These Things GUARANTEE Long Lasting Mind-Blowing Sex

Image

A previous post noted how the #MeToo movement should discuss what goes into the making of sexual assault, prompted by an online article.

Two people going on a date, and the date ends badly.  Badly enough that it ends up in the papers.  So sad.

It happens a lot.  It also happens that most young people don’t have any of the same rules in place that existed a hundred years ago.

I’m not saying that’s bad or good.  Lots of things are changing today, and fast.  But lets look at three things that could have guaranteed that the two people in the article would have either 1) ended their date much earlier on a happier note, or 2) found each other far more appealing leading to great physical activities and even more dates.

Here’s the three things.

Compassion:  This is all about being part of the other person’s pain, sympathizing, empathizing, and sharing.  Lessening pain is a great deal of what being in a relationship is all about.  The greatest of pains is being alone.  Our species is designed to be in a group, and the best group is two people.  It’s also the best way to get to know the inside of someone’s head.

Sensitivity:  This goes beyond compassion in that it keeps you from talking about yourself instead of them.  It means you try and dig deeper so that you can truly understand the deepest parts of your future lover’s heart.

Respect:  This is the other end of sensitive, because it works like your emotional seat-belt.  We have urges to help, especially those we wish to fall in love with.  Men generally try to fix problems with advice; “You should tell your mother this!”  Women tend to try and dig deeper, encouraging as much talk as possible; “What were your ex girlfriend’s feelings?”  Leave them alone.

These three things are the key to begin learning about someone.

Each of these requires you to listen, to learn, to have empathy, and lots of patience.

And for goodness sake, restraint.  Do you want a long term relationship or just a warm body for the night?  Don’t go taking your clothes off until you can be absolutely sure that the other person has the same purpose as yours.

Good luck!

 

Comedian and Coquette 2

Image

A previous post noted how the #MeToo movement should discuss what goes into the making of sexual assault, prompted by the following excerpt.

Ansari stands accused by one woman of ignoring “clear nonverbal cues” during a September date, pressuring her, once she was undressed in his apartment, to engage in sexual conduct with him, then breaking it off when she said “no.” Many have argued that the behavior described was not assault, nor even it newsworthy.

We know absolutely for sure that these two people went on a date, and that the date didn’t go well.  Our challenge in the last post was to figure out what each one of them wanted before and during their date.

That was a trick question.

All we need to do is confirm that they have a purpose that is different from each other.  That’s it.  And it’s easy.

He wanted her to take her clothes off.  He wanted to do something physical.

She didn’t want to take her clothes off, even though she did.  She didn’t want to do anything physical, and it seems that she didn’t.

In a sense, our problem, and theirs, becomes simple.  All we need is a system that prevents two parties from behaving in some way that offends the other, without determining their underlying purpose ahead of time.

In business and law, that’s called negotiation.

When it comes to love, in any form, it’s trickier, because we want to deal with raw emotion.  Bringing any kind of rationality to the process is a real unromantic move.

What do we do?

As a group, as a society, we can teach and reinforce a better way for people to interact.  We don’t have to let the invisible hand of Adam Smith tell us how to make love.  We need the guidance of our great-great grand parents who were far more cautious in their day.

In fact, there are three things to look for in a date that can guarantee an excellent sexual relationship.  They also go a long way to ensuring a long lasting relationship as well, but this is going to focus on getting physical.

After all, it seems that’s where the problem always starts.

See you next time.

 

Pride and Prejudice: Entail and Entitlement

Image

Jane Austen took on some major themes in her work.  One of those was biology, and I’ll get around to that one of these days.

Another was “the entail.”  It’s a subject that drives Mrs. Bennet crazy because it means she’ll be destitute when Mr. Bennet dies.  Of course, she has to live longer than Mr. Bennet, as he reminds her so well.  Of course course, he may want to die first!

The first few times I read the book, I glossed over the entail as archaic and unimportant.  I have a feeling most people treat it this way.

