Humans like to believe that their logic and reason dominates their decision making.
Yet, the multiplicity of sensual information that participates in their evaluations goes mostly unnoticed and the subliminal subconscious details that influence their judgments remain unappreciated.

We have all experienced distaste for someone with no reasonable reason or an attraction to someone with no basis in logic.
The instinctual standards that go into our evaluations of objects and people are far more powerful than what we would like to believe because it places into doubt our free-will and independence of thought and it reminds us that most of our opinions are founded on unconscious evaluations.
But it is unavoidable to admit that the majority of our assessments are based on instinctual intuitive criteria where reason and logic never come into play and our opinions are shaped by, sometimes, contradictory motivations and inclinations.

Reason and logic only apply to information that is consciously perceived and analyzed whereas most sensual information goes mostly unnoticed and their effects become insidious.

I would say that intuition has its own set of rules, often contrary to reason, and the motivations that govern these rules are often in opposition to our faculties of conscious thought.

To what do you place more respect and faith in: Intellect or instinct?
Intuition or reason?
The first is limited by a lack of control and understanding, the second is limited by sensual acuity, multitasking abilities, mental flexibility and detail analysis.

Interesting post. I shall ponder this.

For now, my opinion sides with intellect. I think instinctual bias can be reduced by humility and self-awareness.

Humans like to believe that their logic and reason dominates their decision making.

I can't stress this enough: Humans LIKE TO BELIEVE that their logic and reason dominates their decision making. This "I want to be rational, therefore I believe I am rational" seems to be the basis of sanity.


Yet, the multiplicity of sensual information that participates in their evaluations goes mostly unnoticed and the subliminal subconscious details that influence their judgments remain unappreciated.

In fact, we have made our world so that *it seems* that those "other sources of information and information processing" are not necessary. Of course, this only *seems* so. We are not robots.


We have all experienced distaste for someone with no reasonable reason or an attraction to someone with no basis in logic.

It is still "logic", only that it is far quicker than our slow rational brain can follow.
Later on, with careful analysis, you can figure out why and how this or that "irrational" affection or disaffection. However, ex post analyses always carry the stamp of "it's easy to talk afterwards" and the stamps of our wishes and fears of how we see something.


The instinctual standards that go into our evaluations of objects and people are far more powerful than what we would like to believe because it places into doubt our free-will and independence of thought and it reminds us that most of our opinions are founded on unconscious evaluations.

It seems advisable then to understand free will in a somewhat different manner; also, it seems very advisable to stop thinking ourselves as rational beings, "threatened by our unconscious". It does not threaten us, I don't think so. It's a natural part of who we are, and we are only threatening ourselves by denying that the unconscious is a part of us, or by rejecting it.


But it is unavoidable to admit that the majority of our assessments are based on instinctual intuitive criteria where reason and logic never come into play and our opinions are shaped by, sometimes, contradictory motivations and inclinations.

It seems that inconsistency is necessary for a living system, or it wouldn't be a *living* system.
It's a superfancy thing: only if we allow for some temporary inconsistency, can we learn. Allowing inconsistency seems to be innate to the ability for learning.


Reason and logic only apply to information that is consciously perceived and analyzed whereas most sensual information goes mostly unnoticed and their effects become insidious.

We don't pay proper attention to sensual information, and it is because of this lack of attention that "their effects become insidious".

Rational thought is slow and takes up a lot of "RAM and processor time", and it pushes aside other ways of thinking.


I would say that intuition has its own set of rules, often contrary to reason, and the motivations that govern these rules are often in opposition to our faculties of conscious thought.

I think that intuition is just really really fast holistic logic.


To what do you place more respect and faith in: Intellect or instinct?
Intuition or reason?
The first is limited by a lack of control and understanding, the second is limited by sensual acuity, multitasking abilities, mental flexibility and detail analysis.

I hold instinct and intuition in greater esteem than reason.
For example, I speak four languages, and I find it easy to learn new words and grammar structures in other languages. It could be said that I have "talent". But the thing with this "talent" is that it doesn't work in the ways we usually consider rational thought to work. It's a fascinating short cut, analytically inexplicable, but it works very very well.
Or reading emotions. This too is something that is often tried to be explained rationally, with instructions on how to recognize this or that emotion. But our natural ability to read emotions is by far faster than any analytical thought about them.

id trust my intuition anyday - the subconscious is much better then the conscious at picking up body language and the like, detecting lies and inconsistensies.

This all depends on what it is that you're trying to analyse. Judging the direction from which a sound comes, for example, is something that we're hard-wired to do - performing the integrations in our conscious minds would be impossible.

Conversely, pondering about science or other philosophical activities are not (that I know about) inbuilt functions and hence conscious logic and reason would be more appropriate here.

Yes, we may be influenced by a plethora of subconscious stimuli, but with logic you can 'anchor down' theories and points to observations made in the world and so by-pass them.

What do I trust more? It entirely depends on the function in question.

IMO, things better for instinct:
Language
Emotion
Interpretation of basic stimuli, like direction of sound
... and better for intellect:
Debating
Science
Maths

Rational thought is slow and takes up a lot of "RAM and processor time", and it pushes aside other ways of thinking.
That's just not true, our brains don't have one big universal resource. Instinctual calculations will go on whether you want them to or not. It's usually a bad idea to liken brains to current computers.

We are robots; we are very complicated closed control systems, but we should also not forget our basis which is instinctual. Without core motivations we would remain entirely motionless.

“ Rational thought is slow and takes up a lot of "RAM and processor time", and it pushes aside other ways of thinking. ”

That's just not true, our brains don't have one big universal resource. Instinctual calculations will go on whether you want them to or not.

Sure. But there is only the 7+/-2 chunks of your short-term memory, and if you fully employ these with "rational thought", other (instinctual) activities will be lessened (for example, you can forget that you've skipped linch if you are fully devoted to solving some math problem).

Also, you've said:

This all depends on what it is that you're trying to analyse. Judging the direction from which a sound comes, for example, is something that we're hard-wired to do - performing the integrations in our conscious minds would be impossible.

Those integrations are too much for rational thought to carry out in a feasible time. In this respect, rational thought is slow.


It's usually a bad idea to liken brains to current computers.

I myself have scolded the computer metaphor as misleading in another thread; but for the sake of simplicity, I still use it sometimes.


We are robots; we are very complicated closed control systems, but we should also not forget our basis which is instinctual. Without core motivations we would remain entirely motionless.

Just before you said that it is a bad idea to liken the brain to current computers, and now you are using an even harsher metaphor: we are robots.
I diasagree: robots to not regenerate and reproduce, so the robot metaphor is missing out on two major aspects of living organisms.

alain
id trust my intuition anyday - the subconscious is much better then the conscious at picking up body language and the like, detecting lies and inconsistensies.Exactly what I’m getting at.
This is the topic that fascinates me to no end.
I believe in this ‘reading’ of subliminal body language, whether it is consciously or subconsciously, is a very powerful tool in understanding others and their motivations and through this to understand self.

The voice can lie but the body never because it isn’t governed by reason that can mutate and hide motivations.
There are multiple physical ‘tells’.

Social capability, what once was called E.Q., is determined by this subconscious reading of physical cues.

But this goes beyond just human interaction and relationships, it also applies towards inanimate objects and phenomena.
The senses pick-up much more information, from any event, than it is immediately aware of.
This information is greater than the information that becomes conscious and participates in critical thought and opinion making.

RosaMagika
I can't stress this enough: Humans LIKE TO BELIEVE that their logic and reason dominates their decision making. This "I want to be rational, therefore I believe I am rational" seems to be the basis of sanity.Yet, most of human reasoning is affected by and based on genetic predispositions, instinct, which is like innate knowledge, and intuitive awareness.

It is still "logic", only that it is far quicker than our slow rational brain can follow.Yes, but it is a logic with different motivations and goals.
Sometimes this primordial 'logic' comes into conflict, because of these different goals and motivations, with rational logic; ergo we have a feeling of a fictitious dichotomy caused by the conscious and unconscious appreciation of motivations.

Asceticism is reason imposing itself on instinct.
Hedonism is instinct imposing itself on reason.
But reason if often flawed and based on imperfect sensual interpretations, giving rise to religion, myth, art, ideology, all similarly flawed.
Instinct is ingrained sensual interpretation assimilated into the psyche through millennia.

It seems advisable then to understand free will in a somewhat different manner; also, it seems very advisable to stop thinking ourselves as rational beings, "threatened by our unconscious". It does not threaten us, I don't think so. It's a natural part of who we are, and we are only threatening ourselves by denying that the unconscious is a part of us, or by rejecting it.Exactly.
From there we have self-awareness and acceptance.

This produces the need of balance, in the Hellenic sense.
Where both the instinct and the intellect are allowed expression in controlled doses.


It seems that inconsistency is necessary for a living system, or it wouldn't be a *living* system.
It's a superfancy thing: only if we allow for some temporary inconsistency, can we learn. Allowing inconsistency seems to be innate to the ability for learning.Inconsistency can only be found in rational conscious beings.
Irrational beings, that live primarily by instinct and intuition, are always consistent and pure in their actions and interests.

Inconsistency is produced when the conflicting motivations of reason and intellect come into conflict.
Both are part of us.

We don't pay proper attention to sensual information, and it is because of this lack of attention that "their effects become insidious".

Rational thought is slow and takes up a lot of "RAM and processor time", and it pushes aside other ways of thinking.Yes, but also much of sensual information can never be made conscious, unless we use machines in place of our senses.
Air pressures, subtle wind movements, physical details, infrared/ultraviolet light spectrums, acoustic dimensions beyond human perception are forever lost. Some get imprinted in the subconscious leading to them becoming influential through alternate routes, but most of them, I believe, are never perceived on any level.

Multiple dimensions are a good example. If we are to believe physicists then we exists in a universe of over ten dimensions. We are oblivious to most of them.
Furthermore our interconnectivity is lost to us and we function under the illusion of individuality.

I think that intuition is just really really fast holistic logic.Precisely.
Materialism is a manifestation of speeds of alteration. Time/Space
What is considered solid simply has a slower rate of variation; what is soft a quicker rate.
The illusion of solidity is caused by the limitations of our perceptual speed.

