How Not to be Offended by People (Part I)

If you do not want to be offended by people, then the first thing to do is not to assume that they are trying to offend you.

Below are some examples.

Myth: I am a man who likes to buy pantyhose in shops, but the female clerk said that men should not wear pantyhose. She is controlling me of what and what not to wear, so I am offended by her comment.

Fact: If a clerk said that men should not wear pantyhose, do not take offense. She is just stating her opinion of how men look in pantyhose. Her point is that if a man wants to be attractive to women, then men should not wear pantyhose. If that is not the case, and you have another reason to wear them, then she will likely respect your decision to wear pantyhose.

Most men nowadays wear clothing which look cheap, tacky, or mismatched. Thus, women will believe that most men do not have a "sense of style." Therefore, many women want to help men by giving them advice of what they should or should not wear. Their intention is to make sure that those men would not feel embarrassed if they wear clothing which looks tacky to women. Therefore, it's safe to assume that the clerk is actually helping you by stating her opinion of what you should or should not wear. (If the clerk is selfish, then she would not give her honest opinion of how horrible men look pantyhose. She would be too afraid to lose her job.)

Whether her opinion is right or wrong, you should not take offense to it. I do understand that fashion trends change, and men had worn tights and skirts in the past. It is possible that tights may lose their association with femininity in the future, which would thus make tights acceptable to men. However, this is 2011. At this time, women do not find tights attractive to men, and that is what she meant in her opinion. Please do not take offense.

---

Myth: People laugh at me when I purchase pantyhose for myself, because I have a fetish for them.

Fact: If a clerk laughed at you for purchasing tights, it still does not necessarily mean that she thinks that you are actually purchasing them for yourself. The fact that she is laughing at you does not reflect what she really thinks of you.

Think about that way: Let us say that you are in high school, in a class. The teacher said something which can be interpreted as a sexual innuendo. However, all of the students did not realize that what the teacher said can be interpreted that way. Eventually, a student realizes that, and reminds the whole class by telling a joke that what the teacher said can be interpreted as a sexual innuendo. The whole class laughed at that joke.

The fact that the students laughed does not actually mean that you believe that the teacher had actually intended to say something sexual. The fact that you are laughing suggests that the teacher's words can be perceived as sexual. In other words, your belief of what the teacher actually is and your belief that he has said something which perceives to be sexual, is incongruent with reality. That is what makes us laugh.

Laughter is a mechanism to relieve tension. For example, suppose if someone is pretending to be violent, when in fact, he is just doing it for a prank. If you know that it is a prank, then you will laugh uncontrollably. That is because what other people perceive him is incongruent with reality. In this case, he is perceived to be violent when in fact he is just doing a prank.

This incongruency is what triggers our laughter. Let us go back to the laughing clerk example. If the clerk laughed at you, it does not necessarily mean that she really thinks that you have a fetish. She could have laughed because you can be perceived as a fetishist by other people, even if she, herself, believes that your are purchasing them for your girlfriend. The incongruency with the perception of you and what the clerk really believed is what triggered her laughter.

---

Myth: I know I am a 17 year old boy buying panties but I dont get why the women tease me. One woman at at sears told me to "enjoy" and at another time the women look at each other and giggled. I have also heard "have fun". The women usually kept me at cash longer than I know I need to be. They make a show of not having enough change or needing to check prices Last night at La Senza the sales girl said "Aww, have fun cutie". Why do they always tease me?

Fact: Ignore the "enjoy" or "have fun" comments. Maybe they are not teasing you, and that is just their habit to say "enjoy" and "have fun" to all their customers, not just you.

One female cashier called me "sweetie" even though I was not buying any women's clothing. I think it is a habit for cashiers to call people "sweetie", "cutie", and "honey."

Once I was buying stuff from a store, a female cashier called had me "sweetie." I was waiting at the checkout counter, but she realized that she did not have enough change. She went out and took change, so I waited patiently. After she got the change, she realized that I was waiting patiently, so she called me a "sweetie" probably because I was patient for waiting.

I think that's what happened when the La Senza sales girl said to you "aww, have fun, cutie." You waited patiently for her to have change and to check prices. She thought you were nice waiting patiently for her to took change and check prices. She then called you "cutie" because she think that it is cute that you waited patiently for her to check prices.

