The Male Logic Fallacy — What Drives All Of Human Behavior?
The secret reason why there is a “like” button.
Every day women are faced with illogical male behaviors, which don’t make any sense at all. Sometimes these behaviors are so irrational, that they may start to wonder: what does it mean to be human? If this is how humanity acts, maybe I’m not human? Maybe I’m a fantastic creature? Maybe I’m a ghoul or a siren? If this is how you feel, this essay is for you. We’ll analyze men and their behaviors, as if we’ve just landed on earth, in hopes of getting a greater understanding. Still, this is just one point of view, and not everyone has to agree with it. The conclusions presented here are just one, personal take on things.
Currently, in the US, 90 percent of prison inmates are men. It wasn’t logic, that landed them behind bars. It was emotion. It seems, that we are forbidden by our social custom, to admit that men act irrationally, motivated by their instincts and emotions. Men are more likely to commit so-called crimes of passion. These are acts of physical battery or murder, which result from being overtaken by strong emotions of love, jealousy or hate. Emotions lie at the basis of all human motivations. It is almost impossible to find a behavior, which is based solely on rational thinking. But it is pleasing for men, to imagine, that they have no emotions or are not guided by them. The idea that men feel no joy, fear, anger or love is obviously a complete delusion.
Our emotions are only one part of the motivation puzzle. The other part is made up of drives, which make us feel good when satisfied, or angry and sad when frustrated. We can “reverse engineer” male behaviors to identify what kind of emotional drives were at the basis of their behavior. By observing males, we can identify the emotional urges that motivate them. Men tend to be driven by emotions a lot more frequently than women, however, women tend to be culturally allowed to express them more. Hence the stereotype that women are “guided by emotions”. Throughout history, male drives have been covered up and behaviors, which were the result of these drives, have been blamed on women.
So, if there were no men in the world, would there be no violence? Well, if ninety percent of perpetrators of crime today are men, then without them, ninety percent of violence would cease to exist. The reason why this is erased from public discourse, is because currently, the general directive given to social sciences by the powers that be, is to muddle the human understanding of themselves, and introduce confusion instead of clarity. Don’t you find it odd that it is considered the purest form of thought in social sciences, to reach unclear conclusions, rather than certainty? Isn’t it weird that more often than not, psychologists compare various under-sampled studies with different results and let people figure out why the results vary?
We are taught to believe that uncertainty is worth more than certainty, that the truth is relative and that ambiguity signifies sophistication. What if, this tendency is just an emotionally motivated, transient trend, that will perish in less than a decade? What if, there is no logical foundation whatsoever, to uphold this ambiguity in conclusions? While scientists do their best to muddy the waters of truth, in the name of so-called scientific accuracy, people on the ground must make decisions and take actions every single day. To make decisions and take actions, we must decide on some version of reality. We can’t rely on scientists for reporting to us what our reality is. We can’t go out into the world and not make decisions. Especially for women, predicting male behavior is essential to survival. But when we go to science, we will not get a definitive answer to questions such as: “Should I get into the car with that man?” or “Should I let this man into my house?” and the most important question that every woman in the world asks herself almost every day: “Why do men do the things they do?” This is why we cannot completely rely on psychology.
One particular problem in psychology is dismissing observation, as the basic and primary scientific method. Psychology favors the experimental method. However, the experiment would not exist without scientists observing a regularity and then creating the experiment based on that observation. Denying the role of the observation in science, creates misleading concepts about science and the world in general. It seems that in every area of human life, there are various schools of thought, each with their own set of data, that differs from the other. We can’t sit and wait for science to deliver to us an explanation of what lies behind our everyday struggles. It will chip the block of truth with turtle speed, examining one variable at a time and research takes years to design, perform and review. So why not take matters in our own hands, and observe the world? Why not make our own, every day experiments, and based on that data, reach logical conclusions? It’s something each and every one of us does anyway.