I hold instinct and intuition in greater esteem than reason.
For example, I speak four languages, and I find it easy to learn new words and grammar structures in other languages. It could be said that I have "talent". But the thing with this "talent" is that it doesn't work in the ways we usually consider rational thought to work. It's a fascinating short cut, analytically inexplicable, but it works very very well.I thought you would.

I speak 3 languages and have trouble learning new ones, so I can’t relate.

What I do have a talent with is picking up subtle physical or verbal messages which makes me adept in reading personality and character.

Or reading emotions. This too is something that is often tried to be explained rationally, with instructions on how to recognize this or that emotion. But our natural ability to read emotions is by far faster than any analytical thought about them.For me it’s instantaneous and done with no effort or purpose.
How I, afterwards, analyze them and come to conclusions concerning motives and purposes is done through reason.
But the original apprehension is done intuitively.

Blue_UK
This all depends on what it is that you're trying to analyse. Judging the direction from which a sound comes, for example, is something that we're hard-wired to do - performing the integrations in our conscious minds would be impossible.

Conversely, pondering about science or other philosophical activities are not (that I know about) inbuilt functions and hence conscious logic and reason would be more appropriate here.

Yes, we may be influenced by a plethora of subconscious stimuli, but with logic you can 'anchor down' theories and points to observations made in the world and so by-pass them.

What do I trust more? It entirely depends on the function in question.

IMO, things better for instinct:
Language
Emotion
Interpretation of basic stimuli, like direction of sound
... and better for intellect:
Debating
Science
Maths
I believe that both participate in all human evaluations in unison.
Which one dominates is determined by the individual’s demeanor and the subject matter.

I think, in particular, debating is facilitated through intuition and who knows how much of it participates in mathematics and science.

Many scientific breakthrough could have been the result of intuitive hunches.

Sure. But there is only the 7+/-2 chunks of your short-term memory, and if you fully employ these with "rational thought", other (instinctual) activities will be lessened (for example, you can forget that you've skipped linch if you are fully devoted to solving some math problem).

Granted, although this refers more to things like like how mild the sensation of hunger might be. I feel bold enough to state that you cannot will you brain to alter instincual 'programming' (Don't point out the hypocracy, please :))

Just before you said that it is a bad idea to liken the brain to current computers, and now you are using an even harsher metaphor: we are robots.
I diasagree: robots to not regenerate and reproduce, so the robot metaphor is missing out on two major aspects of living organisms.

We clearly don't use the word 'robot' in the same way. I mean robot as in (roughly): deterministic, made of circuits, has programming and emplys control systems. All of these things very much apply and have nothing to do with modelling the brain as a PC with FSB, CPU, RAM and what have you. Also, here's a tautology 'on the house': seeing as we are robots, they cearly can reproduce and regenerate! Seriously though, a robot that can rebuild it's self (and therefore reproduce presumably) is not entirely unfeasable.

Speaking of feasability, I don't think many, if any, people could perform the integrations in their conscious mind even if given infinite time. There's just too much to concentrate on, plus you'd never be able to get the data you need without monitoring your self with external stuff and using a pen and paper.

Back to topic, am I right or wrong in saying 'Depends', based on my grouping of common tasks?

Wanderer, Yeah... agree.

"To what do you place more respect and faith in: Intellect or instinct?"

I think they are interwoven for they both play roles in ones life at different times. You must have some intellect to make your way through life and you also have predisposed instincts from your genes.

Practically the only thing a human can do that isn't instinctual is acknowledge their instincts.
Understand why they do or think something.
We seem to be able to do this with other animals easily. Every nature documentary will explain why the animals are doing something. They'll say the lion kills a rival's cub to put the females in estrus. But ofcourse the lion isn't consciously thinking that. He hasn't written up a step by step guide on "how to get laid" in his head using his studies in sexual reproduction as a basis. He'd just feel vague irritation towards cubs that aren't his own and feel the urge to kill them, maybe their faces simply piss him off. His instincts are doing his decision making for him. His instincts understand that killing the fallen rivals cubs will make the females put out and his instincts probably understand that the previous male wasn't worthy of having offspring survive.
His instincts understand the significance of fighting over territory, he doesn't have a degree in ecology and couldn't possibly understand the concept of holding tenure over a large enough piece of real estate with enough resources to support his pride during the harder months.
But we know thats why he does it, his conscious mind would translate his instincts into simple feelings that will cause his behaviour to have the desired result.
We don't seem to think this applies to us though. We hate the guy who's all over our girlfriend because "he's a douchebag" and thats the actual reason.
Lion cubs play with eachother to hone their hunting and fighting skills for adult life, human children play because they like to have fun. Well I bet the lion cubs think they are just having fun too. The secret reality is hidden from the conscious minds of living organisms. The conscious mind basically lies to them, its rarely sinister (except for maybe the conscious minds of gamecocks and pitbulls telling them to fight to the death because it feels right, when the secret is its purely for man's enjoyment), but its not the real story. And humans are just like everything else in this regard.
A very select few are aware of their instincts, and none are fully aware all the time.
I find myself being a mindless machine all the time. It could be something as simple as scratching an itch. Do you really think about why it feels good to scratch an itch?
Your mind doesn't recieve the real message for why your skin is itchy, the thought "tiny mites are burrowing under your skin and laying eggs"(or whatever brand of itch it may be) doesn't come into your brain, you just feel itchy and think it would feel satisfying to scratch it. Thats hardly the real reason though. And with every aspect of life people are constantly thinking the arbitrary trivial little fake messages they get encouraging them to do or think something is the real reason they do or think something.

I don't think I put more faith in intellect or instinct, at least I wouldn't word it that way. I try as much as possible to acknowledge my instincts with my intellect. What could possibly be the reason for me wanting to do, say or think that? It's largely a guessing game and I try to use the animal kingdom as a resource. Because no one has really studied the human as an animal. We're too ready to accept the reasons people give for their actions. Animals can't talk so we had to find out the truth. People talk, but they talk shit, they don't know what they're talking about. Habib didn't really detonate himself on a bus for allah's sake. He thinks he did, but he's an animal, why would you listen to him?
Larry the wolf thinks he killed his brother steve because he was annoying, but in reality steve was injured and a liability to the pack and larry's instincts picked up on that.
If larry could talk it would probably be written in animal behaviour and natural history books that "wolves often kill pack members because they are annoying".
It all comes down to humans being too egotystical to even consider they aren't in control of themselves.

His instincts are doing his decision making for him. His instincts understand that killing the fallen rivals cubs will make the females put out and his instincts probably understand that the previous male wasn't worthy of having offspring survive.

Not even! It just so happens that, out of a huge bunch of primitive lions, the ones which felt an irritation to the cubs outcompeted the other more easygoing males. It has nothing to do with anybody or anything 'knowing' that the females will put out. that my friend, would imply design :eek:

It just so happens that, out of a huge bunch of primitive lions, the ones which felt an irritation to the cubs outcompeted the other more easygoing males.
Thats how the instincts got there, but at the end of the day they instinctually "know" to kill the cubs of rivals, a newborn baby kangaroo's body "knows" to climb up to the pouch to find milk, and it's mind doesn't. Which is the point I'm making.
They do it= their instincts "know" to do it.
I know its not accurate to say instincts "know", seeing as how "knowing" usually describes conscious thought, which is exactly what instincts aren't.
But language is based on the conscious mind so the only way to describe what I'm talking about is by using words like "knowing" and "understanding".
As long as you get the point I'm making it doesn't matter.

Dr Lou Natic
Thats how the instincts got there, but at the end of the day they instinctually "know" to kill the cubs of rivals, a newborn baby kangaroo's body "knows" to climb up to the pouch to find milk, and it's mind doesn't. Which is the point I'm making.
They do it= their instincts "know" to do it.
So there does seem to be a way to store information, beyond just perceiving them subconsciously, without the mind immediately being aware of them.

The fear of death is a good example.
A fear that underlies all existence and produces the multiplicity of behaviours we find in nature.

All social interactions and the emotional mechanisms that enable them and which eventually lead to moral systems are the consequence of the struggle against extinction.

Only physically weak creatures, on an individual basis, congregate in groups. The weaker the species the more elaborate the social structures it creates for its own survival.

Even in solitary creatures that only socialize for procreative reasons once a year, express through this brief interaction a failing.

All living matter is by definition disadvantaged, because it requires constant effort to maintain itself.
Need is how this disadvantage exposes itself.


We seem to be able to do this with other animals easily. Every nature documentary will explain why the animals are doing something. They'll say the lion kills a rival's cub to put the females in estrus. But ofcourse the lion isn't consciously thinking that. He hasn't written up a step by step guide on "how to get laid" in his head using his studies in sexual reproduction as a basis. He'd just feel vague irritation towards cubs that aren't his own and feel the urge to kill them, maybe their faces simply piss him off. His instincts are doing his decision making for him. His instincts understand that killing the fallen rivals cubs will make the females put out and his instincts probably understand that the previous male wasn't worthy of having offspring survive.Do you not also feel something akin to that?

Let go of your modern sensibilities and notice the very drives you see in other mammals in yourself.

We don't seem to think this applies to us though. We hate the guy who's all over our girlfriend because "he's a douchebag" and thats the actual reason. The most interesting thing about human beings is in just how unaware they are of their own motivations and how they cannot explain their own inclinations.
In this they resemble any animal, while reason grasps at excuses and explanations that flatter him and insult the other.

It is not hard to understand how mankind can be manipulated because of this denial or inability to perceive or to honestly admit.

In my experience I’ve witnessed people saying one thing and acting in a manner that contradicted it. The contradicting messages confused me at first, when I couldn’t decide which one was the most pure and honest.

I eventually concluded that the physical ‘tells’ – a poker term – and the subtle insinuations or verbal details found in any communication more accurately described inner forces while reason sometimes acted as a distracter or an explainer of things that it itself was not aware of.

How many people have convinced them selves that they are ‘good’ and moral beings when all they do is vile and disgusting?

This type of ubiquitous denial is the most dangerous part of human nature.
Every imbecile and moron performing acts of righteousness in the name of ideology, religion and nationalism believes he is acting altruistically and correctly.