Also, see that she said "aww, have fun, cutie." She said "aww" probably because she thought you were buying them for their girlfriend. That is what she said it.

So this explains her comment "Aww, have fun cutie." She is not making fun of you, she just thinks that you were nice for waiting for her to check prices, and she also thinks you were nice for buying them for your girlfriend.

Buying lingerie for your significant other can be one of the most romantic things you can do. It's an intimate gift which, if you get it right, shows you really care, really do understand her and have put the effort in to really think about a gift they will like.

Yes, there is still a small possibility that she was making fun of you rather than a genuine compliment, but the chance is small. If she really had the guts to make fun of you, then she would risk being fired from her job. Thus, it is safe to assume that her comment was a genuine compliment for you waiting patiently and buying them for your girlfriend.

Also, you should realize that being called "sweetie" and "cutie" happens a lot to young people. Young people are being called "cutie" or "sweetie." If you look young and feminine, then that is probably the issue. They are calling you "sweetie" and "cutie" because you have a baby face.

Maybe you are just nervous about buying panties, so you respond to it by judging people negatively. Calling you to "enjoy" and "have fun" does not necessarily mean "teasing." It could just be a habit of them calling all customers like that, as I said above.

Have you had much experience purchasing any other stuff besides panties? Do the cashiers there also say "enjoy", "have fun", and "cutie" to you when you purchase men's clothing instead of panties?

If you are not sure if they are teasing you, ask them. But please do not take their words with the intent to "tease you" or to "embarrass you."

---

The general principles of how not to be offended are:

• Do not confuse constructive criticism with "hate."


• Do not confuse constructive criticism with "attack."


• Do not confuse constructive criticism with "control."


• Do not confuse constructive criticism with "one-upmanship."

• Do not confuse ridicule with "attack."


• Do not confuse ridicule with "judgment."


• Do not confuse ridicule with "lack of sympathy."

• Do not confuse giving one's opinion with "arrogance."


• Do not confuse the lack of apology with "blame."


• Do not confuse the act of saving face with "excuse."

And so on...

Yes, some of those above principles seems to be the reverse of what is taught in Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People
and Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life
. These are great books, especially the second one, but I am learning of how not to be judgmental towards people. All of those principles are derived from me observing conflicts at Internet blogs, message boards, Q&A websites, and opinion articles over the years.

Read More

The Heretic & The Feedback Loops of Negativity

A lot of the negativity associated with "heretics" is caused, not by others, but by his own judgment against his adversaries. In turn, he would lash out, insult his opponent to be "ignorant," "stupid," or "judgmental," and then would result in a vicious cycle, ultimately inflicted by his own, misperceived, judgment.

If a heretic promotes a fringe position, no one would agree with him. Someone would call his positions as "bullshit." No one would pay attention to him. Thus, he becomes a opportunist. Degrading every position which the "mainstream" side as unjustified. And eventually, view the mainstream not the one who is listening to him.

Thus, heretics must take extra precaution if they debate with the mainstream. Heretics should actively avoid any attempt to win attention. They should be aware of their own rationalizations, or status-seeking behavior.

If not, a vicious cycle ensures. The heretic would shout at the mainstream for ignoring his views. However, it is due to his own judgment whether or not the mainstream was really insulting him, ignoring him, or belittling him. Hence, the heretic would see it as an attack. An insult. And see the mainstream as his enemy. The mainstream will respond, too, by judging the heretic. The vicious cycle continues to turn. Back and forth.

Why are social vicious cycles interesting?

Let us examine some situations which can lead to social vicious cycles.

• Politically incorrect debaters


• Feminists and men's rights activists


• Children living under their parents' authority.


• The falsely accused "criminal."


• Students under the supervision of their teachers.


• Falsely arrested people.[1]


• Accused liars.

The implications:

• Politically incorrect debaters exaggerate their opponents to be "enemies" or "conspiracies."


• "Fringe movements" would seem more violent than they are.


• Feminists would exaggerate male violence. Men's rights activists would exaggerate female violence.[2]


• Children would be silenced, and would seem more rebellious than they actually are.[3]


• The falsely accused would seem more violent than they really are.[4]


• People who are accused of lying act nervous, which would make them look like liars despite being not.