Every day, we go out in the world and try to make sense of it, observing the luminous, teeming fabric of life. While researchers like to discard observation as an unreliable method of gathering data, the fact of the matter is — observation is the mother of all sciences and lies at the source of all revolutionary concepts, from gravity and basic laws of physics to laws of evolution and genetics. Observation is the basic component of all experiments. In an experiment, researchers look at the measuring devices to read the measurements, and observe the objects of their experiments to gather data. So essentially, most of our scientific data is a filtered through our visual sense. It seems, that what we call science is in fact — visual science, because the sense of vision is our primary method of gathering scientific data. We are being dissuaded by science, from making our own observations, so that the power of deciding, what is to be believed as true, remains in the hands of government funded organizations. There is one and only one test, that proves if we have the right data. This test performed very easily and consists of only one question: does this data help me make sense of the world?
With the right set of unfiltered data, that enriches our understanding, everyday situations will suddenly start to make sense. Where social sciences are concerned, the plethora of data from isolated factors in a multitude experiments rarely contributes to a synthetic understanding of the world. In this book, conclusions are derived from everyday observations and from common knowledge, that is easily accessible to everybody. I use some psychological concepts, that are part of this common knowledge. There is no proof that any of this is true. The only purpose of this book is to try to explain what is going on in the world, using simple logical methods, such as inference and deduction.
The key ability, that enables us to discover the truth about the world, is not intellectual intelligence, as may people will try to argue. Delivering an accurate analysis of everyday life situations is within the reach of most people. What is not within their reach however, is tolerance for the discomfort they will feel, once they have discovered an obvious, but maybe shocking truth. Most people will autocorrect their thoughts to match what is socially acceptable and to coax themselves with the lie, that the world isn’t so bad after all. Only a few will have achieved a tolerance for discomfort, that grants them a lingering clarity about the state of the world. The ability to tolerate unpleasant intellectual content, is the key factor in the process of truth discovery.
The paradoxical nature of lies about the male gender, can be detected in all walks of life, in all trades and social groups. It looks, as if an enormous amount of energy is spent collectively, for the society to appease the human male and create a system of excuses and rationalizations for their behavior. We will not weep over this, but look closer as to why this has happened, based on subjective observation of people in their natural habitat.
The reason why we need to make our own observations and conclusions is because we cannot trust science to give us answers. The entire reason for the existence of science is to explain to people why things occur the way they do, and predict future events. So now we have two types of science: one is very well paid for, operates in complete secrecy, guarded by NDA’s inside corporations. The other, official science is the irrelevant and ambiguous fodder thrown to the masses, data which doesn’t really contribute much to our understanding of the world. The corporate science aims at producing real, tangible results like changes in human behavior which serve their corporate goals and create profit.
All of our decisions are rooted in our preferences and preferences are something we gain through our personal life experience and building emotional associations. We learn to associate certain things with a pleasure and others with lack of pleasure and that’s how our personal preferences are created. Everyone has different set of preferences because of a different life experience. Logical thinking can take us from point A to point B, but it cannot establish a preference. Therefore, we must acknowledge that all humans: men and women, make decisions based on emotional content of their memory. It houses established patterns of preference, that motivate our choices.
The idea that some people use logic to make decisions while others do not, and that some people are more emotional in their choices, is false at its very foundation. We all make choices based on preferences that are in essence the emotions of like and dislike. We cannot influence what we like or dislike by means of logical thinking. That is the secret scientific knowledge, that corporations are keeping from us and using against society to their own advantage.
The personal, emotional preferences are fueled by instincts and in the case of men, by their four primordial drives — acquisition, destruction, sex and domination. It is easy to design products which aim to satisfy those primordial drives. It is no surprise, that in a society where creating revenue is at the top of the pyramid of values and technology allows to create imaginary content, these primordial drives are preyed upon, luring men with a promise of gratification. Over time, habituation to stimuli leaves them numb and craving for more stimulation. In the end, culture becomes a snake that swallows its own tail, plunging into a deeper and deeper abyss of stronger and stronger stimuli that gratify those drives.
