There are two sections where the self-defense distinction is mentioned, particularly in the section on honesty. Just a quick interjection before I write a meatier post tomorrow.

Oh, 1984, the book! You meant to say 2046. =P I'll get to responding to you sometime soon.

Classical music? I've lately been pretty interested in Franz Liszt lately, personally. Hmm, it can take some time to find the right counselor, even if the counselor you may find is usually great. People vary and different approaches work better for different problems. There isn't a test for a chemical imbalance that I've heard of. As far as I know, the objective of certain medications is to put levels of brain chemicals at different levels so that certain thought processes are easier to handle. A good psychiatrist won't try to simply medicate you into happiness. As for socialization difficulties, you have to remember it takes increments. It takes time to make friends, especially really good friends. Going out and about helps, but certainly don't neglect the Internet! And as a possible suggestion, there is the chat for this site. Cytokines.

Next part! 2046 mentioned some useful distinctions regarding revolution, but I want to try stepping back a little bit in terms of our level of discussion. Bluecherry also mentioned useful things about force and war. I'll start off by pointing out that I'm focusing only on that man-made distinction where an action comes about due to a person's internal choice, rather than some external factor caused by the laws of physics alone. By introducing the human element, it becomes possible to say someone is to blame for a consequence, good or bad. Indeed, options are possible as long even when the options are constrained, much like the tree that fell from lightning. But a robber constraining my choices is doing the constraint deliberately, and it is his decision. The typical "your money or your life" scenario makes the option of walking unavailable, because you will be literally stopped from doing so, forcefully. I can say there is a paralysis of reason because a range of options are totally removed, as caused by the robber. Certainly, I'll proceed after the act of force to the best of my ability just as I would after the tree fell from lightning, except with the robber, I'll blame him and call him immoral for forcefully limiting my options. That is, reasoning with your mind and any property you have to accomplish your goals - force is a later moral consideration than those principles because of an egoist base. All that explanation about force is to use that as consideration of how to respond to force. By no means does having force initiated mean that you must fall down and submit due to your choices being constrained. Regardless of how immoral it is to initiate force, it is possible to adapt to the new environment. I would not say there is an obligation to fight back right away. Moral principles of Objectivism say I should pursue my own interests by means of reason to the best of my ability, even if someone is attempting to rid me of all possible choices. For fighting back, you have to look at the nature of the act of force in question. One consideration to make first is to think of people who are only considering initiating force by implementing truly universal health care. Perhaps you have people making a variety of arguments, but you are fairly confident that they are rational enough to be persuaded by reasoning. Getting people on your side is an important measure to combat growing ideology, before the worst happens. As I said before, it's not possible to control a person's mind in order to change their mind, the only way to get people on your side and stay on your side is to get them to believe your side is right. Deceiving them to be on your side (I know you were talking about deception before, but I'm only talking about deception of say, trolling, not of writing a contract then acting like you never wrote a contract) would be improper to the extent you would be undermining a goal of rational interaction. Once a plan is implemented, persuasion can still get people on your side, but it's mostly moot by that point. Perhaps you can persuade people to repeal a law, I just think that's a massive hill that comes about due to possible cognitive biases. Persuasion is a lot more limited at that point, less useful, so while it's probably better than nothing, persuasion regarding that one law is done with. Then there are very blatant levels of force where the response is straightforward. It would be the same as Bluecherry's post about war, except on an individual level. Use as much force in retaliate as is necessary to remove the immediate threat on your existence without being suicidal. And if you *can* help it without putting your own life in further danger, don't kill or harm innocents. If someone is robbing your house, it is justifiable to shoot to kill, because that is likely the only way to remove the threat. If the robber's demand is money, and has bulletproof armor and a submachine gun, it's probably smarter to hand over the money, then consider moving out of town. How to resist socialism is at a different scale, individual up against an entire society, with different considerations. (By the way, that's what We The Living is about, so I'd highly recommend reading it.) Socialism as a political ideology can come at different levels of current implementation, and its leaders are at different levels of irrationality. Then there are also underlings to consider who initiate force for those leaders. Even the popularity of the political system must be taken into account. If implementation is at a degree that is approaching the level of communist Russia, I wouldn't recommend persuasion. Things may be so far gone that revolution is needed. True, that's an extreme, but the work necessary to remove the threat to your existence may demand that. Submission I say is not an option, because that's just giving up entirely on personal motivation and values, when I suggested earlier that only death can reduce your options to zero. Actually, total loss of a sense of self reduces your options to zero, because that eliminates values to pursue anyway. Cue 1984 again. I'm getting tired, so I will stop here for now. I think of covered some concerns regarding persuasion not already mentioned, and two categories of retaliation (submissive compliance, and violence). I'll probably get to "violation of the spirit of the law" and deception/black market later. But feel free to respond to what I have written so far.

