There is no humanly comprehensible absolute truth out there, only differing viewpoints and theories.
George Carlin had his take and Scott Adams has his own.
No matter how tongue-in-cheek or scientifically grounded something is it can never be the entire truth, but only a simplified model of reality.
So here we go again...From Scott Adams.
"Women believe that men are, in a sense, defective versions of women; Men believe that women are defective versions of men.
(Although I don’t believe that either is defective)
Both genders are trapped in a delusion that their personal viewpoints are universal.
That viewpoint—that each gender is a defective version of the other—is the root of all misunderstandings.
Women define themselves by their relationships and men define themselves by whom they are helping.
Women believe value is created by sacrifice. If you are willing to give up your favorite activities to be with her, she will trust you.
If being with her is too easy for you, she will not trust you. You can accomplish your sacrifices symbolically at first, by leaving work early to buy flowers, canceling your softball game to make a date, that sort of thing.
Why does it seem like the rich and famous guys get all the women?
It is partly because the rich and famous are capable of making larger sacrifices. The average man might be sacrificing a night of television to be with a woman. The rich and famous man could be sacrificing a week in Tahiti. There is much to be said about the attraction of power and confidence exuded by a rich and powerful man, but capacity for sacrifice is the most important thing.
(I may not be rich or famous but Oh! I’ve sacrificed a lot- a lot of time and effort ...even money! More that I’d ever admit. But it was only because I believed she was worth every bit of it.
I’d be ashamed if I did it for myself,if I had selfish reasons, but honestly I did it for her.)
Men believe value is created by accomplishment, and they have objectives for the women in their lives. If a woman meets the objectives, he assumes she loves him. If she fails to meet the objectives, he will assume she does not love him. The man assumes that if the woman loved him she would have tried harder and he always believes his objectives for her are reasonable.
What objectives?
The objectives are different for each man. Men rarely share these objectives because doing so is a recipe for disaster.
(Elsewhere in my blog I have used the term expectations instead of objectives. They both mean the same in the given context.
Unfulfilled or broken expectations (objectives), in my opinion, cause most of the heartbreaks. I may have been guilty of thinking that my expectations could be easily met by her, because others have met it often without much effort and often without my wanting or asking)
No woman would tolerate being given a set of goals.
(I know that because I've tried that. Never give a woman a list of things that you expect from her.She'll find it demeaning.
Scott Adams tells you that women wouldn't tolerate it.
Of course that's true...Once you have told her…then...It is the loss of innocence…it is finally facing the naked truth …that things could have been better…but once acknowledged the knowledge hangs prominently like an ugly stain –an ugly stain of truth…which we all had pretended that it did not exist in the first place. There is a saying in Sanskrit which goes “Say the truth, or say what is sweet to hear. Do not say the truth that is bitter to swallow.”)
So what should a guy do if the woman in his life doesn’t meet these secret objectives? How can he get her to change?
He can’t.(Deep resounding evil maniacal laughter)
People don’t change to meet the objectives of other people. Men can be molded in small ways—clothing and haircuts and manners—because those things are not important to most men. Women can’t be changed at all!
(Is Scott Adams implying that women value their individuality more than men? BUT I'm so glad to know that! It means that I don't have to wait anymore; because I know people are incapable of change .
Not just women, even Men cannot be changed where it matters to them.Try to make a chain smoker quit smoking and you’ll know)
The best you can hope for in a relationship is to find someone whose flaws are the sort you don’t mind. It is futile to look for someone who has no flaws, or someone who is capable of significant change; that sort of person exists only in our imaginations!
(At the end of the day, I’d choose someone with whom I can comfortably talk to for hours than a beautiful yet dumb bimbo who'd make me yawn after five minutes. in it for the long term.After years, beauty may fade, but the comfort factor can only increase between two people. I want to get old comfortably but not bored.)
Kenton Knepper, a world famous mentalist writes "There is a main difference between the way men and women face life: Men choose, but women decide.
