I'm female and find it next to impossible to discuss ideas with most women. One woman howled, "I don't want to talk like that! I want to talk about food, clothes, and men!"
I've observed a strident lack of curiosity.
"Not all!"
OF COURSE NOT ALL.
One also has to tow the party line among women or otherwise be subjected to exile. The rationale for said party line is usually MORAL, and not practical. Like "defunding the police" because those poor black men in prison (for committing crimes!)
What might be the cause of this?
There is a strident difference between men and women, with various shades of gray in between. Women generally know the domestic sphere -- she can find his keys when he can't find them. Men look outward, like their genitalia. Women look inward, like theirs. Therefore, their world is myopic and subject to anecdotal evidence and subjectivity aimed at protecting their "good names" (reputations) and not soiling the discussion with anything that might hurt their children's ears.
Note that the educational system has been mangled into a center of solipsism: fears of "harm", external locus of control, "care" "social emotional learning" and so on, which is making people stupid.
On another note, I find myself reaching for how that event over there touches me, personally, as a means of comprehending it. Putting myself in the character's shoes, for example. What similar experience have I had? If I were in this position, how would I feel? What's the closest I've ever come to that?
That said, perhaps there's a difference in the intention behind the solipsism. Is it stunting the discourse, or trying to understand?
This post REALLY upset some Subaru-Americans. Which is ironic because they should be at home making sandwiches instead of gallivanting on a substack named “Sigma Game”.
I almost feel loath to add a very striking observation from my workplace, but not quite:
I used to support two Co Heads of Department, one man, one woman. The man was a senior manager, but a visibly low performer. The woman actually knew her subject, and her job. Top management needed to do something about that, so in the next re-org, they merged their departments and he was placed under her, to report into her.
He "got the message", he started looking for a job elsewhere, and a few months later he did the honorable thing and: resigned.
During the habitual Leaving Drinks, one's manager is supposed to talk about the Leaver's career. In this case: That woman was supposed to give a short speech about the guy's achievements, even though flimsy as they were.
But that woman however talked 9 of her 10 mins speech about herself. How "she remembers how we worked in the beginning, and what MY senior manager back then said about ME back when we were just juniors" (and blah and blah). She hardly said anything about the poor guy at all!
I found that behaviour quite stunning. Nobody else really "got it" -- she's very good at "Mgmt Speak". And yes, she's much stronger at their (joint) job than he was (not only in talk, also in content). And at the time and today I very much agreed with the re-org and it's consequences.
But observably, even a high performing "senior manager woman" simply cannot escape her obligatory solipsism.
"Female Solipsism." Great name for it. My one aunt really exemplifies these tendencies, but its observable to various degrees all around you. And.. once you first notice it, you cannot unsee it. Relatedly, a woman who makes every topic about herself will also invariably NEVER shut the fuck up. Its basically a 1:1 correspondence from what I've seen, so both phenomena are likely mapping the same underlying factor(s).
Women: Inscrutable. Is what is. Take it or leave it.
Checking to see if I understand this concept. Commenting on a subject of discussion on how you've experienced said subject of discussion is not solipsism, it is transferring the central point of the discussion such that the discussion is now about your experience that is solipsistic? Reaching for the tiniest tie in to the current discussion from your personal experience so that you stay relevant to the discussion?
I tend to converse with more intelligent women, so I don't observe this behavior very often. At social gatherings, the superficial attendees of both sexes tend to find one another and jabber away.
Is she your ex wife because of the fatness or the way she ate?
I'm female and find it next to impossible to discuss ideas with most women. One woman howled, "I don't want to talk like that! I want to talk about food, clothes, and men!"
I've observed a strident lack of curiosity.
"Not all!"
OF COURSE NOT ALL.
One also has to tow the party line among women or otherwise be subjected to exile. The rationale for said party line is usually MORAL, and not practical. Like "defunding the police" because those poor black men in prison (for committing crimes!)