Figuring out how to make this post is kind of tricky. Disagreement and misunderstanding here I think has to do with the Objectivist position on force. Earlier, I was explaining two perspectives on force, neither of which is the Objectivist position. One is that any impediment against action is force, because you are "forced" to make a decision based on a new context. If a tree falls in the road, I no longer have the choice to drive straight on the road. Another viewpoint is that only the most extreme instances probably best left to the realm of science-fiction (mind control devices) would qualify as force, because your capacity to choose remains intact otherwise. If you point a gun at me, I can do some fancy martial arts to steal the gun from you to protect myself. Now, the issue with both is how choices are described in the first place, that is, with regards to the metaphysical and the man-made. You questioned the importance of this distinction earlier. Perhaps I'll provide a different angle for you to consider. With the first one, a tree falling in the road would fall under the metaphysical side. That was something that just happens in a natural circumstance. To avoid complications, let's say a bolt of lightning hit the tree, then it fell. Suggesting a choice is forced here is like saying you're "forced" to ride a plane if you want to fly - you can't flap your arms and then start flying. Mainly, I find this viewpoint to be frustration directed at reality because one's mind doesn't decide how reality works. The world works with limitations due to identity of various entities in the world. Any choice to be made depends on limitations in the first place. Choosing to drive on the road is done by at least some comparison with what is possible and defined by the nature reality. Teleportation isn't going to happen, walking is dangerous during a thunderstorm. While these are all possible in any way in your imagination, a choice is made precisely because there are limitations. From here, you'd probably say that is support for your ideas about force. "Why, yes, there are limitations, so why is pointing a gun force?" In other words, I'm arguing against the second viewpoint. Considering that people are able to make choices about the world in a manner that trees, ants, or rocks cannot, the man-made distinction becomes relevant. Events caused by person aren't caused by entities outside of them. Rocks can only act when force is applied, in a literal sense. Instead, they're caused from within, by whatever mechanisms the mind uses to operate. Shoving you can't cause you to suddenly believe that 2+2=5. Such an action cannot have the power to force a change. To that degree, Objectivism would say force is fruitless to change someone's mind (I'll return to this later - you probably see this as evidence of Objectivism being inherently disposed towards persuasion as a means to achieve an ideal world.) The mind, again, has to operate internally, by its own mechanisms. Still, it's stopping too short to then conclude with viewpoint two, ending the inquiry into force at that stage. The man-made distinction also suggests that since a choice is made internally, there are many things that people consider when making choices. As I was pointing out in the paragraph before, imagination is not infinite, and choices are made when considering the nature of reality. Let's go back to the tree scenario again, except this time, I chopped down the tree, which according to my plan and intention, hit your car as you were driving to a friend's house for Thanksgiving. I'm changing the situation to the man-made side. By my own doing, and my internal choices, I caused that tree to fall on your car. Perhaps you'd see me as equivalent to a lightning strike, but how the tree fell is clearly different. Before the tree hit the car, you had long-range plans, perhaps even a business deal was planned, or any number of plans. Planning is a crucial element of choice, so how that is impacted can't be ignored. With nature, there is no use complaining - it is not anyone's fault. In this case, it is my fault. I am willfully preventing action in a way to interfere with your planning. To some extent, I am by personal power removing an option of your consideration, telling you that you can't drive on the road. I am a different type of entity than a lightning bolt, so it be said I am actually paralyzing your mind from making a certain choice *that is otherwise possible to make* with different consequences than is dictated by nature for other choices. Keep in mind the physical action on my part - I can't remove options for you unless I forcefully interact on your environment. Certainly, I am not suggesting all possible choices have been eliminated. I've just constrained your decisions. But the constraint is in terms of how you are able to think rationally, not just constraint in general. The impact goes wide enough if pursued on a national scale that individuals aren't able to think rationally to their fullest, which is why socialism is seen as bad. For the most part, potential for blame is the difference between metaphysical in man-made for a discussion about the moral implications of force. With that lengthy post on force in attempts to integrate many ideas discussed earlier, it will be easier to explain philosophical ideas of what one can do. This post is long already, so I'll stop here for now to see if there are any really big objections before I proceed.