Men concentrate on options. Women focus on the act of actually deciding. Since the role of men in society has been primarily the same, the role of a provider, men tend to walk straight paths, even when there is doubt or failure. Women face now the possibility of becoming providers and by doing so they usually reject their traditional role as mothers and supporters of men.
When men choose, they are choosing between one option and the other one, in a forward motion. Women always have the feeling of being forced to decide a completely different path in each choice, not options on the path. This generates a lot of tension and worry. Contemporary women are often wondering if the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Different from men, that "other side of the fence" is not another job or venture, but an entirely different way of life.
Women also tend to feel that they give too much and that their partners do not always reciprocate their investment. This is especially true in matters of communication and emotion.
And back to Scott Adams…
A woman needs to be told that you would sacrifice anything for her. A man needs to be told he is being useful.
(It’s true…the worst you can make any man feel is to make him feel inconsequential.I remember a scene from the movie Young Victoria, where Prince Albert makes an earnest confession when he says “I wish to be of use to you”.
That is how men show they love you…by being useful to you. Young Queen Victoria replies that she understands ,but not yet. Here they are candid about it and understand each other)
When the man or woman strays from that formula, the other loses trust. When trust is lost, communication falls apart.
Without trust, you can communicate only trivial things. If you try to communicate something important without a foundation of trust, you will be suspected of having a secret agenda. Your words will be analyzed for hidden meaning and your simple message will be clouded by suspicions.
How can I be more trusted?
You should lie about your talents and accomplishments, describing your victories in dismissive terms as if they were the result of luck. And you should exaggerate your flaws.
(I believe that being able to lie to a certain extent is necessary for a good relationship, especially if it is about not hurting them with insensitive honesty….No honey, you look fabulous in that dress, Of course , you can repair that engine all by yourself, No son…you are not a weirdo)
Isn't’t it better to be honest?
Honesty is like food. Both are necessary, but too much of either creates discomfort. When you downplay your accomplishments, you make people feel better about their own accomplishments. It is dishonest, but it is kind.
(My friend does that. He is incredibly talented and has accomplished a lot when you compare him to the rest of his peers. Yet no one is ever jealous of him. In all my years, I would be at awe at his towering intellect and genius, but never even once was jealous of him. He never allowed it to happen! He would constantly attribute his successes to luck than his efforts. He is kind and considerate in that way that he doesn’t rub his success in our collective faces. In many ways, I'm proud to have him as my friend and value his opinions.)
What about small talk?
You think casual conversation is a waste of time. Your problem is that you view conversation as a way to exchange information.
Conversation is more than the sum of the words. It is also a way of signaling the importance of another person by showing your willingness to give that person your rarest resource: time. It is a way of conveying respect. Conversation reminds us that we are part of a greater whole, connected in some way that transcends duty or bloodline or commerce.
Conversation can be many things, but it can never be useless.
(I always remember what Raknax wrote. He nailed it on the head when he wrote “Conversation is the King”. I remember that reading it made me think that I should have friends like him.)
A few other ingredients for successful social living:
Express gratitude. (Check)
Give more than is expected
(I always give more than I receive. Why? Volume! Volume! Volume! )
Speak optimistically (check).
Touch people (ok, this will be hard. I’m a little touchy on that issue).
Remember names (check).
Don’t confuse flexibility with weakness
(This ones hard.When does flexibility become weakness? Is bending backwards a sign of flexibility or a weak spine?).
Don’t judge people by their mistakes; rather, judge them by how they respond to their mistakes (Ok, I’ll wait and watch).
Remember that your physical appearance is for the benefit of others (check).
Attend to your own basic needs first; otherwise you will not be useful to anyone else. (Check)
-heavily paraphrased from Scott Adams’ ‘God’s Debris’.
(Finally I’d like to add that I don’t want anyone to be compelled to fall in love with me, just because I love her.
It doesn’t matter whether I’ve loved you for 7 years or seventy.
If you don’t love me, IT’S OK.
It was just something that was not meant to be.
Who knows…maybe by not falling in love with me, you might have done me a favour.
I don’t want anyone to fall in love with me because I’ve blackmailed her…or because she’s the only one I’ve ever loved. Love is sometimes a one-way street.)