References

1. Placebo Effects in Human Relationships: A Summary



2. Why I Ditched Left-Libertarianism



3. Blame Hierarchy, Not the People



4. Iterated Confirmation Bias

Read More

Why I don't blame others for "not listening"

When a person is not receiving attention from others, he would become angry. He would shout. He would say that "he hates" something.

But if a person is receiving enough attention, then he would not shoult. He would not say that he hates another.

A good example is Justin Bieber "haters." Those people actually do not really hate him. They just say that they "hate" Justin Bieber to create drama so they can receive their attention.

What they really think of Justin Bieber is that his music is unoriginal, and he does not write his own songs.

If a debate happens between two people, it is vital for you to listen to your opponent. Even if you know that you opponent is "obviously wrong," you still must listen to him.

I can think of seven reasons why you must listen even though you know that your opponent is wrong:

1. The substance of their argument may be correct, when certain conditions or aspects apply.


2. You opponent would not exaggerate, become angry, rationalize, or personally attack you to seek attention from you.


3. You will have a clearer understanding of their positions.


4. You opponent would not hate you as much. So they would admit that they are wrong if they knew it.


5. There would be less rationalizations, justifications, or bad arguments done by your opponent, which might confuse you, anger you, or lengthen the debate further.


6. If the debate is between a real-life individual, then your opponent would not hesitate to interrupt you since you were listening to them. If it is an Internet debate, then this could lead your opponent to ignore your arguments, not analyze your arguments, and/or not research your arguments further. You would not be taken seriously.


7. You may be, well, wrong. But that is rarely the case, since, almost always, your position can be correct when specific conditions or aspects apply.
   

Thus, it is never justifiable to call your opponent positions as "bullshit" even though you know that they are obviously wrong.

Hand them your microphone, and let your opponent talk. I call this microphone the "leader-microphone." Let them know that you are paying attention to them by asking questions about their positions.

Read More

Iterated Confirmation Bias

When an individual is accused to be violent, his subsequent actions would be judged as malicious. Because his first impression was a violent individual, people distort evidence to confirm to that first impression. For example, his actions which are perceived to be as violent would be emphasized, and his actions which are perceived not to be violent would be ignored. Thus, it is ideal for people who are accused of violent crimes to be presumed innocent, and have a fair trial, to avoid the "iterated confirmation bias effect."

Read More

Female Attraction Misconceptions: Clarifications

I used to think that the "fashion industry" did not have any involvement in promoting the thin figure. That is because I thought that men are attracted to thin women, as a result of evolution. Then, with amazement, I discovered that a critical flaw within my beliefs.

Shortly after, I corrected myself. It is indeed true that the fashion industry does promote a thin figure. Gay men and women work at the fashion industry, and they select thin females as their models. They select thin models, because those gay men and women think that thin females are attractive, which is found to be false. However, there are not ENOUGH straight men working in the fashion industry to correct that error, so thin models will continue to be selected. Unfortunately, straight women would then follow the fashion models in the industry. They will believe that those fashion models represent the "ideal" female figure. But they are not "ideal" as they seem.

For centuries, men are attracted to the classic "hourglass figure." That means, that those men are attracted to women who possess broad hips and narrow waists. In addition to this, men do not care if a little fat is stored around their hips, thighs, and face. Those preferences still stay intact amongst men nowadays, because they are inherent from result of evolution.

However, a lot of women are mistaken. Nowadays, some women think any figure which is bigger than the typical fashion model as "fat." Yes, they call them "fat" because they have a higher fat percentage compared to the thin models in the fashion industry. That is why so many attractive women call themselves "fat" even though they have a ideal face and body.

Even celebrities err on the side of the fashion industry. It is not uncommon to hear that celebrities starve themselves. It is not uncommon to hear that celebrities worry about their figure. Women may follow those celebrities, combined the fashion models, which results in a everlasting loop of social reinforcement.

However, I would not solely place the blame on the fashion industry. Women are biased to prefer to thin women, beacuse, well, they are women. Women dislike fat on men, so some women will conclude that men also dislike fat on women. In addition, women are attracted to narrow faces on men. Therefore, some women will mistakenly conclude that narrow faces on women are also attractive. (Ridley 1993) This belief, originating from the gay men or women working in the fashion industry, perpetuates throughout the media, until it becomes a well-established truism.