Establishing context, in other words? If so, I would put game theory in there, because its level of specificity may be too much for philosophical inquiry. The topic is specialized enough that while it pertains to social dynamics, you'd be seeking just consistency with Objectivism, rather than principles to devise from Objectivism. I'd leave that out entirely. Instead, adding history would be more appropriate, namely, the American Revolution and/or the Communists of Russia, and other examples of revolt throughout history. Most of the time, concretes are the means to abstract, how to find any principles to be developed. Unfortunately, I don't know much about that history. By principles, I mean a way to figure out what a proper course of action is, not a rule. I noticed some underlying premises that you have, I'll try to address them in a day or so. I think you may overestimate importance placed on persuasion per se. That's not exactly something discussed much in any Objectivist literature I've seen, except one article Rand wrote about "What Can One Do?" with regard to spreading some Objectivist ideas. Even then, it was written as some ideas (as I recall, I read it a while ago), not as a philosophical statement on the level of what she wrote in "Virtue of Selfishness". Also, spreading ideas is different than resistance anyway, since spreading ideas is about people who can be persuaded. Not all people are willing to be persuaded.

How is Romneycare different than Obamacare? I asked this in another thread, I never got a satisfying answer.

How is it different, then?

There is a lot of text since my last post, and I read it all, so I hope something I say hasn't been said already. I took this to mean resistance against a growing philosophical threat that may have a significant impact on your way of life. Resisting as in standing up against. So, one idea of Hernan's appears to be that Objectivism has no particular position on how to stand up to major philosophical threats. Indeed, regardless of your ideas, others can still implement socialist ideals that are an initiation of force. But how does one prevent that? For the most part, Objectivism has no particular position on resistance, just as there is no particular position on abortion per se. Still, conclusions be figured out from some fundamental principles of what a consistent position would be. Criminals are one thing, but what to do if a philosophy is spreading? In other words, what to do with an existential threat that goes at the foundation of a civilization? Rome fell for many reasons, but at least once factor is barbarian attacks, not to mention whatever legal structures got screwed up by some set of legal philosophy positions. One could squash the barbarians or refuse to pass certain laws, but there needs to be more backing behind a system of government or economics than some words of "don't initiate force!" Resistance applies to this, just as much as it can apply to those who are trying to undo a stronger side than yourself. I brought up my fictional situation as a way to frame a scenario where resistance is applicable. I don't see the issue as all that different than a real world where one has to combat and even resist existential, philosophical threats. I think you're saying that even legal measures are utopian ultimately, so if it comes down to it, you'd rather take legal loopholes or just use black markets, because irrationality will always be around anyway. Better to just adapt and deal with the harsh reality. Black markets don't necessarily need force against oppressors If that's the case, it probably involves some degree of lawlessness entirely by being "underground", and may itself become violent on wider scales, beyond a personal level. That, too, may be just as problematic as the rise of something like socialism, in the long-run. In my estimation, a concerted effort of minds is absolutely needed in the long run, in the sense a system has to run on rational principles of respecting rights. That is, a rational (using that loosely, I just mean at least with people who live without using force) society where at least Rand said there is no conflict of interest amongst rational individuals. I still think my GoT metaphor applies, because I'm getting at "combating existential threats is impossible without expansive resistance and sometimes force". (and yes, in that case, fighting the undead is with force). A more concrete example is the American revolution. Yup, black markets existed. Colonists did a variety of illegal activities. The British clamped down more over time. Colonists resisted more. Eventually, there is a need to create a whole revolution in order to maintain or achieve a better life. An elementary example, I know, but I'm bringing in some historical context. Black markets don't seem sustainable if there is in fact a real, threatening force and its participants don't desire to live in constant peril. And if they're not in constant peril, then there is no threat in the first place. I want to get some of your points on force in a later post, but keep in mind that answering those questions fully can require a huge amount of explanation. There are at least two chapters about force in the Tara Smith book I mentioned, and the whole book helps to set the stage for those chapters. My point isn't that you have to read the book, but it's a complex topic that is difficult to address to complete satisfaction in a forum. I don't think that level of specialization is needed to pursue that further. I'd say philosophical principles indicate pretty well some generalizations to make regarding "resistance", just as philosophical principles indicate ideas like banning initiation of force, or requiring government to have a monopoly on force. To me, using my revolutionary war example, there's at least standing by virtue and what's right because of a belief that rationality will prevail. Also mixed in there is at least trying to appeal to your oppressors even without force right away. But if enforcement keeps cracking down stronger like the British did, it may be necessary to just break free entirely for a revolution.