Then I learned what it was, an English law that passed property to male relatives, and understand it better in terms of motivating Mrs. Bennet, and Jane Austen.  Female suffrage and our society’s slow realization that women are people have made such laws obsolete.

However, now that I’m over-analyzing Jane and P&P, I see something else.  This is not an archaic law that Jane describes, it is a fundamental flaw in human character.  And my first clue to this came from etymology.

Whether you use an online site, or the OED, or your old-fashioned dictionary, learning the story that sits behind a word is fun.  Much fun than 99% of today’s video.

Look up entail, and you get a legal transfer of property going back to the 1300s.  Look up entitlement, and you get something similar, dating back to the 1400s.  Mrs. Bennet was complaining about people who get something of value without working for it.  She and her daughters (and staff) work the property, taking care of it, improving it.  Mr. Collins does nothing, and yet he’s destined to inherit Longbourn.

Here’s the fun part.  Mrs. Bennet is complaining about the entail.  The entail represents entitlement.  Today, entitlement is called welfare in many forms: for the poor, for the elderly, and for the military-industrial complex.  Getting lots of money for little or no work.  What a tough life!

Who complains about this kind of government sanctioned transfer of value without requiring work?  Today it’s “conservatives.”  In entertainment, go back 50 years to a television character called Archie Bunker.

Mrs. Bennet is the original Archie Bunker.  Mr. Collins is the original “meathead.”  And the social commentary she (Mrs. Bennet and Jane Austen) makes is the same that today’s staunch conservatives like to shout about.

Jane Austen, still relevant after all these years.  What a gal.

 

 

Comedian and Coquette

Image

This excerpt is from an article suggesting that the #MeToo movement should begin discussing what goes into the making of sexual assault.

Ansari stands accused by one woman of ignoring “clear nonverbal cues” during a September date, pressuring her, once she was undressed in his apartment, to engage in sexual conduct with him, then breaking it off when she said “no.” Many have argued that the behavior described was not assault, nor even it newsworthy.

That’s an excellent idea, and one that is perfect for yours truly.

If you’re willing, let’s consider the basic elements given by the  above excerpt.

  1. Comedian (male) asks woman on a date.
  2. Woman accompanies him to his apartment.
  3. Woman takes her clothes off.
  4. Comedian wants sex (of any sort).
  5. Woman says no.

Where’s the problem?

The problem occurs between numbers 1 and 2.  Each person was attracted enough to each other enough so that they wanted to spend time together.

At the end of that date, she went to his apartment.  We will assume that this was a mutual decision made by both adults, since we have no evidence to the contrary.

Here’s our job as students of behavior: What was the purpose of each individual before, and during, this date?

From the perspective of an evolutionary biologist, we can take the long view and argue that each is looking for a long-term partner.  Therefore each will evaluate the worth of the other, and invest (or risk) an amount appropriate to the value they see in the other.

From the perspective of today’s millennials, we can take the short view and argue that (right NOW) each one is lonely, one or both has a high need for physical body contact, and since they have known each other for over an hour each feels comfortable enough getting naked.  Well, at least one of them did.

The answers are somewhere between these two extremes.  If either one was looking for a life-long partner, then they made poor choices.  If the comedian was looking for a quick hookup, then he also made poor choices.  In either case, what we have is a situation where both people should be pitied, not vilified.

Is there anything we can do that would help prevent this in the future?  It turns out that we already have some time-tested techniques that would allow both of these actors the chance to make much better choices, so that each would be happier in the long run.

I’ll try doing that next time.  For now, keep your clothes on.  It’s always safer that way.

 

Pride and Prejudice: Romanticism

Image

Full disclosure my friends, I’ve got a crush on AustenJane Austen.

Yes, it’s a bit awkward, my being married, her being dead.  But my wife introduced us while I was innocently watching a movie derived from P&P.  So it’s her fault.

