Are men are more open-minded than women?

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis ''but about conscious change in human behavior oriented towards more humane values, that in time maybe could become more accepted. Then there wouldn't be a fall back to reality, because reality would be it, not some temporary escape in one way or another.''   Cudos for 'keeping on trying' but it falls short when one realizes that 'behavior' is a process of thousands of generations over eons of time... of brain developement.. in and of a consequence of cause and effect and experience as man's ancestors formulated into it's present form. A personal subjective desire for that which might be defined as 'humane values' remains just that.  And in the end might even be ascribed as 'traditional' if accepted by a particular ethnic or theologically minded group...no matter the size of the group.    Ntl...Collective conscience acceptance of the same while perhaps desirable has not often been demonstrated as viable or even practical on occasion.   The record does not support it in any overwhelming terms other then to manipulate and maintain what we have already alluded to..be that defined as traditional or other.   As for reality.... it is... merely that.... which is accepted by the layman usually.   Not the philosopher or theologian perse (They perchance believe what it should be).    It is what it is...what can be perceived and rarely questioned. As to whether it can be created in toto has yet to be determined. For in truth it already has..and the best the naked ape can ascribe to is an understanding of it and just possibly an acceptance of his position within.   Be well DQ.

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis ''but about conscious change in human behavior oriented towards more humane values, that in time maybe could become more accepted. Then there wouldn't be a fall back to reality, because reality would be it, not some temporary escape in one way or another.''   Cudos for 'keeping on trying' but it falls short when one realizes that 'behavior' is a process of thousands of generations over eons of time... of brain developement.. in and of a consequence of cause and effect and experience as man's ancestors formulated into it's present form. A personal subjective desire for that which might be defined as 'humane values' remains just that.  And in the end might even be ascribed as 'traditional' if accepted by a particular ethnic or theologically minded group...no matter the size of the group.    Ntl...Collective conscience acceptance of the same while perhaps desirable has not often been demonstrated as viable or even practical on occasion.   The record does not support it in any overwhelming terms other then to manipulate and maintain what we have already alluded to..be that defined as traditional or other.   As for reality.... it is... merely that.... which is accepted by the layman usually.   Not the philosopher or theologian perse (They perchance believe what it should be).    It is what it is...what can be perceived and rarely questioned. As to whether it can be created in toto has yet to be determined. For in truth it already has..and the best the naked ape can ascribe to is an understanding of it and just possibly an acceptance of his position within.   Be well DQ.

Again, Centrix, that is is not nesseccary to continue being only because that is has always been. Eons of time and whatever - not exactly, the traditional values had been like this in like what, 2000 yeas or so - this is not eons by any means. Nor is any layman suppose to accept them - this is a matter of personal consciousness. - a  collective one does not really exist, what exists is acceptance of the status quo that people do so they are not excluded from their surroundings.

As for the record I take it you mean than people in toto accept the status quo as it is in their personal surroundings - this is true but only because there is no other choice; in another choice was to present itself, the things might be different. In the case of the gender roles I so rave against - there is a prevalent movement toward canceling of the marital values in Northern European countries, and more people choice just to live together that put this in a socially accepted framework that has the capacity to turn any marriage in a lifelong BSM video with the traditional value being the bonds that allow endless boundless runs on the weaker link /the heterosexual relationships are as a rule unequal, this is what my textbooks on Sociology say anyway/ which means that there is always an axis of power,  and whoever is in the weaker position bears the brunt of it, no matter what which gender this person is and the reasons for this notwithstanding.

Doesn't this fact give enough reason for a change? Change comes when there is a reason for it and when people are ready for it. I gave here one example that I think fits the OP best, since this example the women are the pulling power to it, being more free-thinking than men who fight tooth and nail for the traditional gender roles, on religious and power front, in the US in particular, as I'm shocked to see /some of those men have vested interest in the said values, but not all/.

So, from what I have seen in the US, the traditional family values are stomped on very hard, but this doesn't mean that everywhere it's the same, as in Northern Europe; in Bulgaria also more and more young couples choose to live less conventional lives that the last generations did. So, there is hope for what I'm saying, in due course of time, if not in the US, at least somewhere else.


Edited by Don Quixote - 21-Sep-2011 at 16:07

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis ''but about conscious change in human behavior oriented towards more humane values, that in time maybe could become more accepted. Then there wouldn't be a fall back to reality, because reality would be it, not some temporary escape in one way or another.''       three part response:  First what I can physically perceive no more no less. Anything else is the realm of the meta and what I might believe to accept without physical verifiable proofs..commonly referred to as faith in the theological perspective. The method in history and science.   I do however tend to agree they (others not necessarily myself in all cases) accept not necessarily as fact... but as reality... what is accepted by themselves and others.   Yes..... by getting cut on a fence line yesterday... when a calf threw me into it not only did I perceive the results but others there as well did. So the basis of acceptance was not mine alone. It was verifiable hence by my visit to the hospital for 8 stitches, a shot in the arm and the bruises all over. It continues to be verifiable viz the comments made by my associates..hence not illusory. As there was no cause for a suspect of mass delusion on the parts of six full grown men when it occurred.  Be well.