Insofar as we're talking about the transcripts, there is no deception in them, no misrepresentation of Objectivism, because Rand herself said that the lectures are good. You don't even reject Branden yourself in totality - you said his books on self-esteem are good. There is no reason I can think of to suspect this book misrepresents Objectivism or Rand. I'm not asking questions about Branden, I'm only asking about the value of the information in this book. So far, I intend to buy it soon.

I hope you've seen Game of Thrones or at least know some details about it, because my reply involves examples from it. I'll explain anyway. In GoT, you've got various different kingdoms, who are all ruled by one king, but each kingdom basically has autonomy. The one kingdom of particular interest is where the Stark family comes from, Winterfell. In my estimation, they as a family express many virtues compatible with Objectivism, so they're a good analog for what I'm getting at. To me, Winterfell is a nice place to be compared to other kingdoms, although it's quite wintery as you can imagine the name implies. The Stark's work on their own lives and don't take any particular dominance over their people beyond law and order. In some sense, Winterfell can be easily overrun in terms of size, and they don't need a massive army to initiate force like other kingdoms would do more regularly. It's a lot like the free market you try to describe, because Winterfell isn't forceful in assuring their virtue takes hold in every other kingdom. The Stark's don't need to promise that they'll last "forever", they just aim to live their lives well as long as possible. Their slogan is "Winter is coming" implying they understand that what you have must be fought for, although it's still not the "power" you talk about. With winter comes a swarm of undead creatures from up further north, which I'll compare to a rise of socialism. The threat of winter is eternal, and no matter how awesome Winterfell is, the threat won't go away. It must be fought. The undead will be out for blood, with no thinking involved. Perhaps that's the point you're making - of course you must fight. But it's not really any normal type of threat, because it's not disagreement we're speaking of in this example, but an invasion with force that can't be met with reason in any capacity. How to deal with such a threat? A concerted effort of minds among all the kingdoms, respecting rights and fighting against total destruction. The trouble is, without a rational basis like rights or anything equivalent, the kingdoms are fragmented over initiating force and can't combat the undead. No one realizes that the undead are coming, so part of the whole conflict in the story is that the viewer can imagine the possible repercussions of a-rational mentalities ahead of time. I actually think you need to give some better evidence that being forceful accomplishes *better* than respecting rights in the laissez faire sense. For the type of life it brings, LFC appears to be better, even if it is possible for people to change their minds and move towards statism. Everyone loses with force, but the only great chance for the best in life is through capitalism. Perhaps socialism could make itself permanent, like in 1984. The issue is, it'd be terrible to live there. The idea is quality of life, not "power" to sustain an ideology.