I find myself being a mindless machine all the time. It could be something as simple as scratching an itch. Do you really think about why it feels good to scratch an itch? More than this there are facial expressions and body movements, as well as language quirks that give away your instinctual self daily without you ever realizing it.

Even through this medium of the written word, which is a rational act, pieces of your psyche find their way into your phrases.

I don't think I put more faith in intellect or instinct, at least I wouldn't word it that way. I try as much as possible to acknowledge my instincts with my intellect. What could possibly be the reason for me wanting to do, say or think that? It's largely a guessing game and I try to use the animal kingdom as a resource. Because no one has really studied the human as an animal. But why do you need someone else to study what is readily available to you?

You have direct access to the human animal in you.

Know thyself and through that you will understand humanity and through that you will understand nature and through that you will connect to the universe.

A particle mirrors the whole it is a part of.

For me the crucial aspect of this ascension in awareness is simply the ability to be honest to your self.
I described this as courage once, when I was trying to analyze what participated in human judgment.

I realized that, although intellect was crucial it was not enough by itself but required the liberating influences of courage that results on acceptance and then that to better clarity.

It all comes down to humans being too egotystical to even consider they aren't in control of themselves.It’s ego, it is fear, it is self-interest but it is also a natural defense mechanism the mind uses to protect itself from the ramifications of its own awareness.

When the mind perceives things that become detrimental to its own well-being it either ignores them or it rationalizes them away.

cosmictraveler
I think they are interwoven for they both play roles in ones life at different times. You must have some intellect to make your way through life and you also have predisposed instincts from your genes.As males we are inclined to want to rationalize everything and to place things in an ordered structure within the mind.
This facilitates strategizing and analyzing.

But we must also tap into our more feminine sides that feel and intuit things without recognizing the sources immediately.

Rationalizing might offer the advantage of understanding and of analysis but intuition offers the advantage of immediacy and multiplicity.

We don’t need to rationally explain why a certain person appears less than honest or doesn’t inspire confidence, we just feel it and then, if we wish through memory, we can analyze the details that went into our perceptions.

Just something I wrote on the subject.

The sensual world excites the mind and showers perception with a constant flow of stimuli needing constant analysis.
What we call reality is a shared amalgamation of sensual interpretations in a consistent state of alteration that requires steady vigilance and unceasing appraisal.

The amount of information we are continuously assaulted by can be presumed to be similar, within genetic groupings and comparable environments, but the amount of information being processed, and in this way, becoming consciously noticeable, is determined, on an individual basis, by the sensual acuity, the mental fitness, the multitasking resilience, and the analytical rapidity of each, that could increase or decrease the degree of awareness.
Nevertheless, it would not be a leap in logic to assume that much of what is sensually available gets lost in the stream of perception and many details vanish in a flow of receptivity; some of it impacting the mind through subconscious means, that is sometimes called intuition, and that falls under the umbrella of psychology.

The lines of contention have been clearly drawn between those that believe in the conscious powers of the human mind, that place all their faith in science, and those that believe in the existence of impenetrable realms of reality, which allow for mysticism and spirituality.

Within this realm, of human unawareness, lie the frontlines of religious dogma and belief.

Pragmatists, like William James, believed that
“….there is no such thing as ‘consciousness’, as a way of overcoming the opposition between mind and matter without giving predominance to either.” according to Russell.

The ‘Oxford Companion to Philosophy’ says this about James’s positions:
“…James distinguishes between the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’.
The ‘I’ being the ultimate thinker and the ‘Me’ being the object of all those concerns we call selfish and which the ‘I’ seeks to preserve.” and it goes on:
“…conceptual thought cannot do proper justice to reality. This arises largely from the fact that concepts can only provide a static picture of a world which is essentially dynamic.”

Bergson, another pragmatist, contends that: “…duration is time as experienced by consciousness and perhaps Bergson’s most important insight is that we don’t experience the world moment by moment but in a fashion essentially continuous, illustrated by the way we hear melody.” and according to Russell’s understanding of his positions: “…Bergson believed that our intellect, having been fashioned by practical needs, ignores all the aspects of the world which it does not pay to notice, and is in fact an obstacle to the apprehension of truth. We have, he thinks, a faculty called ‘intuition’ which we can use if we take the trouble, and which will enable us to know, in theory at least, everything past and present, though apparently not the future.”

“Utility, for Bergson, is the source of error, while truth is arrived at by a mystic contemplation from which all thought of practical advantage is absent.”

Russell finding disagreement with these positions, being himself one that embraced science as the highest form of truth, says this in closing:
“It has been generally regarded as the business of philosophy to prove the great truths of religion. The new realism does not profess to be able to prove them, or even to disprove them. It aims only at clarifying the fundamental ideas of the sciences and synthesising the different sciences in a single comprehensive view of that fragment of the world that science has succeeded in exploring.”

It is disturbing for Russell, and for all wanting to place all of their faith on the powers of logic and reason, to deny reason its highest due.
Yet, that the fragment of the world, science has successfully explored, is but a fragment of the world human perception is aware of, and still further, only a possible fragment of a larger universe that remains hidden from view, cannot be easily neglected.
But this should not entice us into utilizing our imaginations in the creation of fictitious caricatures of realities and beings that placate personal anxieties and fulfill silent wishes.

All human beings experience the influential prerogatives of intuition and instinctual receptivity.
I would say that there is a separate logic to intuition that sometimes comes into confrontation with the logic of the rational mind.

The confrontation often arises from the contradicting strategies between intellectual and instinctive acuity even while the fundamental motivations underlying them are all the same.
Where reason and logic seeks survival and growth through the acquisition of power utilizing knowledge and understanding towards that end, instinct seeks survival using the primordial strategies of communion, natural selection and procreation.

The root motivation, of any mind, is its desire to overcome mortality and death and its own helplessness and vulnerability in an existence it has little control of.

The affecting influences of intuition can be more readily appreciated in how they express themselves in sexual desire and attraction, sometimes usurping the standards of contemplative thought.
No matter how much reason and logic we apply the drive to copulate and the criteria of mate-selection remain unhindered by them.
Instinct has its own set of rules.
It concerns itself in preserving the self through its association with a greater whole and its judgment is preoccupied with sacrificing individual interests to the interests of the species.

The values instinct utilizes for its judgments are ingrained in human psychology and their dictations cannot be ignored, no matter how many structures of morality and virtue are constructed.
Each time we meet a member of the opposite sex we subconsciously involve ourselves in an assessment of their genetic fitness long before we make any other assessment about them.
A thousand subliminal messages are intuitively gathered, analyzed and stored and our judgments begin forming a positive or negative disposition that will infect all others that will come later on, through a more essential analysis.

For men the standards are more lax, owing to their relative small personal costs in the procreation mechanism, making them both less burdened and more expendable, whereas for women the standards become more exacting and crucial, owing to their large personal costs in gestation and childrearing.

For this reason, I believe, women developed a more acute sense of intuition and are governed mostly by unreasoned perceptions and analysis.
Their opinions may lack the clarity or the structure of reasoned thought but they possess the advantage of instinctive awareness that makes them more able to cut through the quagmire of critical thought and get to the inherent root of every subject.

But reason if often flawed and based on imperfect sensual interpretations, giving rise to religion, myth, art, ideology, all similarly flawed.
Instinct is ingrained sensual interpretation assimilated into the psyche through millennia.

Flawed? Our reality is that we have reason, and to simply call reason and its products "flawed" is a cry of atavistic nostalgia, don't you think?


This produces the need of balance, in the Hellenic sense.
Where both the instinct and the intellect are allowed expression in controlled doses.

I don't like this "controlled" -- cultivated seems a better term to me.


Inconsistency can only be found in rational conscious beings.
Irrational beings, that live primarily by instinct and intuition, are always consistent and pure in their actions and interests.

I'm not sure that the terms "consistency" and "inconsistency" can apply for those beings, as their life is beyond our scope, I suppose.


Inconsistency is produced when the conflicting motivations of reason and intellect come into conflict.
Both are part of us.

Not just that. There is the simple allowing for inconsistency when you learn: Say that you are learning German and you learn the word for "table" to be "das Tisch". If you would insist on consistency, you could not accept an amendation -- since the article there is wrong, it should be "der Tisch". But we do accept amendations!
You can imagine the more complicated inconsistencies that a mind has to allow for when learning to come from Newtonian to relativistic physics; or when learning a new way of how to conceptualize the human personality, to allow that the one you have learned first, say, Freud's, is not the only one, and not necessarily the best one.


Yes, but also much of sensual information can never be made conscious, unless we use machines in place of our senses.
Air pressures, subtle wind movements, physical details, infrared/ultraviolet light spectrums, acoustic dimensions beyond human perception are forever lost. Some get imprinted in the subconscious leading to them becoming influential through alternate routes, but most of them, I believe, are never perceived on any level.

Multiple dimensions are a good example. If we are to believe physicists then we exists in a universe of over ten dimensions. We are oblivious to most of them.

We are limited beings after all. Being limited seems innate to all life.


Furthermore our interconnectivity is lost to us and we function under the illusion of individuality.

Maybe this "illusion of individuality" is just a holisitc image of this interconnectivity?


Many scientific breakthrough could have been the result of intuitive hunches.

It is amazing, isn't it? I wonder how a hunch works -- what's behind it?

***



Granted, although this refers more to things like like how mild the sensation of hunger might be. I feel bold enough to state that you cannot will you brain to alter instincual 'programming' (Don't point out the hypocracy, please )

Sure. As I was writing that part, I first wrote that you can "forget hunger", but then qualified that you can "forget lunch if ..." Eventually, you will get hungry, no matter what.


Speaking of feasability, I don't think many, if any, people could perform the integrations in their conscious mind even if given infinite time. There's just too much to concentrate on, plus you'd never be able to get the data you need without monitoring your self with external stuff and using a pen and paper.

That's why robots can't do saltos and somersaults, while humans can! :p


Back to topic, am I right or wrong in saying 'Depends', based on my grouping of common tasks?