Sacrifice? I do not want sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand said it well:
When you are in love, it means that the person you love is of great personal, selfish importance to you and to your life. If you were selfless, it would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.
Here's another:
ReplyDeleteConcern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies. Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice. But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference between Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.
As I wrote in the beginning...this is what Scott Adams believes is true.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand has an equally persuasive and convincing point of view, which again does not make it entirely true, even though it is logical.
Again...most women don't want conditional sacrifice...they don't want to feel indebted.
ReplyDeleteA friend of mine has seen so many things go wrong with love that she now believes that love is tainted...that love is entirely conditional...that now love is degenerated to a crude and inequitable barter system.
Women definitely don't want men to sacrifice for the sake of gain...
I recently read an article in a magazine which was titled "Kindness is not Love" , which again follows similar arguments like the one you have presented.
Even Oskar Schindler was not what Steven Spielberg portrayed him to be.
The author goes on by writing that Kind people are often gratitude collectors.
Even C.S.Lewis writes in his book "The Problem of Pain" that "there is a kindness in love, but love and kindness are not coterminous.Kindness, when it is separated from from the other elements that are present in true love, is indifferent to its object.Kindness (alone) does not truly care if the object becomes good or bad ,providing it escapes suffering"
I don't know where to categorise my recent action, but let me just tell it...
I was in the bangalore airport, waiting for my connecting flight to mangalore.I had reached bangalore at 2200 and my next flight was at 0730 next day.
I was forced to sit in the waiting lobby with all my luggage because I could not check in until an hour before departure.
I was mostly alone...but after two hours a lady came from and sat in front of me.
She was in the same plight-stuck with luggage and tired with lack of sleep.
She looked uncomfortable and she was looking here and there , as if she wanted help.But she never talked to me (I hadn't had a haircut for 8 months and I was looking like a crazy serial killer)
So finally after some time I went up to her and introduced myself , told her my flight timings and told her that she could ask me if she needed something..that even if she wanted to go to the bathroom she could leave her luggage with me and go.
She was frankly surprised but she accepted, and later went away many times when her luggage was under my supervision.
What made me do this?
I wasn't gaining anything from what I did...I was putting myself in an awkward position by actually going upto her and introducing myself.
What if she thought I was coming on to her ? (She was a lady in her fifties)
I wanted to help her because I thought She might need it.
My parents have taught me by example to help others when they need it without any wants of gains in returns.
I also did the same with another man who came after a few hours.
The man and I talked about our journey and I even lent him my cell phone to make a call because he had lost his in brazil.
I was sure that I'd never see them again in my life.I didn't even ask for their names.
I was not doing it to feel good.
Going upto that woman and telling her that she could ask my help was very scary. I didn't like doing it, but I had to.
Is that altruism, or am I just another selfish 'Gratitude Collector'?
I'm tempted to say (and here I am saying it) from what I know about you that you were being who you are - you are altruistic or some form of that. But here's the rub: it's part of you so much that you won't be able to stand it if you knew you could help and you didn't. So yes, you helped a stranger, but part of you also wanted to placate the inner demon.
ReplyDeleteMe.. I don't know anymore. I'd like to think I'm one of those soul-less creatures who still do superficially useful activities for no other reason other than I'm waiting to be dead. My only moral objective is I do it because I can, and destruction is just too much work. (Obviously I'm saying this because it sounds cool but I'm really an emotional sap.) (Sunday mornings - what to do with them eh?)
I'd just do something good if it needs doing and if it looks safe enough for me.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it's 'forget the analysis. It complicates life which is complicated enough'...
I never questioned my motives until now...but then something that someone said changed everything.
ReplyDeleteI did it because If i didn't I would feel crappy (or as Ms.J so eloquently put it, Placate my inner demon!)
I consider myself a good guy who'd never intentionally harm someone else, but someone wrote on the contrary, using some very harsh words.
I'm still shaken up...and now I analyse my actions to see if I have any hidden ulterior motives.
If I find them, then I'm usually conflicted.