It is, therefore, not solely the fault of the fashion industry, but by an intuitive error stemming from the preference inversion of the opposite sex.

It is indeed a myth that men are sexually attracted by rich women, overly-tanned skin, and thin legs. Men may prefer slightly tanned skin, as they look healthier, but they do not prefer the overly-tanned skin of fashion models. Furthermore, even though wealth and tanned skin may be a status symbol, men are not influenced by them, because, status, in itself, has no influence on the sexual attractiveness of women.

(I did realize that I was not attracted to the overly-thin figures of fashion models. However, I ignored that fact as a result of my confirmation bias.)

References

Holland, Erik. Why are fashion models so skinny?

Ridley, Matt (1993). The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Pages 301-313:

Each gender uses its own preferences to guide its own behavior. Experiments show that men think women care about physique much more than they actually do; women think men care about status cues much more than they actually do. So perhaps each sex simply acts out its instincts in the conviction that the other sex likes the same things as they do.

One experiment seems to support the idea that men and women mistake their own preferences for those of the opposite sex. April Fallon and Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania showed four simple line drawings of male or female figures in swimsuits to nearly five hundred undergraduates. In each case the figures differed only in thinness: They asked the subjects to indi- cate their current figure, their ideal figure, the figure that they con- sidered most attractive to the opposite sex, and the figure they thought most attractive in the opposite sex. Men ' s current, ideal, and attractive figures were almost identical; men are, on average, content with their figures. Women, as expected, were far heavier than what they thought most attractive to men, which was heavier still than their own ideal. But intriguingly, both sexes erred in their estimation of what the other sex most likes. Men think women like a heavier build than they do; women think men like women thinner than they do.

Disclaimer: This was just a summary, not a well-sourced article.

Read More

Conundrums in Evolution

Skinny models are NOT attractive to men, and yes, this is contrary to the preferences of the fashion industry. Click here for an explanation: Why are fashion models so skinny?

What does this mean? Does this mean that I must go to a prom party or I will die? No, because proms require tuxedos, and tuxedos symbolize masculinity. Masculinity does not accept death as an option. Masculinity chooses bravery rather than death. So for this long, masculinity advocates bravery rather than death. Death is no one. Death is the end of all nature. Death is the end of your eternity.

So going to the prom, you meet a women. You stare at her. You reproduce. That's the end-all-be-all of masculinity. There is no where else for a man to go. It's just about compassion. Reproduction. Giving your best genes to a woman.

The woman is adored by your compassion. She has an orgasm. A huge blast. Coming from the fierce lights from the towers of the sea.

Competition, like in business, is the end-all-be-all of masculinity. Men must compete to survive. Men must compete to pass on their genes. Competition is the never-ending-cycle in which males participate. Life is like a football game, or a pool game, if you will. Life is just about that, to a man.

So what now? So what should be do now? Should a man compete, for ever eternity, to give their precious genes to a woman? Should a man live in sodomy and faith in which a man shares his compassion to his women? Or should a man be as promiscuous as possible to fertilize all those women with good genes? Which on you choose, it is your decision.

We're both rock stars!

Look at rock stars. They have all the women. It's virtually unlimited. There are women yelling at rock stars. Women are struggling, competing with one another, for a mating opportunity with those precious rock stars. It's a never-ending fight with jealousy, envy, and money. Women just can't get enough of those precious men. It's like that they are fiercely competing for their attention.

Look, just look at the media. There are many celebrities that women worship. That women follow, in every area of their life. They stalk them. They film every action they do. Almost every thing a celebrity does, it is revealed to the public. Things like "privacy" is non-existent to celebrities. This, as you may know, seems unfair to those celebrities. But hey, if they can pass on their genes to virtually unlimited women, they shouldn't care about privacy at all. After all, reproduction the utmost importance to the man. Everything else is supplementary.

Not only should celebrities they not worry about privacy, they shouldn't worry about intelligence, too. Celebrities should be happy even if they are unintelligent. After all, if celebrities can fertilize unlimited women, they shouldn't worry about their intelligence. Look, as long as they reproduce as much as possible, then things like "privacy" or "intelligence" for them would have no use in increasing their reproductive strategies.