Sure, but this "depends" is not exclusivistic -- that is, when you do math, for example, the intellect is "in the foreground", and the insinct is "in the background", but it is not shut off, it sort of "runs in silent mode".

However, it is in the nature of human knowledge that in time, it can become instinctual -- we develop "secondary instincts".

In Peter Russell's "Brain book", intelligence is defined (I'm translating back into English, sorry, don't have the English version):

-- the ability to make instinctive knowledge on the basis of previous experience;
-- the ability to recognize common elements in situations that at first impression seem to have nothing in common;
-- the ability to use such recognitions in new situations.


For example, when I speak English (it's my third language), I usually don't think -- I'm not aware of it, I do it instinctively without trouble. It is obvious though that I have learned this language and that at some point in the past, it wasn't instinctual, it was based on (solely?) rational intellect and memory. Yet, when I learn new words and structures, I have to think rationally, I cannot just depend on my instinct.
The line between "instinct" and "intellect" seems rather hazy to me.

I think it is better if we formulate out statements in the manner of "intellect is predominant when solving math problems".

However, we're still stuck when it comes to hunches and secondary instincts.

It is amazing, isn't it? I wonder how a hunch works -- what's behind it?

I was watching a science show on BBC (uk channel) and apparently, it is the sub-conscience letting u know what it knows. It does this by evoking feelings of uneasiness or feelings of confidence depending on the situation. We take in information unconsciously that we are unaware of but in certain situations, our subconscience remembers the information and passes it on this way.

Yes, but you know what this implies? That brain "calculations and integrations" go on all the time, without us knowing much of it. Which is superneat.

The fear of death is a good example.
A fear that underlies all existence and produces the multiplicity of behaviours we find in nature.

All social interactions and the emotional mechanisms that enable them and which eventually lead to moral systems are the consequence of the struggle against extinction.
Yes, that’s why people shamefully grow old. They've got nothing left to do, they're shitting themselves on a regular basis and making a fool of themselves around their loved ones constantly with their fumbling attempts to work their withered brains. And yet they persevere, it's just expected. Simply because evolution favoured organisms which didn't want to die. No one thinks about that, they make up their own little personal reasons for carrying on beyond their expiration date. Logically looking at the situation one would definately choose suicide well before it got to this stage. But suicide is taboo even for the old, even though living is suicide itself via drawn out, embarrassing and torturous means.
People are just as enslaved by nature as sharks or beetles or weeds.
Unless they recognise this, and then kill themself.

Only physically weak creatures, on an individual basis, congregate in groups. The weaker the species the more elaborate the social structures it creates for its own survival.
You've kind of lost me as to how this relates to your topic, but it's a good point anyway.
But you should also take into account that social structures allow for the creatures to become weaker. None of the social animals were as weak as they are now before they became social. When a species becomes social the individuals weaken because they can. The least social ants are probably bulldog ants from Tasmania. The bastards can jump about 4 feet and have inch long jaws. They are loosely social but fight amongst themselves a lot. They haven't needed to develop a particularly efficient social system because they can take care of themselves.

But yes-social animals probably were lacking in the first place, being out competed by other more competent species, to fall into becoming social.
It's interesting how, within a pack/troop/clan/tribe/whatever, the less powerful the individual the more social it will be. The dominant member of a social group is the most likely to sleep alone, the least likely to seek out company, etc.
Socialising definately is a sign of insecurity. Now that I think about it, that’s hardly worth mentioning. We all know about pack mentality, we've all seen all the quiet kids get together and become loud kids.
I don't think it follows that anti-social people are secure though. Mostly because I have seen that they generally aren't. They're usually paranoid and on edge like a prey animal.
I have met the odd solitary person who seems comfortable with it. And it might be a coincidence but they were almost always highly trained in some martial art, or genuine hardasses.
I knew a dog who was anti-social by choice, and he was incredibly tough and sure of himself.
Then you see anti-social dogs which wet themselves and are obviously nervous wrecks. The average normal dog- not too scared, not overly confident -is social. I have little doubt it is any different for humans.

All living matter is by definition disadvantaged, because it requires constant effort to maintain itself.
Need is how this disadvantage exposes itself.
Indeed, and this is why living matter is so much more elaborate and complicated than anything else. It's needed to do so much more to maintain its place in existence than say, rocks.

Do you not also feel something akin to that?

Let go of your modern sensibilities and notice the very drives you see in other mammals in yourself.
I think I do. But I wouldn't call it letting go. Letting go is what everyone does, letting go is what plants do. Noticing those drives is an action that requires being done.
Like I said, it's the one thing we can do to separate us from other living organisms. And maybe 0.0000001%(you get the idea) of people do it.
Which is why I generally feel humans are overrated. Yeah, we make cities, and weaverbirds make nests and ants build 20ft tall mounds (which, in comparison to their body size, makes a mockery of anything humans have built) so all the things we are so proud of are just mindless instincts at work like any other. Even painting a picture is just an instinct we evolved because it was useful in some way. It's still mindless, and objectively no more significant than a fish swimming. Acknowledging your instincts though, tapping into the secret language of the universe, is pretty damn impressive from a mere living organism.

The most interesting thing about human beings is in just how unaware they are of their own motivations and how they cannot explain their own inclinations.
In this they resemble any animal, while reason grasps at excuses and explanations that flatter him and insult the other.
Yep, in full agreement.
That's not a bad summary.

How many people have convinced them selves that they are ‘good’ and moral beings when all they do is vile and disgusting?
Careful, what's vile and disgusting?
I'm just hoping you aren't turning "truthseeker" on me.

But why do you need someone else to study what is readily available to you?
You don't need to tell me, truth be told I probably wouldn't be interested in this topic if it were in text books.

You have direct access to the human animal in you.

Know thyself and through that you will understand humanity and through that you will understand nature and through that you will connect to the universe.
True. But I’ve found it beneficial to understand the animal kingdom first, I don't think you can understand humans until you do.
If you started at humans you could fall into the trap I mentioned- listening to what they think. Even yourself, until you train your mind to studying animals you'll listen to your conscious mind, which as I said, is receiving phoney messages. Back when I was a teen I thought I hated being alone at the skate park(hey, skating used to be cool) because it was boring. I didn't really think about it I just didn't like it. Now, thanks to seeing a lone visibly uncomfortable African wild dog on the open savannah with David attenborough's voice narrating the drama of the situation, I can see that my instincts were telling me being alone at that place was dangerous. I was a member of a hated pack alone in the open with competing packs prowling the streets that would certainly attack if they saw such a vulnerable rival.
This is just one example I chose for some unknown reason but it can apply to every little aspect of life.
Anyway, after being used to looking at animal behaviour this way, I think it's easier to understand yourself and humanity.
But you seem to genuinely notice what I'm noticing so however you got there doesn't matter I suppose.

It’s ego, it is fear, it is self-interest but it is also a natural defense mechanism the mind uses to protect itself from the ramifications of its own awareness.

When the mind perceives things that become detrimental to its own well-being it either ignores them or it rationalizes them away
So why are we talking about it?
And why do we keep thinking about such things? Maybe we are mishaps? Only allowed to come about due to the lapse in strict natural selection for humans?
I bet this discussion is particularly "unsexy" to females. Their instincts probably recognise the detrimental ramifications of what we are saying, and determine we are unfit for breeding.
Seriously, I would never try to bring this up in a social situation, it would feel inappropriate, why is that?
I too must instinctually know it's a flaw.

Yes, but you know what this implies? That brain "calculations and integrations" go on all the time, without us knowing much of it. Which is superneat.

Exactly. This is why NLP works. Remember that term I mentioned to u many moons ago?!

Exactly. This is why NLP works. Remember that term I mentioned to u many moons ago?!

Uh, which one? "Pseudo-intellectual cybersex"?

No NLP, silly :rolleyes:

Neuro-linguistic programming. I thought u would have cheked it out by this stage! U obviously weren't curious enough.

Dr Lou Natic
Yes, that’s why people shamefully grow old. They've got nothing left to do, they're shitting themselves on a regular basis and making a fool of themselves around their loved ones constantly with their fumbling attempts to work their withered brains. And yet they persevere, it's just expected. Simply because evolution favoured organisms which didn't want to die. No one thinks about that, they make up their own little personal reasons for carrying on beyond their expiration date. Logically looking at the situation one would definately choose suicide well before it got to this stage. But suicide is taboo even for the old, even though living is suicide itself via drawn out, embarrassing and torturous means.
People are just as enslaved by nature as sharks or beetles or weeds.
Unless they recognise this, and then kill themself.I can see the benefits in that.
I think there are tribes where the old are expected to go off and die when they have become a burden on the group.

Although I recognize how everyone would want to hold on to existence as long as possible and that it is humane to take care of people in homes and hospitals, I also see the wasted effort in it.
What’s the point in remaining alive when you can’t even wipe your own ass?

You've kind of lost me as to how this relates to your topic, but it's a good point anyway.
But you should also take into account that social structures allow for the creatures to become weaker. None of the social animals were as weak as they are now before they became social. When a species becomes social the individuals weaken because they can. The least social ants are probably bulldog ants from Tasmania. The bastards can jump about 4 feet and have inch long jaws. They are loosely social but fight amongst themselves a lot. They haven't needed to develop a particularly efficient social system because they can take care of themselves.Just wanted to reiterate the point that human civilization is mostly a result of human frailty and the very reason and logic we admire in ourselves is a product of sensual and physical disadvantage.

But yes-social animals probably were lacking in the first place, being out competed by other more competent species, to fall into becoming social.
It's interesting how, within a pack/troop/clan/tribe/whatever, the less powerful the individual the more social it will be. The dominant member of a social group is the most likely to sleep alone, the least likely to seek out company, etc.
Socialising definately is a sign of insecurity. Now that I think about it, that’s hardly worth mentioning. We all know about pack mentality, we've all seen all the quiet kids get together and become loud kids.
I don't think it follows that anti-social people are secure though. Mostly because I have seen that they generally aren't. They're usually paranoid and on edge like a prey animal.
I have met the odd solitary person who seems comfortable with it. And it might be a coincidence but they were almost always highly trained in some martial art, or genuine hardasses.
I knew a dog who was anti-social by choice, and he was incredibly tough and sure of himself.
Then you see anti-social dogs which wet themselves and are obviously nervous wrecks. The average normal dog- not too scared, not overly confident -is social. I have little doubt it is any different for humans. I think extreme isolation can lead to neuropsychological disorders or maybe even be caused by them.