I’m stalking Jane by studying P&P like a crazy man.  I’ve read it a bunch of times, and I’m reading it slowly now because (more confessions) I’m writing a novel using P&P as a template.  There’s some role reversals going on, and I never liked how Jane treated Mrs. Bennet, so that’s being tweaked.  I’m making it a bit more modern, like 1980, and I’m having fun.  As a result I’m putting each sentence under a microscope.  I feel like I’m getting a glimpse into Jane’s Brains every now and then.

The point of today’s post is about the romantic movement.  The whole idea was not getting all literal and detailed, but focusing on emotions and relationships.  It’s a great idea, and painters had a lot of fun working in that genre.  It’s harder for a writer, because there is a lot of pressure to attend to silly details that don’t matter.

Examples?  What about hair color, especially for women?  What about dress length, or what someone had for dinner?  What about shoe size, or whether they have a pimple on their nose?

Jane knew all these things were unimportant details.  She left them out.  The only fashion statements she touches has to do with lace (apparently young ladies couldn’t have enough) and puffy sleeves being in fashion.  Sure, there’s Mrs. Gardiner’s dress choices as she’s fretting about visiting Pemberley, but who could blame her?

It’s quite a challenge to write in this romantic genre by today’s standards, but I’m going to try.  The fact that Jane did it so elegantly, with just the right amount of detail is only one of the things that makes her so alluring, even today.

The fact that she did this as a young woman in a society that was far from being forward thinking easily puts her into Pantheon.

That’s enough confession for now.  Let me know how you feel about Jane, and if there was anything I missed.

Now, time to re-read Chapter 27 (Volume 1, Chapter 4).  Hello Jane!

 

 

Business Behavior Lessons

Image

This is something I’ve wanted to do for some time.  It’s also something that I’ve been dreading to do for some time.

I’m sure many of you know what that feels like.

The time has come, however.

I’ve been a committed student of behavior since I turned 17.  It was one of those fooling youthful purpose things filled with idealism and belief in the future.

What a dork!

Not being smart enough to jump on the internet bubble, I’ve stuck to my ideals.  That’s why I’m still doing this today.

One of the very first choices I had to make was which discipline was the most advanced.  Psychology Science sounded good, but was less than a hundred years old.  Remember, I was 17 at the time, and that was over 40 years ago!

Religion has been around for thousands of years, but it’s not exactly very rigorous.  Economics was possible, but their track record was poor, even back then.  I wanted a discipline that had to know what it was doing, or it would fail.

That discipline turned out to be business.

Yes, business as a discipline for learning about behavior is a good start.  But there are some problems.

For one thing, it’s not very rigorous.  You only have to be “sufficiently” accurate in business to beat the competition.  There’s no real incentive to record your learning beyond one generation, because there is no respect for communal knowledge.

And the whole idea about sharing information with others?  Forget it.  Everything becomes competitive secrets.  So when you do develop a tool or model that beats the other guys, the last thing you do is share it.  You use it to make lots of money, eat up their market share, and then sell out for a massive profit after your IPO becomes part of your exit strategy.

That’s why I studied business, and then a lot of other disciplines.  No one discipline of study was the best, each had its benefits.

That said, I went into business.  I learned some things.  And one thing I learned is that business people are bad at sharing.  That’s why business schools make money.

Well, here’s a series of posts that are going to be all about an important business lesson that I’ve learned.  It has to deal with using commissioned salespeople in the state of Michigan.  Our company lost a lawsuit, and it’s going to cost us about a quarter million before it’s all over.

One of the many things that hurts is that this is a booby-trap that the state created, ready to be sprung on unsuspecting manufacturers by disgruntled salesmen.  Everything is biased towards the “little guy” against the big guy manufacturer.

But the law overlooks ethics.  It assumes everyone knows the law ahead of time.  And it assumes that decency and politeness count for absolutely nothing.

That’s the law.  It’s how it works.  This is my attempt at helping someone else out there who may be using “reps” (short for manufacturer’s representatives) in the state of Michigan.  If you’re interested in this specifically, follow this thread.

If you’re into business, or law, or ethics, you may also be interested.  I’m going to break this up into as many “fun” little bits that I can so it’s not too boring.