Which Objectivist circles do you speak of? Based on your wording though, I suspect you're not after a discussion, you're just after venting anger. Personally, I have said Obama is marginally better, but his position on abortion is a reason I would say Obama is better than Romney in such a way that I didn't even contemplate voting Romney. Even then, your thread title isn't what you're talking about. Objectivism certainly advocates the right to have an abortion, so you *could* argue that voting for Romney is to contradict principles. That may be a discussion worth having. But not with anger involved.

Hernan, at first, I was really confused about the title of your thread. Usually people who speak badly of capitalism consider it to be unfair, which Spiral spoke of earlier. After reading the thread up to this point, I think I understand what you mean, so tell me if my understanding is flawed. I may approach further responses of mine in this thread as a devil's advocate, I'll say so if I do that, but this is how I understand you right now: You say "sissies" in a sense of being weak and unsustainable. Capitalism may sound great, but the reality is, in the form of totally free markets as meant by Objectivism, it's simply not possible. Someone will overtake free markets, because its supporters believe in such a high degree of freedom that there is no barrier stopping collectivism - people are free to be collectivists! That is going to far, and not stopping with force some irrationalities (or even many) is simply weakness. Stand up for what you know to be rational, force if needed. Arrest communists like during the red scare. Take a hard-line attitude, that's the only way to make permanent any positive changes. Even if you don't suggest something like arrest communists, presumably you still mean something aggressive. Supporters of free markets may be too tolerant, by allowing blatant irrationalities. Ultimately, it's allowing others to grant you freedoms while being nice enough to respect that. Progressives, communists, fascists, etc, would easily overtake free markets the moment they decide to stop being nice. Communists took over Russia practically overnight - Russia wasn't a free market to be sure, but the communists were willing to take such a hard-line that they incited revolution. Furthermore, even with some force, people still have the ability to think. A slave can contemplate escape, secretly learn to read, or any number of activities. Running away is an option. Sure the slave gets shot and killed while running, but that option to run was free to make. Objectivists seem (to you) to be essentially saying "I don't like getting shot, therefore that's not freedom!" To which I could respond: Tough cookies. I don't like losing my bishop, but sometimes I must lose a bishop in order to capture the king. I wasn't 'forced' to lose the bishop, that's simply the best option in terms of cost/benefit. Life is like that, too. Don't be scared to play the game! Now, the problem with the sissies bit is that I think it's applicable only to anarchists. There is no official rule of law in anarchy. They wouldn't want to get "mean" because that'd infringe upon a person's right to do whatever the other person wants. Murder is bad... but there should be no ultimate arbiter to decide. But Objectivism is different, and involves force as retaliation, including by government. Murder is bad, and there is a law of the land to decide that. If you don't like that, boo hoo, you're going to jail anyway if you murder someone. That's a more obvious example. Then we can go towards military scale. If Iran is hellbent on nuking a government's jurisdiction, then a response you may expect from me is stop them with the necessary force, regardless of a 'right' of Iran to make nukes. Now, we can discuss what "necessary" is (war, bombs, espionage? etc), but it's certainly not a response of "well, maybe if we hold hands and talk about rational behavior, the threat will go away". My reasoning mostly involves a principle of how to respond to force because it stops freedom of thinking, a fundamental means of survival. Force can't be met with reason, so I'd retaliate with force. As an analogy, I can think of times a person (or me!) may seem to be a "lightweight" and seem even very tolerant, but if anyone keeps going far enough to cross the line, it's like a nuclear explosion went off. What you seem to imply on force is problematic. One position on freedom is that *anything* in the way is the opposite of freedom. Tree fell on the road? I'm forced to drive around it. Another position is that unless you *completely* lose your ability to think, you are free. Except for being dead, you'll always be free. Held in a jail cell? You're free to think whatever you like. You seem to take this latter position. Objectivism isn't really either - I'm are free unless force is being used. If someone grabs my arm and twists it, they can force me arm to move regardless of what I think. The point is ultimately that it is impossible to plan long-range under such conditions, and is thus force. There are also arguments about how force in this way actually paralyzes a mind to some degree, but I'm not the person for that argument. "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith discusses both points; it's a good read anyway. The permanency of capitalism doesn't matter so much as a principle, there probably will always be historical movements, defeats, and so on. But trying to get things to last as long as possible is plenty fine. Anything else on that point has already been said. "Instead, what I see and hear is a lot of wishful thinking and some small measure of activism. " Personally, I see activism as a temporary measure at best. That is an interesting side-discussion.