Anti-Social behavior results in exaggerated aggressiveness and not the other way around.

Safety and comfort results in decadence and decay, threat and discomfort result in hostility and anger.

Indeed, and this is why living matter is so much more elaborate and complicated than anything else. It's needed to do so much more to maintain its place in existence than say, rocks. Exactly and its vulnerability forces a constant alteration due to the universal flux.

I think I do. But I wouldn't call it letting go. Letting go is what everyone does, letting go is what plants do. Noticing those drives is an action that requires being done.
Like I said, it's the one thing we can do to separate us from other living organisms. And maybe 0.0000001%(you get the idea) of people do it.
Which is why I generally feel humans are overrated. Yeah, we make cities, and weaverbirds make nests and ants build 20ft tall mounds (which, in comparison to their body size, makes a mockery of anything humans have built) so all the things we are so proud of are just mindless instincts at work like any other. Even painting a picture is just an instinct we evolved because it was useful in some way. It's still mindless, and objectively no more significant than a fish swimming. Acknowledging your instincts though, tapping into the secret language of the universe, is pretty damn impressive from a mere living organism. I think human reason and critical thought is the result of our own success and domination.
It has resulted in offering us more power and perspectives than we can psychologically handle.

Careful, what's vile and disgusting?
I'm just hoping you aren't turning "truthseeker" on me. Bestiality, cannibalism, self-delusion, over consumption, necrophilia etc.

Who the hell is Truthseeker?

True. But I’ve found it beneficial to understand the animal kingdom first, I don't think you can understand humans until you do.
If you started at humans you could fall into the trap I mentioned- listening to what they think. Even yourself, until you train your mind to studying animals you'll listen to your conscious mind, which as I said, is receiving phoney messages. Back when I was a teen I thought I hated being alone at the skate park(hey, skating used to be cool) because it was boring. I didn't really think about it I just didn't like it. Now, thanks to seeing a lone visibly uncomfortable African wild dog on the open savannah with David attenborough's voice narrating the drama of the situation, I can see that my instincts were telling me being alone at that place was dangerous. I was a member of a hated pack alone in the open with competing packs prowling the streets that would certainly attack if they saw such a vulnerable rival.
This is just one example I chose for some unknown reason but it can apply to every little aspect of life.
Anyway, after being used to looking at animal behaviour this way, I think it's easier to understand yourself and humanity.
But you seem to genuinely notice what I'm noticing so however you got there doesn't matter I suppose. No, I started by examining the natural world as well.

I used to sit for hours, when I was a boy in Greece, under the hot sun watching ants and how chickens interacted.
Later on I watched documentaries and began noticing that human behaviour was exactly the same and only the packaging and honesty was different.

That’s when I started hating humanity.
Not because of what they were but because of what they denied they were and how they acted as if they were more.

So why are we talking about it?
And why do we keep thinking about such things? Maybe we are mishaps? Only allowed to come about due to the lapse in strict natural selection for humans?
I bet this discussion is particularly "unsexy" to females. Their instincts probably recognise the detrimental ramifications of what we are saying, and determine we are unfit for breeding.
Seriously, I would never try to bring this up in a social situation, it would feel inappropriate, why is that?
I too must instinctually know it's a flaw.We are talking about it because we feel vulnerable because of it and we want to test our findings.

But I disagree with your last assessment.

Intelligence is infinitely sexy to all women, especially the ones found around here.
In fact, that is exactly why they are here in the first place even if they might deny it to themselves and to others.
For them it isn’t so much about what is being said but how precise it is and how it is said.
For women the accuracy is intuitively perceived even if the details remain obscure and unverifiable and the artistry and confidence with which it is presented exposes the minds flexibility and strength.

Have you not learned anything from your observations?

Bestiality, cannibalism, self-delusion, over consumption, necrophilia etc.

Who the hell is Truthseeker?
You haven't run into him yet? Well he's this massive douche who's very keen on peace and love and is constantly condemming any form of violence or unpleasantness.
Whats wrong with cannibalism?

Intelligence is infinitely sexy to all women, especially the ones found around here.

Women like a quick wit, but I've noticed they don't like it to get too serious.
The women here don't really count, they're the kind of freaks who have crushes on dead philosophers. They're locked indoors away from the pheromones(other than the old stale ones they themselves queefed into the thick air of their dark stuffy rooms a week earlier), so they can be confused into thinking they're attracted to deep thinking, but if you plonked them out in the country they'd forget all that and ravage the closest healthy farm boy. Even if his brain was entirely focussed on tractors and tractor maintenance.
Some girls are interested in intelligence, the kind one displays when he confidently interacts with his environment. But I can't imagine the level of consciousness we are addressing here to be particularly attractive to many women. It's discomforting, almost depressing. I wouldn't lovingly whisper "you're a mindless slave to your instincts ;)" into a girl's ear if I was expecting action.
I think saying "your ass is totally giving me a boner" would be less disastrous.

Dr. Lou Natic:
The women here don't really count, they're the kind of freaks who have crushes on dead philosophers.

Who said the women around here are necessarily attracted to intelligence?
You need an intellect to create theory, to assimilate and interpret data, but you do not need an intellect to have sex.

When a man talks to me about a subject I am interested in, he engages my facility of judgement. I am evaluating his statements, opposing him or agreeing with him, making associations and generally using my analytical brain. This is very far from sexual excitation.

Nobody is attracted to intelligence. Have you ever wanted to bone a women over her linear calculus books?
Of course not. Attractiveness is based on physical appearence, not whether a person can parse Hegel.

For the "crushes on dead philosophers". I'd do Nietzsche, but not Kant -- although Kant is the greater mind of the two, he wasn't attractive and Nietzsche was. Needless to say, I would not be attracted to Nietzsche for formulating master/slave morality - but for his physical appearence.

Edit:
And for that matter, one is rarely attracted to a person even for their physical qualities. It's just a matter of finding an outlet for one's horniness.

So that is how intelligence may help you get laid, at least by those who prefer the company of the intelligent. Eventually, when you are silent or chattering about mindless things, they consider you an outlet and you get laid.

Now, for people who are not very intellectual, intellect can appear as some dark, mysterious force giving its holder greater control over nature. A form of necromancy, if you will. I've met men who said I was attractive for this reason - well, for my "being so smart" - so I will accept this as a possibility.
But it's equally or more probable that was a polite way of saying "having nice boobies"

Dr Lou Natic
You haven't run into him yet? Well he's this massive douche who's very keen on peace and love and is constantly condemming any form of violence or unpleasantness.
Whats wrong with cannibalism? Nothing if the main course is Truthseeker.

Women like a quick wit, but I've noticed they don't like it to get too serious.
The women here don't really count, they're the kind of freaks who have crushes on dead philosophers. They're locked indoors away from the pheromones(other than the old stale ones they themselves queefed into the thick air of their dark stuffy rooms a week earlier), so they can be confused into thinking they're attracted to deep thinking, but if you plonked them out in the country they'd forget all that and ravage the closest healthy farm boy. Even if his brain was entirely focussed on tractors and tractor maintenance. The imagery is delicious.

But wouldn’t “deep thinking” be a genetic marker along with the physical ones?

Some girls are interested in intelligence, the kind one displays when he confidently interacts with his environment. But I can't imagine the level of consciousness we are addressing here to be particularly attractive to many women. It's discomforting, almost depressing. I wouldn't lovingly whisper "you're a mindless slave to your instincts " into a girl's ear if I was expecting action. Yea, but then you would be displaying stupidity and not intelligence.

I think saying "your ass is totally giving me a boner" would be less disastrous.See, that would be the smart thing to say.

Xev
When a man talks to me about a subject I am interested in, he engages my facility of judgement. I am evaluating his statements, opposing him or agreeing with him, making associations and generally using my analytical brain. This is very far from sexual excitation. Yes, but it might lead to it.
You are paying attention to him for one thing.

Nobody is attracted to intelligence. Have you ever wanted to bone a women over her linear calculus books?
Of course not. Attractiveness is based on physical appearence, not whether a person can parse Hegel. No not for men.

But how many times have you heard a woman say they like men with a sense of humour?
What is a sense of humour a sign of?

Obviously physical appearance is important but I find that for women it isn’t enough, as it is for most men.

But I'm merely woman-like and not an actual woman, so I wouldn't know.

And for that matter, one is rarely attracted to a person even for their physical qualities. It's just a matter of finding an outlet for one's horniness.

So that is how intelligence may help you get laid, at least by those who prefer the company of the intelligent. Eventually, when you are silent or chattering about mindless things, they consider you an outlet and you get laid.There’s nothing wrong with admitting that some of our actions and desires are not controlled or produced by the rational mind and that we are guided by primitive programming.
I do not crave certain food more than others because I’ve rationally decided to.

Being obsessed or totally helpless to them is one thing, denying their influence upon our needs is another thing.

Wanderer:
You are paying attention to him for one thing.

And if he's good enough company I might eventually be horny some time when he is around. But I'm not talking about relationships, I'm talking about sex appeal.

But how many times have you heard a woman say they like men with a sense of humour?

About as many times as I've heard women say that they are attracted to sensitive men who cry and dress well.
To this day, I've never met a woman who'd think of a guy like that as anything more than a fag.

In any case, you're confusing liking a person with being sexually attracted to them. Those are at least independant, if not opposed.

There’s nothing wrong with admitting that some of our actions and desires are not controlled or produced by the rational mind and that we are guided by primitive programming.

There's nothing wrong with writing concise sentances either.
But that has nothing to do with anything.

Wanderer;
No, I started by examining the natural world as well.
I used to sit for hours, when I was a boy in Greece, under the hot sun watching ants and how chickens interacted.
Later on I watched documentaries and began noticing that human behaviour was exactly the same and only the packaging and honesty was different.
Excellent.
The one thing I cop shit here the most for is constantly referring to the animal kingdom when people are being discussed, like it's some zany outlandish tactic worthy of ridicule. Everyone knows in the back of their mind that people are animals, but when stumped on one of the mysteries of man they never look towards the animal kingdom for answers.
I feel validated by a second person understanding this. I was confident with my thoughts, but try saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" a thousand times without starting to feel insane. It's harder than it seems.