Are you happen to be a military man, Centrix, if it's not a secret? You sound like one - not that there is anything wrong in it, of course, just very specific - not everyone can be in the military, and the ones that are develop specific way of thinking to help them deal with the specific requirements of thsi field.

Anyway, I have the feeling that you put everything in straight lines, with too many given characteristics that you state cannot be changed - life is not like that, IMHO, it's fluid, it's changeable, that's why people have the need to structure it in their brains so to make to controllable. I believe men are far more in need of control that women are, because of the specific roles that had been inserted in their brains through morals secular and religious /whet I started with here/. Hence males tend to live in personal realities that are more structured and more unescapable that women do.

Which goes to to other statement I just made - that reality is both objective and subjective, and I personally would put the stress on the subjective, because in the example you are giving here /the calf throwing you on the fence/ yes, the result is tangible, and your fence broke, but the way the calf saw what he did and what you experienced are very different realities. For you and other people - you were thrown, the fence broke, now you have to repair the fence and this is waste of time; but waht about what the calf felt about it? The different realities reveal themselves particularly clear when seen from the point pf view - passive/active elements; that's why in human relationships, say in parent/child one there are two very different and distinctive realities about say. getting a tatoo on one's forehead. If one is to witness any trial, what is seen, done or experienced by the doers and withneses of any possible deed or situation is very different form the ones of the others, hence one feels like everyone si liying their heads off, which is not necessarily true - just a matter of personal realities.

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis   Behaviour on an individual basis is learned in the now. This means it is adaptive to the input supplied at the times, regardless of it being truthful or not, and is therefore not reliant on anything which isn't in the environment which a person experiences in their lifetime.   That is partially correct if one understands the cerebral necessary immediacy of reaction counter reaction to stimuli... certainly in situations requiring immediate reaction....life threatening situations etc. But I submit that cognitive..to include personal behavior... is learned essentially by one during the formative period expressed by the mainstream to include past experience not merely in the immediate environment. This experience continues throughout life but may or may note effect behavior. The rest is reaction.   Everything learned comes from the past as it already exists when learnt, even if its creation could potentially happen seconds prior to absorption. By immediate environment I meant what is there at hand, which doesn’t necessitates it to have any great longevity at all, only that it exists.       Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis How much of reality can you prove exists? Accepted reality is the acceptance by the individual that what they perceive to be fact and not only perception. Can you prove that what you perceive to be any more than illusory?   three part response:   First what I can physically perceive no more no less. Anything else is the realm of the meta and what I might believe to accept without physical verifiable proofs..commonly referred to as faith in the theological perspective. The method in history and science.   I do however tend to agree they (others not necessarily myself in all cases) accept not necessarily as fact... but as reality... what is accepted by themselves and others.   Yes..... by getting cut on a fence line yesterday... when a calf threw me into it not only did I perceive the results but others there as well did. So the basis of acceptance was not mine alone. It was verifiable hence by my visit to the hospital for 8 stitches, a shot in the arm and the bruises all over. It continues to be verifiable viz the comments made by my associates..hence not illusory. As there was no cause for a suspect of mass delusion on the parts of six full grown men when it occurred.   Be well.   Perception of something existing is not the same as proof of existence, although it might seem very real to the individual. Even your perception that other people observe is your perception of their existence and not proof of their existence, making it impossible for your own perception to back up what you are perceiving. Rene Descartes did his best to prove existence and could only manage, “I think therefore I am”, though even this begs the question as to what form this might be in. Myself I can only add the existence of illusion, and that is because I have seen illusions, and if they are not real then they must be illusory  and therefore illusions.

It remains subjective you say it is logic but not all will act within a frame of what you define as logic..Iow. from the perspective of my arm you would deny the logic of the injuries..ie. their exsistence, because you question that it is only my perception that offer proofs of their reality.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 24-Sep-2011 at 03:55

Rediculous your version of logic is moot and consequently you have fallen victim to your pre-concieved prejudices....iow. you percieve me to be wrong with no basis in logic less your own definition.

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis Ridiculous your version of logic is moot and consequently you have fallen victim to your preconceived prejudices....iow. you perceive me to be wrong with no basis in logic less your own definition.     Round and round. I think you have me wrong on this one, as you were saying I would deny your injuries, and I tried to explain that regardless of there being no way to prove what you are perceiving to be fact you have to treat it as so in situations where danger is involved. As for preconceived prejudices I'm not sure I really have these, though I would be happy for you to elaborate to enlighten me to my errors in judgement my friend. I don't hold your views in contempt and consider everyone's view on there merits.