And, hey, look at all those businessmen. They have all the power, they control more resources than almost all other men control, and get all the girls. Why is that? Why are business men so sexy? Isn't because women have an instinct for gold-digging? No. No way.

Then what is it? Isn't because it's an evolutionary instinct. Say, the women want men who can provide resources, and those men who controls business can provide the most resources for woman and their offspring? Isn't that? Isn't because women like men with all the resources so he can feed any offspring that she produce?

Close--but no cigar. Women don't like men who are rich because they have lots of money to provide for any children that she has. Women are attracted to rich men, not because of their rich resources in itself, but because wealth in an indicator of power.

Let's look at a rich man. A rich man has a high-status job. Usually, he is in the managerial/executive positions. Women like those men, because they have power over other men. Power of their subordinates, power over telling their employees what they do. So what's going on now? It's the power that women desire, and not their money. It's the power that they control more resources than other men. It's the power that they can purchase anything that they want, without going poor. It's sort of like "purchasing power", you know? Every heard of that term in economics? Yes.

So their "purchasing power" and control over their subordinates is what makes those men attractive. Also, those rich men also have "authority," which means that lots and lots of men look up to them. Respect their decisions. And never questions their choices that they make. This is a symbol of leadership, and dominance: not being afraid to tell other people what to do, and then people came respecting their decrees. (Not necessarily kissing their asses, but leadership by example.)

While the poor man has to work for another person, the rich men has people working for them. While the poor man is subordinate, the rich man is dominant over their employees. It's like a dominance hierarchy. First you have poor people being obedient to their rich bosses. And then you have the rich bosses controlling their less wealthy employees. See what this resembles? This perfectly resembles the pecking order of our ancestors. With the poor men being submissive. And the rich men being dominant. And this, is the reason why women like rich men.

Women are not power-hungry whores. They are not gold-diggers. They are just sexually attracted to rich men and athletic men. Those are the men who are more likely to have the highest quality genes. Those are the men who are deemed the most successful (which is reproduction-wise) during the Stone Age. So chill out. We all are the offspring of those rich ancestors. So chill out. And get off your arrogant podium. Thank you.

The faux business man: The perfect companion for the woman in faux fur.

So we now have the "faux businessman." Let's imagine a faux business man in a business suit. He's a poser. He looks like a business man, but he's not. He's just wearing a suit to get girls. All of them.

Really, but suits don't have a much luxurious look to it as suits did in the past. Look in the past: Suits are very expensive in the past. But suits aren't expensive right now. People can just buy a 100% wool suit at $200. That's what I found at 2011. So suits aren't an indicator of wealth as they used to be in the past. This may partially explain why suits are appearing less and less common: they are becoming a worthless indicator of wealth: you can just buy a polyester suit at $50 or a wool suit for $200. So even poor people can afford to wear a suit. So wearing a suit does not signify wealth as they used to be.

People are purchasing clothing which are more "designer-branded" rather than clothing made with a luxurious material, such as wool or linen. Even those wool trousers became an "old man's garment." That's what will happen as wool and silk becomes cheaper and cheaper with technology. People just don't think those materials are an indicator of your financial status anymore, so people will stop wearing them. So they instead chose "designer-brand clothing" which is a more accurate indicator of your economic rank.

Men wore suits in the past, but now they do not.

The sad thing is that people will continue to wear clothing. People won't be naked as they would be in their past. Bad luck. Bad luck. We won't be seeing any attractive women around anymore. That's because they wear clothing. Bad luck Bad luck.

That trend towards more "designer-label" clothing rather than luxurious materials will continue. Until leather Oxford shoes will became an "old-mans shoe" and eradicated. Until all khaki and wool trousers become replaced with those designer-brand sweatpants. Okay, sweatpants are not trendy right now. But they could become trendy after. Sure, sweat pants may look cheap. They may look like clothing that homeless people wear. But so are jeans. You know, jeans were originally worn by only laborers. But jeans became "adopted" as fashionable article of clothing as more and more celebrities wear them. So if jeans are "adopted" as a fashionable garment, then why not sweatpants?

Disclaimer: This post was intended to be a joke, and I do not advocate everything which is said here.

Read More