But wouldn’t “deep thinking” be a genetic marker along with the physical ones?
Deep thinking isn't necessarrily a valued trait. Problem solving ability and ingenuity are practical forms of intelligence. Deep thinking is good for nothing, really. It's time wasting. Intelligence that helps one understand the universe isn't as useful as intelligence that helps one be successful within the universe, at least in the near future.
And I think what females are generally attracted to seems to correlate with that.

Xev,
Nobody is attracted to intelligence. Have you ever wanted to bone a women over her linear calculus books?
Yeah I have, only because it would totally blow that square broad's mind to be boned by the lou natic in the middle of the library, not because I'm attracted to her brain.
I'm definately not attracted to smart girls and have never claimed to be. If their lack of intelligence is really a burden I find that to be a turn off, but I also find overly smart girls to be just as unattractive if they feel the need to show off their massive brain every second of every day. Intelligence is irrelevent to me as long as it isn't so much or so little to the point where it's a burden.
I care more about a girl's presence, I hate loud "cool" girls, nothing is less attractive to me than wailing spring break whores. And it's not because they're morons, I'm not sure what it is, they just make me sick.
In grease I preferred sandra dee before she put on the black leotard. (for the record- I find whoever that bitch is who played that character to be particularly repugnant, but I'm just trying to make an easily understandable point).
Actually, I don't really know what I like, and I'll get to that later.

And for that matter, one is rarely attracted to a person even for their physical qualities. It's just a matter of finding an outlet for one's horniness.

So that is how intelligence may help you get laid, at least by those who prefer the company of the intelligent. Eventually, when you are silent or chattering about mindless things, they consider you an outlet and you get laid.
Keep in mind, we do fuck our hands.
If we feel comfortable enough around someone they usually begin looking "good enough".
There is definately no correlation, for me, between the attractiveness of the people I've boned and my enjoyment. Nor is there a correllation between their intelligence and my enjoyment. Nor their ability to "hump good". I've had alot of fun on top of inexperienced, simple, plain girls who laid there like a log. And I've come away from big "productions" organised by hot girls who used every trick in the book (cosmopolitan) to impress me, feeling unsatisfied (by man standards- still rubbed one out ofcourse).
Certain girls are just 'fuckable' and others aren't as fuckable.
Why I find some girls attractive and others not is still a big mystery to me. My friends have pretty normal tastes, I can tell when a girl is technically beautifull and rank women accordingly. I could rank girls in the way I know my friends would rank. But it wouldn't honestly fit my preferences. 1 in a hundred girls just stick out to me, sometimes they are very hot and other times they are almost ugly. But the ugly ones are more attractive to me than technically beautiful ones that don't stand out. And its got nothing to do with intelligence or personality or anything. Sometimes I'll see an ugly girl from the car window, having never met her in my life, and she'll just seem beautifull. And I see thousands of perfect girls everyday. But one average or below average or slightly above average, or yes sometimes ridiculously hot girl will stand out for no apparent reason, something about them sparks my interest. There isn't a higher percentage of hot girls that stand out, the stand outs are evenly dispersed across all genres- except for the hideous genre- hideous stand outs are rare. But not unheard of come to think of it. I think hideous standouts are more for warped fantasies. My mind is less fussy than my body. I've been made sick during the the act of intercourse, thinking I could stomach hammering some creature, and finding out I couldn't.

Becoming perfectly comfortable around a girl though, will usually make her start seeming attractive. I think thats the same for girls. Some gross guys are just really good at making girls feel comfortable and you will see them with hot girlfriends. I know some fat ugly guys who often bang really top quality poon.
It irritates me to no end. Not even because I'm jealous, but because seeing a hot girl being fucked by a gross dude immediately gives you a feeling like you're witnessing rape or pedophilia, it's just disturbing for some reason.

But it's equally or more probable that was a polite way of saying "having nice boobies"
No some guys definately at least try to like smart girls. I think it's alot like taste in music myself. I think some people lie to themselves so they can be the person they think would be cool.
They would like to be the guy who is attracted to smart girls, more than they are actually attracted to smart girls.
Thats just what it seems like to me, maybe they legitimately are attracted to smart girls, but it never comes off that way.
Same for everything, I find it hard to believe anyone who says they are attracted to certain things. Like guys who only like really fit girls with abs. I've seen them feign disgust with really stunning girls because they're slightly chubby, even though you can hear a tremble in their derogatory comments which indicates they're blown away by her. They just have it in their heads that they are attracted to girls with toned athletic bodies, thats the guy they want to be.
And you mention boobies- I don't think guys care as much about tit-size as they pretend either. Some girls can pull off a flat chest, and it's just blatantly obvious they are pulling it off, but self proclaimed tit-fan will tell himself the flat chested girl is no good because he's developed this character in his head who is crazy about tits.
Girls have told me they wished my eyes were a different colour, and its just a load of shit. In their boy talk sessions they said "my ideal guy would have grey eyes with little blue specks in them" and then the guy they really are attracted to doesn't have eyes like that so they pretend to be disappointed.
Isn't it wierd how this kind of almost got back on topic?

Xev
And if he's good enough company I might eventually be horny some time when he is around. But I'm not talking about relationships, I'm talking about sex appeal. Isn’t confidence a part of sex appeal?
What is confidence a product of?

About as many times as I've heard women say that they are attracted to sensitive men who cry and dress well.
To this day, I've never met a woman who'd think of a guy like that as anything more than a fag.Really!
Well that says something about the environment you live in.
But I didn’t say anything about sensitivity or dressing well, did I?

I was talking about humor and mind.

There's nothing wrong with writing concise sentances either.
But that has nothing to do with anything.OK. stop

I will keep sentence short. stop

I will become concise. stop

I will now stop. stop.

Next communication in 0500 hours. stop.

Dr Lou Natic
Excellent.
The one thing I cop shit here the most for is constantly referring to the animal kingdom when people are being discussed, like it's some zany outlandish tactic worthy of ridicule. Everyone knows in the back of their mind that people are animals, but when stumped on one of the mysteries of man they never look towards the animal kingdom for answers.
I feel validated by a second person understanding this. I was confident with my thoughts, but try saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" a thousand times without starting to feel insane. It's harder than it seems. Most people, especially of the Christian variety, try to distance themselves from their primal roots.
They prefer to believe they are special or that they have surpassed their instincts and are now products of their free-will.
This delusion makes them more easily manipulated by the very things they deny in themselves.

Deep thinking isn't necessarrily a valued trait. Problem solving ability and ingenuity are practical forms of intelligence. Deep thinking is good for nothing, really. It's time wasting. Intelligence that helps one understand the universe isn't as useful as intelligence that helps one be successful within the universe, at least in the near future.
And I think what females are generally attracted to seems to correlate with that. True, but it all depends on many factors.

Does the person possessing critical thought have the courage to accept what he realizes?
Does that person remain skeptical even about his own evaluations?
Does that person turn his minds-eye towards practical matters or only concerns himself with abstraction?

Being aware of what underlies phenomena might not have immediate practical applications unless you make a concerted effort to construct them.
Deeper understanding can either inhibit action or promote it.

This is exactly the problem with a lot of the philosophizing that occurs in Forums like this or in life, in general.
The ones indulging in it remain in the abstract and never try to apply their insights to daily life. They prefer talking about abstract concepts indefinitely and with no conclusion in sight, as a kind of distraction or as a showing-off of possibility, and they avoid anything that personalizes knowledge.

Isn't it wierd how this kind of almost got back on topic?Isn’t sexual attraction basically governed by intuition and instinct, where reason has no effect?

We may be aware that a certain girl is perfect for us but our physical body, directed by more primitive criteria, will be attracted to another even if she might be the worst thing for us.

That’s why I said that the standards used by the conscious mind are different from those of the instinctive mind.

Dr. Lou Natic:
If we feel comfortable enough around someone they usually begin looking "good enough".

Basically. The quality of sex is not dependant on how a guy looks. If anything, 'prettyboys' aren't insecure enough to be good in bed. They take everything for granted.

Certain girls are just 'fuckable' and others aren't as fuckable.

That's it, isn't it.
And it does not matter especially much how they look or whether they are intelligent. Granted I likely wouldn't be attracted to the truly ugly, but I've known a lot of hot guys in my life who did nothing for me.

It irritates me to know end. Not even because I'm jealous, but because seeing a hot girl being fucked by a gross dude immediately gives you a feeling like you're witnessing rape or pedophilia, it's just disturbing for some reason.

What's wrong with rape and pedophilia? If there's grass on the field...

Comfortability is a reason, but there are also those -
A hot girl is sitting next to a hot guy. Who's going to get more attention?
A hot girl is sitting next to a decent or plain looking guy. She'll get the more attention. Some guys may slap him on the back for it, but they'll also try to fuck her. Plus, plain looking guy is probably going to worship her for being hot and condescending to fuck him. He'll never think of it that way, but he'll treat her way better than another hot guy would treat her.

No some guys definately at least try to like smart girls. I think it's alot like taste in music myself. I think some people lie to themselves so they can be the person they think would be cool.

Precisely.
Or it's more that they don't want to be the person who fucks the non-smart. Like white men who refuse to even consider asian women. Or tease their friends about fucking unattractive, slutty women. Not looking desperate is way more important than the sex would be.

It's just one of those excuses people give.
I used to do science experiments when my friends and I would go out. Ask why a guy is attracted to me. Once they got over the initial shock, they all said that it was because I was attractive, funny, and seemed pretty smart.
Absolute bullshit. I can take the first, but I have no social charm among strangers - I am not funny, and I rarely act intelligent.

But it's engrained in a male's programming to say that he's attracted to women who are funny and smart - and some other variables.

And you mention boobies- I don't think guys care as much about tit-size as they pretend either.

Which goes back to topic. Men generally note one physical feature that they find attractive. But then they date women who aren't at all well endowed in that area. Obviously a lot of this is desperation, but I don't believe any one physical feature can play a determining role.