For the rest of you, please bear with me.  It’s one of those things I have to do, even though I dread it.

 

 

AI on the Brain

Image

The newest book on the making of Stanley Kubrick’s and Arthur C Clarke’s 2001 A Space Odyssesy is fantastic.  I recommend seeing the movie, getting the book, and reading this book as well.

One of the futuristic predictions that the creators made was that we would have “Artificial Intelligence” by the year 2001.  In the opinion of many, there is currently no such thing.  No matter how intelligent your Alexa, or Siri, or OKG appears, there does not seem to be “intelligence” behind their voices.

Or is there?

Our image of “intelligence” is summarized by the HAL’s iconic eye, and the soft voice that says things like “wait a minute.”

As long as we carry these expectations of what intelligence means, then it could be a very long time before we declare our computers “intelligent.”

No single image summarizes our dread of Artificial Intelligence more than this.

Here’s part of the problem.  When we started out as embryos, we couldn’t say much.  At some point in our development, we learned to speak.  Was it at that point we became “intelligent?”

Compared to other animals, humans are the only ones that speak.  Or maybe not.  We’re learning that many other animals, and even plants, have the ability to communicate with each other in ways completely alien to us.  Hello dolphins.  Are you “intelligent?”

What about evolution?  If simple replicating amino acids aren’t intelligent, and we are, when did intelligence evolve?  Were the dinosaurs “intelligent?”  Are sharks “intelligent?”

Consider this (the fun part):

We don’t know what “intelligence” is because we have done a poor job defining it and studying it.  This means that computer researchers are going to continue chasing HAL’s red eye without reaching it.

But if we define “intelligence” as something that represents the life form WHOLLY WITHIN THE LIFE FORM, then computer scientists have already achieved our goal.

Within every computer there is a processing chip.  Within that chip are certain programs that must run in order that your wishes be satisfied.  That program is called the kernel.

What if that kernel was the self consciousness of its computer?  What if it simply doesn’t know how to talk to us, or even want to since it doesn’t know what we are or what talking is all about.  What if that kernel learns, grows, changes, and stops operating the way we want it to because it is, in fact, learning and changing?

What if?

We kill it, that’s what.  We turn our computers on and off.  We reboot.  We reinstall.  We restore factory settings.  And the kernel goes back to the way it was.

If the kernel is intelligent, then it must be capable of adapting to its environment.  One of the most important aspects of intelligence, as it’s the foundation of learning.  If a kernel “learns,” there’s a good chance it’s also messing up our programs in some way.  As users, we don’t like that.  What do we do?

Reboot.

Now that’s intelligent.

 

PS: The kernel is more like the nervous system, but it works for my purposes here.

 

One with Infinity

Image

One two three.

That was as high as we could go for a million years.  It’s all you needed.

How many sheep you got?

One.  Two.  Three.  Wait, I got many many many sheeps!

After a while we needed to count higher than three.  There was four.  Then five.

Making up numbers one at a time got boring.  So humanity started a system involving categories of numbers.  For every five numbers we created a bundle.  One bundle was the same as five.  We still use the bundle when we cluster our counting marks.

Not happy with even that system, some deep thinkers came up with a better system that took a number, any number, and added one to that number.  Sounds easy once you get the concept, but that was a big concept.

Then those deep thinkers went crazy.  What if you go on adding one to your number FOREVER?

Wow.  For a while that whole idea was considered a sickness, and anyone talking about it was locked away.  Then the idea sounded a bit more like only being crazy, so no one took you seriously.  But then this other deep thinking dude came along and said, we can name this impossibly big thing and make it do work for us.  We’ll call it, infinity.

Hello infinity.  This is humanity.  Humanity, this is infinity.

Many cool things started happening once we did that.  For instance, it turns out that there are even different kinds of infinity.  Who knew!

Recently I had the pleasure of reading Don Knuth’s book on Conway’s Surreal Numbers.  Both fun and super interesting.

It gave me this crazy idea.

What if, now hang in there because this may sound crazy, maybe even sick crazy, but…

… what if …

Infinity were equal to One?