Sure, that may be the norm, so regardless of the demographics, that doesn't help figure out what ways one ought to pursue romance. What is "metaphysically" supposed to mean in this context? I don't understand. I know you didn't mean rape, so where else would "powerless" apply? Now that you mention it, the times even in movies where I've seen the "manipulative vixen" is when in fact the woman is in constant danger of physical force due to being mixed up with violent people, powerful people with the willingness to kill, or otherwise dangerous situations. Those are bad situations, and you'll probably find them in film noir. The woman basically has to live on the edge, probably "testing" their target man when applicable, using subtle but not overt manipulation, or using some type of emotional appeal. I've also heard of such behavior with people who are a bit unstable. Even Dominque could be an example of that, with her premises at first being big on that the world is a nasty, malevolent, destructive place. She hit Roark with a stick! She threw a statue down the stairs! In those circumstances of the world being threatening, you might have a very good point about "powerless". But we're not using that context in the first place. We're talking about normal life with stable people. I don't see how that is a comparable question or anything like a test. I didn't mean to imply questions are bad, I only meant in circumstances where a blunt question doesn't apply. Asking somebody outright "are you jealous?" is not very helpful, so using observation is better. Depending on the context, it's a question someone is genuinely curious about. It also could be manipulative or cruel if asked in a sarcastic way as a reaction towards something I said. If you asked me in person and you only asked to "see how I'd react", I'd probably take offense. If you asked because you were wondering, I'd just find it a funny question.

So, I heard of this book by Nathaniel Branden. According to a few reviewers in my link below, it's a transcript of lectures that Branden gave with the explicit approval of Rand. That is, I take it to be a very good book to read about Objectivism as a whole. But has anyone here read the book? How useful is it? I'm thinking of getting the book to compare it to OPAR, to see if the approach is perhaps better in this book. Here is a link to the book on Amazon:

I'll disregard that number since you don't provide the link, and visitors is not a meaningful measure. What counts would be profile count. Also, free sites would be the most comparable to a bar - match.com isn't free. All I mean to say is that you are making generalizations applicable to specific contexts that don't apply to other contexts. Powerless to do what...? This is only relevant for physical force. You may as well say "Men are powerless when pursuing a woman. There's nothing they can do unless she wants to." I sure hope so. The only way to get someone to do something they don't want to do is physical force, which isn't romance at all. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry, I should have added a disclaimer that it's a "meta-discussion" point that I think is important. I do not have a particular point on addressing the arguments in the thread. If you'd like to discuss more about the use and point of using articles in a discussion in a different thread, I'd participate. You are right regarding how linked information should be supplemented - a link without explanation doesn't help. At the same time, if the argument in an article is bad (or if the question was misunderstood), that should be explained as well.

This is an unfair statement to make towards Choo. Words like dishonesty and intellectually bankrupt are not judgments that can be made in this context. Perhaps there are flaws of reasoning that you notice, particularly relating to evidence. I agree with those flaws. But I would not go as far as to suggest intellectual bankruptcy. You need more evidence. I do not care to discuss this point further, but I wanted to at least address this. If you still want to keep up with this thread, just as some counter-statements to Kevin's OP, in what ways does your experience with your wife contradict what Kevin says? Challenge has been mentioned, so, in what ways does she challenge you in ways that are not like Kevin describes?