So for topic - attraction is a product of many intuitive judgements.

Wanderer:
Isn’t confidence a part of sex appeal?
What is confidence a product of?

The kind of confidence you mention is not sexy. As I mentioned above, insecure men are generally better sexually.
But in any case: Security in your ability to do well in social situations. That is about instinct and not intelligence.

Very few of the most intelligent - Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Faraday - were socially adequete. Indeed there is something of a correlation between extremely high IQ and social ineptitude.


Well that says something about the environment you live in.

No, I'm sure Dr. Lou Natic, who lives in England, would say the same thing about women. It says more about your very skewed perspective of females.

I was talking about humor and mind.

And 'humor' is the same case as 'sensitive faggotry'.
If girls do like a 'sense of humor', it's generally that mean, frat-boy sense of humor. They don't like it because it's funny, they like it because they think the guy is powerful because he is mean.

They prefer talking about abstract concepts indefinitely and with no conclusion in sight, as a kind of distraction or as a showing-off of possibility, and they avoid anything that personalizes knowledge.

Sour grapes much?

Isn’t sexual attraction basically governed by intuition and instinct, where reason has no effect?


So why are you insisting that people are attracted to intelligence?
Of course reason has an effect. Any moderately self-disciplined person can *stop* being attracted to a person they don't want to be attracted to.

But attraction isn't based on superfluous things like "humor" and "intelligence". It's based on a sense of fitness - or more often, being horny at the right time.

Xev
The kind of confidence you mention is not sexy. As I mentioned above, insecure men are generally better sexually.
But in any case: Security in your ability to do well in social situations. That is about instinct and not intelligence. And insecure women give the best blowjobs,then.

But instinct and intuition is a form of intelligence or more precisely a form of sensibility which enhances intelligence.

The mind is cultivated through the amount of information it processes or the amount of perceptions it can make conscious.
The information it cannot wrap itself around it calls feelings those it can reproduce or symbolically analyze through abstraction it calls understanding and knowledge.

To feel something is a way of knowing but to then be able to verbalize what is felt is the mind becoming master of what is felt; it is then understood rather than just felt.
The sensibility is interpreted into terms that can be consciously grasped.

That’s why a perception that cannot be verbalized or expressed through mathematics is not fully comprehended.
The mind just sees shadows of it.

Very few of the most intelligent - Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Faraday - were socially adequete. Indeed there is something of a correlation between extremely high IQ and social ineptitude. I don’t know how verifiable or correct that is but nevertheless there is a correlation between a certain kind of intelligence and antisocial behavior or social clumsiness.
The factors could be more than just high I.Q.

Intelligence, for example, can be focused towards social adaptation and manipulation and therefore lack the academic character or it can be focused towards knowledge and abstraction and lack practical effectiveness.

No, I'm sure Dr. Lou Natic, who lives in England, would say the same thing about women. It says more about your very skewed perspective of females.. My perspective is just like yours, a hypothesis based on speculation and observation and affected by psychology, intellectual aptitude and environment.

And 'humor' is the same case as 'sensitive faggotry'. Those are just your words.
I can use others.
I’d hate to see your ideal male type.

If girls do like a 'sense of humor', it's generally that mean, frat-boy sense of humor. They don't like it because it's funny, they like it because they think the guy is powerful because he is mean.Here you are speaking subjectively.

Sour grapes much? Hardly.
It’s easy talking about abstract ideas and forever analyzing free-will, God, and so on.
It’s easy because no one answer is right or wrong.

What’s difficult is applying knowledge successfully.
Reality knows no scepticism. Failure is its judge

So why are you insisting that people are attracted to intelligence?I didn’t say people, I said women.

The advantages to the offspring the immediate advantages of critical thought and ingenuity are what a woman wants in a mate.
But not only...

But attraction isn't based on superfluous things like "humor" and "intelligence". It's based on a sense of fitness - or more often, being horny at the right time.So attraction is a matter of happenstance?
I disagree.

Isn’t fitness of mind just as relevant as physical fitness?

Why did someone reply and then erase the reply?
Must have been really vile and insulting.

Attraction is a matter of more than just happenstance for a woman. It's a combination of many things, including sensory input, intuition, emotion and partially instinct. For example, if a man smells good, or touches you in the right way, you can become attracted to them. But women can also sense the kind of man they like to hand around with. For some women, it's the rebel to be tamed type. For some, it's the intelligent man who has confidence. The bad boy, the effeminate, the slapstick comedian, the humble, the dreamer, the ambitious... and there are so many more, but women can sense these things even sometimes before they are introduced. And what attracts one woman, and repels another are so varied that you cannot make the blanket statement that "most women like a bad guy" or "most women don't like sensitive men". Women come to the conclusion based on small observations that men sometimes do not see. In general, women do pay more attention to sensory details, that men often ignore because they see a package.

I agree that intelligence is directly related to intution in women, and can sometimes be see as common sense. Women's common sense is almost a direct result of what she has learned, and intuition. The smarter the woman, the most adept the common sense becomes. Women, in general, do not based their initial reaction on logic and reason, but on intuition alone. That poses a big problem however, that logic and reason could solve, which is acting before you think. When they have an intuition about a male they act on that intuition, often without reviewing the facts and thinking logically and rationally about the situation. Emotion, tricked by intuition overrides the reason factor and opens us up for problems.

I am attracted to intelligent men, and I ended up married to one. It was not his look that originally attracted me, as I did not meet in person until four years after we started talking. He made me laugh with intelligent quips, and stimulated my mind by reading with me and having long conversations about it. It was his humor, and his intelligence that endeared him to me and when we did meet in person it wasn't a question of looks. Although, he did knock my socks off as well phyisically, he would have been the type I would have chosen regardless. Six years later, we are still together.

Arditezza:
Attraction is a matter of more than just happenstance for a woman. It's a combination of many things, including sensory input, intuition, emotion and partially instinct.

Yes, and seeing those things in a man at the right time. A man can stimulate all those things, but not be attractive to a woman, just because of other circumstances. For instance even Viggo Mortensen would not be very attractive to a woman, if she is in a satisfying relationship.

Women, in general, do not based their initial reaction on logic and reason, but on intuition alone.

What, you mean anyone does?!
Hell, even science is not based on logic and reason alone. Intuition and aesthetics play a determining role -- even if the final call is experimentation.

I am attracted to intelligent men, and I ended up married to one.

But sexually? People are ignoring my point - which is not that intelligence is not attractive, but that it's not sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is generally treated as this blind, mindless force - what does that have to do with intelligence?

I think this is a confusion of cause and effect. It's not that a man is intelligent, that makes him sexually attractive, but that he is intelligent so one enjoys his company, becomes comfortable with him, and then finds him sexually attractive. But perhaps my perspective is skewed.

Wanderer:
Why did someone reply and then erase the reply?

Obviously if you saw my reply, then you know its content, and that it was neither vile nor particularly insulting -- but rather uninspired.

And insecure women give the best blowjobs,then.

How would you know? Stick to your area of expertise - Holland tunnel hookers.

The factors could be more than just high I.Q.

Obviously. Dedication.
Hypatia of Alexandria handed her used sanitary napkin to an admirer who wouldn't leave her alone. Diogenes slept in a barrel. Newton would get so lost in thought that he fell off his horse.
Dedication. People of equal intelligence but having less dedication just didn't get as much accomplished.

Intelligence, for example, can be focused towards social adaptation and manipulation and therefore lack the academic character or it can be focused towards knowledge and abstraction and lack practical effectiveness.

Newton's mechanics have more practical effectiveness than "all the well-learned politess" in the world. As for personal satisfaction...they probably gave him more of that as well.

I can use others.

What, you bought "third grade wordlist: expand your vocabulary!" flash cards?

I’d hate to see your ideal male type.

Why would you care what an anonymous abstraction of a human female - who may or may not be female - has as ideal male type?

Besides, didn't you know that I'm a gigantic she-beast lacking all social skills? It's not like I can have an ideal type.
But I guess - I like cute guys who give me food. If Viggo Mortensen brought some herring snacks over...yeah, that's my ideal.

I didn’t say people, I said women.


I see. Women aren't people.
There is not too much difference between what men find attractive and what women find attractive. There are simply different strategies, different tempos, as Nietzsche would say.

Excessive intelligence is a survival hazard. Critical thinking is useful to our species, but the level of critical thinking needed to survive is possessed by the average human. Anything above that can be disadventagous.

See the death of Roger Bacon for illustration.

But sexually? People are ignoring my point - which is not that intelligence is not attractive, but that it's not sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is generally treated as this blind, mindless force - what does that have to do with intelligence?

I think this is a confusion of cause and effect. It's not that a man is intelligent, that makes him sexually attractive, but that he is intelligent so one enjoys his company, becomes comfortable with him, and then finds him sexually attractive. But perhaps my perspective is skewed.

The fact that a man is stupid, is a turnoff. I may be attracted to his looks and walk over to him to talk, but if everything out of his mouth sounds like, 'duh duh duh' then it's a huge turn off, sexually. I am turned on by the idea that my husband is open to new ways of fucking, wants to talk about his fantasies, and knows a lot about the female body. That insures that my lover will not only feed my desires, but also know what he wants as well and communicate that to me. It's the dirty, well written notes he leaves to me in the medicine cabinet when I am already late for work. It's the fact that I can talk to him on an intelligent level about sex and don't have to explain every detail. It's the fact that I don't have to lead, I can just share. Every experience I've had with a unintelligent male, has been goal-oriented in that he just wants to get off. Intelligent men make better lovers in the long run, and that alone is sexually attractive. Perhaps it's a learned response on my part.

Johnny Depp is cute, and I'd probably be attracted to him if everything that came out of his mouth didn't sound like his IQ was 80. But it does, and so it goes. I'm more sexually attracted to intelligent men, because in my experience they make better lovers.

Actually, I agree with Xev. The aspect of intelligence in a sexual situation, I find, brushes off a certain crudeness, a certain rawness, and definitely stifles a certain breathlessness that lust prefers to feed off of. So although there's a sexual attraction in an "intelligent" rapport, the rapport nonetheless cannot escape a certain sense of careful measurement where a certain dark mystery is wanting -- probably why, I'm just guessing here, bondage has become such a popular lure these days.