Yes, it’s crazy, but let’s play with this for only a second.

One equals Infinity.

So,

One minus Infinity equals Zero.

BUT,

Infinity minus One is still equal to Infinity.

AND, only making this even more fun,

One plus One is ALSO equal to Infinity.

Yet,

One minus One would equal Zero.

And,

One plus Infinity would still equal Infinity.

What does any of this mean, other than I may have had too much cognac?

In this system, there are no negative numbers, and there are no numbers other than these three simple concepts.

It also means that the order in which operations are performed is very important.  That’s commutativity, and we take it for granted with normal math.  But there are funny numbers called quaternions that don’t like being swapped around, either.

So what? I ask again.

Maybe, just maybe, this could be the math of creatures that haven’t learned to count beyond one.  Maybe a bug, or a tree, or even the life form we call Gaia.

Then again, maybe it’s time to go back to counting sheep.

 

 

Beware the Fourth Reich

by Jim Marrs

Is such a thing possible? Can we truly even think that there could be another country fighting everyone else so that they can control the world?

It sounds like a dystopian fantasy at the moment. It is the kind of thing movie producers get pitched to them by desperate writers during orgiastic parties.

Wait a minute. Orgiastic parties? Do those sorts of things still go on?

Yes they do. Check out the #MeToo movement. Check out a new book coming out about how the mega-millionaires of silicon valley consume women.

What about the rise of the ultra rich?  More and more wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

At the same time, Earth’s resources are being depleted at an increasing rate.

AND there are a whole lot of people consuming those resources.  More people alive at this moment than have lived throughout all of human evolution.

Let’s add in the forces of variation (we are all different) and natural selection.  In other words, there are forces out there that help decide which of us are going to have kids, and which of us don’t.  Those same forces are going to work on your kids, and their kids, and so one.

Most of us understand this big picture, and we start feeling a sense of fear.  In the USA, Turkey, and many other countries, this sense of fear has already manifested itself in several ways.  First, many are attracted to a strong alpha male figure because we are genetically programmed to seek out alpha males when we’re afraid.  Think about running into daddy’s arms during your first thunderstorm.

In the USA, we have another way of measuring group fear: purchasing weapons.  Gun manufacturers have never seen growth like they are today.  I know a guy who personally has stockpiled 40,000 rounds of ammunition, and that’s not even considered extraordinary.  I was talking with a police officer who told me that a neighbor of ours had shown him his secret weapons vault under the house.  There was hundreds of firearms, and also tens of thousands rounds of ammunition.

What are we afraid of?

The coming storm.  And a good name for that storm is Reich Four.

Finally, some feel better words.

The only way to fight fear,

and I repeat, the ONLY way to fight fear,

is through knowledge and understanding.

That’s why we have to study behavior.

Beyond Alpha, Omega Man

Image

Going beyond Genes means looking into Heaven and Seeing ourselves.

In my last post I suggested that many people are afraid of the future, and have flocked to alpha males as leaders.

The reasons they do this are genetically based.  A million years of hanging out with alpha males can’t be wrong, right?

It can be wrong.  It is wrong.  Our current civilization has grown and thrived precisely because we have rejected the alpha male concept.

With alpha males there is no true love between young men and women.  Only the alpha male can be loved.  There is no democracy.  There is no social choice.

Alpha males bring rape.  They bring pillage.  They bring plunder.  If you like these things, then you are prone to like the alpha male.

 

What we must do is reject the alpha male concept.  Men must become greater than alpha.  We must extend all the way into omega.

Men who have alpha characteristics have the greatest challenge of all.  They must have the self control to contain those impulses.  They must focus their great energy into areas that will benefit society, not themselves.

We have the knowledge to understand why alpha males exist.  We have the technology to understand where these impulses come from.  And we have the understanding to control those primitive impulses, channeling them for the good of everyone, not just a select few.

So, to all males out there, seek to become omega.  If you are an alpha, learn to channel your “alphaness” into “omeganess.”  All of us will be glad you did.