For one, PuzzlePeddler admitted to doing this out of boredom. Being Socratic is okay, but even Socrates (even if he annoyed many people) outright stated his points eventually. And secondly, if we are discussing a topic, it is relevant to expect people to read linked articles. The article Grames linked is not long. If Puzzle doesn't want to read it, fine. Puzzle can say "sorry, don't have time to read that, so please answer this other question", or opt to not respond in the first place. If someone is missing the point, fine, Puzzle can articulate that. Furthermore, linking an article isn't intended to be the final answer. Being a discussion board, I'd expect questions to come about. But they are important in order to establish context *and* bring those who are ignorant of a topic up to speed on relevant points. All of these points I'm making are important for productive discussion and civility.

It is up to you to read the sources provided by mdegges and Grames. Your questions have been addressed, and requires the next step of reading. This is a discussion board, not a YouTube debate forum filled with trolls. Your followup questions and statements are barely distinguishable from a YouTube troll. If you care to participate honestly and fairly, you must take the time to read and even contemplate answers. No, you don't need to be a legal expert, but you do need to think, first and foremost.

Please, make a single post, there is a lot of clutter when you can just click edit.

For the record, at least around here, CrowEpistemologist argued similar points you're pointing out, and I agreed with much of it even, personally. For me, the difference is marginal, but in general, I vote according to a position on abortion, that is, opposing anyone who would make abortion illegal if given the chance. In the long-run, I'd bet most people around here would say both Romney and Obama are more harm than good. Do you want to drive off a cliff or collide head on with a train? You're gonna crash either way.

Those aren't such great examples. Yes, definitely, many cultures have focused on gender features. What of it? With regards to accentuating certain features, sure! There are physical differences, and it would be folly for anyone who cares about style or fashion to ignore any differences. In terms of psychology, this is nothing. "Differences" haven't always been a common viewpoint. Some people, in medieval time periods, thought that women were simply inferior to men. Not that they were more emotional even, just that they were simply inferior. Only after the Enlightenment did people really get talking about differences. That's when people started to say: "Women are more emotional, best fit for being a housewife. Men are more rational, best fit for public and scientific life". I do not think anyone here is claiming that, I'm only pointing out how the idea of psychological differences came about. Likely, there are some psychological differences, just as there are psychological differences between me and every poster in here. But which psychological differences actually contribute to perspectives or emotions in romance? And of any psychological differences, which come about because of how you were raised by your family? Perhaps another way to look at my objections... I would not even want to pursue the type of woman mentioned in the OP. I do not care to put up with a game-like back and forth. Am I SOL, because I'm looking for someone that doesn't exist? Or is there different advice Kevin would give me?

He can dive right into his ideas of he wishes. He doesn't have to object to every single point, he only needs to throw in some concrete examples for the original post. That is, where have you or Kevin *seen* the type of behavior in the OP? I actually get the impression you will see it in bars a lot, but no where else. I can't say I've observed that anywhere else, except in movies. Minor point thing to add to this, the science on those differences is questionable because of the methodology used, and even if the science is valid, the differences might not be all that significant.

The thing about dating sites is the demographic. Plus there are more random creeps out of nowhere, which Bluecherry already precluded. There are also significantly more males than females. So, I wouldn't say this is an accurate or even relevant comparison when our focus is just romance in general. Now, I do think females in general are pursued a lot more often than are the pursuer, but I'd attribute that to social norms, not based on any aspect of female/male nature. I think you would be less likely to notice any particular norm of highly intelligent people (just a personal observation) anyway. Why does it work rather poorly? Observation of behavior, rather than manipulation. How do you know this is true? Why a dichotomy? This is not true for me really. Everyone needs some amount of introspection and some amount of extrospection for dealing with interpersonal relationships of any kind. For me at least, I lean more towards the introspection end, and that does me more good. Similarly, some women may lean to the extrospection end. Neglecting either is bound to have some negative consequences.