But if I'm seeking a solid relationship, I won't expect to find it in an empire of sin where intuition dances fleetingly, nakedly and spontaneously. I prefer sin. Lol.

Anyway -- that's me. Hi kids. How was the salt?

Actually, I agree with Xev. The aspect of intelligence in a sexual situation, I find, brushes off a certain crudeness, a certain rawness, and definitely stifles a certain breathlessness that lust prefers to feed off of. So although there's a sexual attraction in an "intelligent" rapport, the rapport nonetheless cannot escape a certain sense of careful measurement where a certain dark mystery is wanting -- probably why, I'm just guessing here, bondage has become such a popular lure these days.

But if I'm seeking a solid relationship, I won't expect to find it in an empire of sin where intuition dances fleetingly, nakedly and spontaneously. I prefer sin. Lol.

Anyway -- that's me. Hi kids. How was the salt?

I disagree that intelligence twarts the crude, raw, and lusty type of sex. Intelligent people are not above letting go of their inhabitions, and they do not neccessarily want to unravel every mystery. Marriage and kids can do those things to some extent, meaning you sometimes have to plan ahead... but not just intelligence alone. Most of the really intelligent people I know, are lovely sinners and not afraid to talk about it.

Arditezza:
The fact that a man is stupid, is a turnoff.

But that doesn't mean a smart man is necessarily a turn-on. Men like Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt are the sex idols, not Steve Hawking and Roger Penrose.

But it does, and so it goes

Again, that's a negative judgement. I agree also, that stupidity is a turn-off - for me - but that doesn't mean intelligence is a turn-on.
An attractive man who moves in a certain way is more appealing than an intelligent man who doesn't have "that".
There are several important qualities I value in a man, not necessarily sexually - intelligence is one of the less important ones. Virtue, strength and fidelity, purity and sensitivity, those are more important to me than intelligence.

Intelligence is overrated. In feeling sexual attraction, or respect for a person, the purity and strength of their instincts is much more important to me than their IQ. I have confidence in my intellect - but it has not made me better, more powerful or more compassionate. I value intelligence, but not our modern cult of the brain.

Besides, there's something incredibly kinky about getting fucked by your intellectual inferiour.

an.droidv2:
The aspect of intelligence in a sexual situation, I find, brushes off a certain crudeness, a certain rawness, and definitely stifles a certain breathlessness that lust prefers to feed off of.

Yes. It also adds the interpersonal element - that can be a good thing, but it can be a big distraction.

/Edit: Noticed this:
So although there's a sexual attraction in an "intelligent" rapport, the rapport nonetheless cannot escape a certain sense of careful measurement where a certain dark mystery is wanting -- probably why, I'm just guessing here, bondage has become such a popular lure these days.

No, that's because the Yuppies want to preserve the illusion of contempt and aggression while using condoms and forming mature relationships.

Hawking is a sex god.

To be fair, my first crush was on my ap physics teacher. I did soo much extra-credit just to see him during office hours. :)

I disagree that intelligence twarts the crude, raw, and lusty type of sex. Intelligent people are not above letting go of their inhabitions, and they do not neccessarily want to unravel every mystery. Marriage and kids can do those things to some extent, meaning you sometimes have to plan ahead... but not just intelligence alone. Most of the really intelligent people I know, are lovely sinners and not afraid to talk about it.

Of course an intellect can be attractive -- there's no question. But why? Because the guy is also something more, right? And that's what I'm pointing at. That you're in love with the robe your guy is wearing; his intellectual robe. The way I see it, I prefer to make-out without my glasses on -- without the tedious observations of an overseeing "intellect" analysing my every move. To each his own, right?

So you claim you can hang loose nonetheless. Sure -- I'm not arguing with that. But you initially said that you...
may be attracted to his looks and walk over to him to talk, but if everything out of his mouth sounds like, 'duh duh duh' then it's a huge turn off, sexually.

Yet, when I am aroused, I won't walk over with the intention to talk... but to smell.

So you continue to prescribe, or describe a vigilance:


my husband is open to new ways ... wants to talk about his fantasies ... knows a lot about ... that insures ... my desires ... and communicate ... to me ... well written notes ... I can talk to him ... on an intelligent level ... don't have to explain every detail ... I don't have to lead ... Intelligent men make better lovers ...


What if your sexually healthy intellectual guy was struck with an obscure virus that debilitated the intellect, the memory, his concentration -- but retained everything else, his poise, his fitness, his good teeth? Would he still be sexy? Would you shrink away from his touch? Would you abandon him?

Actually, I should reread this thread should you reply -- I sort of jumped in. Just like that. Out of the blue.
<br />

Yes. It also adds the interpersonal element - that can be a good thing, but it can be a big distraction.


Yea -- a distraction that intrudes and inhibits the mindlessness of our instincts. Isn't good sex ultimately the deletion of the personality? And to allow the instincts (intuition?) to take over?

Xev,

I am not saying that intelligence is the primary attraction points to a man, but it is one for me. I simply won't sleep with someone stupid, whether I am horny at the time or not. It just isn't worth my time. They have to smell good, look well presented, touch me in the right way, have open body language, and they have to be able to talk to me at my level. I'm just not interested if they don't have those qualities. I've always been a bit conservative with who I sleep with, so horny or not I am very choosy.

Android,

I don't think I would find him sexually attractive if he lost his mental capacity. His mind is just as important as his body when it comes to sex. I would probably still love and take care of him, but there wouldn't be that energy or stimulation that I want when I am having sex.

Arditezza:
I am not saying that intelligence is the primary attraction points to a man, but it is one for me. I simply won't sleep with someone stupid, whether I am horny at the time or not.

Makes enough sense. But plenty of men aren't as smart as you are, but are not stupid either.
Being sexually attracted to someone doesn't necessarily mean that you will sleep with them. I was incredibly attracted to the above teacher - and for obvious reasons never slept with him, never even considered sleeping with him.

Like I said:
"Or it's more that they don't want to be the person who fucks the non-smart. Like white men who refuse to even consider asian women. Or tease their friends about fucking unattractive, slutty women. Not looking desperate is way more important than the sex would be."

It's not that they're unattractive, it's that maintaining standards is more important.

You're giving me reasons, and they are convincing reasons, but I do not think sexual attraction has much to do with reasons - even convincing ones.

an>droidv2:
Yea -- a distraction that intrudes and inhibits the mindlessness of our instincts. Isn't good sex ultimately the deletion of the personality? And to allow the instincts (intuition?) to take over?

No, that's suicide. Good sex is the deletion of the super-ego.

It's not that they're unattractive, it's that maintaining standards is more important.
That seems to me to be more a function of personal social pretense than standards; concerning yourself more over what others will think about your sexual choices, than pursuing choices grounded in true attraction to the spirit of the other.

But sexually? People are ignoring my point - which is not that intelligence is not attractive, but that it's not sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is generally treated as this blind, mindless force - what does that have to do with intelligence?

Xev made me think of an aspect of the discussion that hasn't been brought up yet.

Cognition's role in the subconscious.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider myself largely defined by my thoughts. As a result, my thoughts have a lot to do in determining the way I feel about things. So what does sexual attraction have to do with intelligence? If you identify yourself with your thoughts and intelligence is something you consider important in a partner, then it can have a lot to do with whether your not you find someone sexually attractive.

The conscious is a very powerful thing. It's been found in the 70's that you can control the body's visceral functions with it by means of operant conditioning for crissakes! In other words, you can control things like blood pressure, skin temperature, heart rate, digestion, (a lot of things).

I like to think of ourselves as programmers and our brains as computers. We have RAM (short term memory), hard drives (long-term memory), firmware (hardwired software), and software (which is largely created by ourselves and society). Whenever we're not present and our minds are drifting, it's the software that runs the show.

The way I see it is, if you can consciously control visceral organs, it should be possible to consciously control the subconscious, by means of operant conditioning.

I like to think of ourselves as programmers and our brains as computers.
I see it very differently. I think our conscious mind(ourselves) is like a dog and our subconscious is like a dog trainer.
Dogs don't understand english, you can teach a dog to understand the word "fart" as roll over. The important thing is you reward them for doing what you want them to do and punish them for doing what you don't want them to do.
We traditionally didn't understand that sex was to make babies, but we were commanded to make babies and rewarded for obeying this command- just as an example, the same applies to everything we do.
We do what the subconscious wants, without necessarrily being aware of its agenda or motives. Some of us are badly behaved, and some of us might be able to manipulate our trainer to a degree, but in the larger scheme of things the subconscious is definately the dominant member of the relationship.

It's true that the subconscious is clearly the dominant member in the relationship. Very few of our actions are made consciously. When I talked about my programmer/computer analogy, I should have mentioned that generally, we are very bad programmers. And our bad programs affect us a lot. How do some people get so fat? I'm not talking about fat people either. I'm talking about VERY fat people. It's because of the shitty programs they've written.

That said, when people take charge and consciously develop habits which promote health and happiness, they will become the people they want to be, and thus be on the road to self-actualization.

apendrapew
It's true that the subconscious is clearly the dominant member in the relationship. Very few of our actions are made consciously. When I talked about my programmer/computer analogy, I should have mentioned that generally, we are very bad programmers. And our bad programs affect us a lot. How do some people get so fat? I'm not talking about fat people either. I'm talking about VERY fat people. It's because of the shitty programs they've written.

That said, when people take charge and consciously develop habits which promote health and happiness, they will become the people they want to be, and thus be on the road to self-actualization.True.
Here the matter of nature/nurture arises.

Sure we can reprogram ourselves but, in my opinion, there are limits to the alterations that can be made.
Where nature determines potential, nurture determines how much of that potential is attained.

Although I recognize that subconscious influences can be ignored and discipline of mind can overcome them, I also acknowledge that there are intuitive messages and instinctive predicates that can only be escaped through death or by denying life, in the Buddhist Shopenhaurean sense.

The thing with weakness is that it responds by going to the extremes.
It either completely surrenders to hedonism or it retaliates by complete denial.