What might be the cause of this?
There is a strident difference between men and women, with various shades of gray in between. Women generally know the domestic sphere -- she can find his keys when he can't find them. Men look outward, like their genitalia. Women look inward, like theirs. Therefore, their world is myopic and subject to anecdotal evidence and subjectivity aimed at protecting their "good names" (reputations) and not soiling the discussion with anything that might hurt their children's ears.
Note that the educational system has been mangled into a center of solipsism: fears of "harm", external locus of control, "care" "social emotional learning" and so on, which is making people stupid.
On another note, I find myself reaching for how that event over there touches me, personally, as a means of comprehending it. Putting myself in the character's shoes, for example. What similar experience have I had? If I were in this position, how would I feel? What's the closest I've ever come to that?
That said, perhaps there's a difference in the intention behind the solipsism. Is it stunting the discourse, or trying to understand?
Women want 2 things:
1) more
2) something else.
This kat lady is hilarious .
This post REALLY upset some Subaru-Americans. Which is ironic because they should be at home making sandwiches instead of gallivanting on a substack named “Sigma Game”.
One of the most legendary examples of female solipsism comes from Hillary Clinton:
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
Blathering emotional non sequiturs in a rational discussion…
Proof of concept FTW.
"Lol well the problem is they affect the entire world with their bullshit. For example, civilian deaths in WWII.
They're still rational though! And not self-obsessed, clearly. I mean that's what's going on in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Pure, sheer projection."
Hmmmmm..... doubling down....... I wish someone would write a book about that. /s
I almost feel loath to add a very striking observation from my workplace, but not quite:
I used to support two Co Heads of Department, one man, one woman. The man was a senior manager, but a visibly low performer. The woman actually knew her subject, and her job. Top management needed to do something about that, so in the next re-org, they merged their departments and he was placed under her, to report into her.
He "got the message", he started looking for a job elsewhere, and a few months later he did the honorable thing and: resigned.
During the habitual Leaving Drinks, one's manager is supposed to talk about the Leaver's career. In this case: That woman was supposed to give a short speech about the guy's achievements, even though flimsy as they were.
But that woman however talked 9 of her 10 mins speech about herself. How "she remembers how we worked in the beginning, and what MY senior manager back then said about ME back when we were just juniors" (and blah and blah). She hardly said anything about the poor guy at all!
I found that behaviour quite stunning. Nobody else really "got it" -- she's very good at "Mgmt Speak". And yes, she's much stronger at their (joint) job than he was (not only in talk, also in content). And at the time and today I very much agreed with the re-org and it's consequences.
But observably, even a high performing "senior manager woman" simply cannot escape her obligatory solipsism.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I saw this in action recently on Facebook.
Man: My teenage son is missing. Here's his picture. Please help me find him.
Woman: Your name sounds familiar. Did I teach you in third grade?
"Female Solipsism." Great name for it. My one aunt really exemplifies these tendencies, but its observable to various degrees all around you. And.. once you first notice it, you cannot unsee it. Relatedly, a woman who makes every topic about herself will also invariably NEVER shut the fuck up. Its basically a 1:1 correspondence from what I've seen, so both phenomena are likely mapping the same underlying factor(s).
Women: Inscrutable. Is what is. Take it or leave it.
Checking to see if I understand this concept. Commenting on a subject of discussion on how you've experienced said subject of discussion is not solipsism, it is transferring the central point of the discussion such that the discussion is now about your experience that is solipsistic? Reaching for the tiniest tie in to the current discussion from your personal experience so that you stay relevant to the discussion?
I suddenly find myself in a female heavy environment. I will be more careful with noticing and check back with results.
Already I suspect that most conversations will be around how this or that affects them.
I tend to converse with more intelligent women, so I don't observe this behavior very often. At social gatherings, the superficial attendees of both sexes tend to find one another and jabber away.
"One cannot project solipsism, by definition." - end of discussion. He's right.