how women judge you (opposite sex)

[peoplesuck]

 

[dragula]

@moody

"I mainly find it comical when intellectuals analyze the opposite gender."
Oh my gosh! Me too! But the funny thing is - when I think that way - I'm also generally laughing at myself because I intellectually analyze the genders constantly and I really do enjoy it.

It's weird. In a way, I see myself as if I'm a stranger, who has average opinions of the sort that would be called "normal" - so seeing intellectuals analyze the sexes, or seeing intellectuals try to analyze what makes them socially alienated - is hilarious to me. It's like watching an elephant trying to do ballet. What makes it funny to me is that these issues involve deep, soulful emotions, but they're discussed objectively and scientifically - and the stark contrast between those two things definitely taps into a fundamental quality of comedy. I also think, though, that I've been exposed to situations where other people found my speech behaviors to be funny, and because I can easily sense and be influenced by the emotions of those around me if I'm not on guard, I think it might be something of a learned behavior. I've learned to laugh at myself, from the perspective of an outsider.

At the same time though - I also can't stop, because logically, it's very hard to understand why there should be an incongruence in my behavior, if that makes any sense. I almost always made head-first decisions. (I've been soundly punished for the very few heart-first exceptions, lol!) So if I can't see why I should behave differently, and I can't find a way to value the quality of blending in, being normal, or otherwise belonging to people - I just can't seem to change. Even if I wanted to - I couldn't. It's like an addict who tries to not be an addict simply by saying "You shouldn't do that anymore." By the time the next day roles around, they've reverted back to their original selves.

On that topic - from a more serious standpoint, I agree but also disagree with the sentiment behind the statement. So many people these days are of the mind "don't even try to figure out the opposite sex because everyone is their own shade of human". But - frankly - that's ridiculous. That would be the same as me saying "there's no point in staying away from bad neighborhoods, or planning to visit a location I think I would enjoy, because every place on earth is different, so attempting to use generalizations to distinguish between them is an exercise in futility".

Here's a controversial example. Some people are gay and some are straight. If someone told me they're gay, I wouldn't tell them "How can you know? Every woman is different." It would almost be like calling a gay man sexist for preferring males, based on the fundamental fact that they are males - not just because they have male equipment (which females could imitate with technology), but because they have male personalities that appeal to a person who finds males to be attractive.

In the same way as gay men aren't sexist against females, I don't think it's sexist for people (gay or straight) to distinguish between males and females. Why should it be? We're different. While you may be able to take Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber and make the argument that they're essentially the same thing - and you might have a decent point - they're obviously the exception. In much the same way, you could take a woman who is heterosexual but acts and appeals identically to a man, and this partner might be a pleasing substitute for someone who is gay if they weren't free to express themselves. But again - that would be a very rare exception. So if we acknowledge that these things would be exceptional, and agree on that, then we are, by default, acknowledging that generalizations exist. And if we acknowledge the validity in a gay man choosing male sex partners because he prefers men to women, then we're also acknowledging that making generalizations is a useful exercise.

Moody - I'm not exactly arguing against you, per say. I didn't read your previous comments (sorry). I'm just using this opportunity to stage my defensive stance on generalizing for utility's sake.

What people dislike about generalizing is both very obvious, and very understandable. It's dehumanizing and it straddles a morally ambiguous line. It's morally subpar, for instance, to judge another person based on rumors without even giving them a chance. By the same token, it's morally subpar to judge a member of the opposite sex based on rumors of what the opposite sex is supposedly like, without giving them the opportunity to demonstrate what makes them unique.

There's another issue with generalization - and that is the "hilarious" scientifically objectified approach that intellectuals tend to engage with. This "logic" - while it parades itself as being "logical" - is an example of human ego and arrogance leading to irrational and invalid discussion which is often (from what I've seen) based upon fundamentally incorrect philosophies, dubious science (which is then often misapplied to add insult to injury), and which is used to rationalize abhorrent and immoral thoughts and behaviors that aggravate REAL and problematic sexism.

So. What you end up with - is a subset of people who feel that generalizations are a threat to them, or an attack on them, and who respond with defensive aggression to try to suppress, mock, or belittle the speaker.

But this is the argument of the gun, in my mind. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Generalizations don't cause bigotry or misogyny, people cause these things. Unfortunately, though, it can be easy to fall into that trap - I've suffered it myself when I was sexist against men.

So. Here's my thoughts. We need generalizations - they are important. Making generalizations is valuable, healthy, and natural. (Labeling, not so much. Liberals these days are label obsessed - which is very hypocritical of their message, at least, the message that has been conveyed to me by liberals I've talked to.)

BUT - what we also need is more talking. Not less talking. People have to stop censoring themselves and tip-toeing around the truth, and actually start sharing real, high-quality information about how they work and how they think and feel. We also need to stop associating such ridiculous levels of judgement and shame with shared thoughts and feelings that others can't necessarily help. The more we talk and tell the truth, the less corrupt generalizations become. Generalizations become toxic when the truths that are capable of contradicting them are kept under wraps, and they are allowed to breed and infect the populous.

You'll never stop people from generalizing. That truly is a natural condition. It's the way the human brain is programmed to work.

But you can take away the power of toxic generalization by contradicting the status quo with real, unbiased information, and teaching people about why what they're thinking is misinformed. I feel like I'm the only woman out there trying to speak out against sexist generalizations against women, by sharing my actual understanding of how women operate. Everyone else I see is just insulting people who make generalizations and trying to make them feel like shit about themselves. That's like telling a racist "You should be ashamed of being a racist!" Okay. That's not going to change their fundamental racist ideologies, though, is it?

This is, again, why I deplore censorship so much. The very people who I've met who claim to be champions of human rights, are aggravating things such as sexism and racism, by creating a breeding grounds where those philosophies can be covertly exchanged by believers, and used to indoctrinate new believers - because the philosophy itself has gone unchallenged. That's what happens when you create a "taboo". You create an information underground that leads to the cultivation of hate groups and all of the nasty isms a person can dream of.

I love talking to racists. I've done a lot of research that prepares me to make solid arguments to logically dispute the racist beliefs those people have nurtured. When someone more or less proves to you that you are wrong, you're a fool not to change. And if they do so on a public venue - others will see you as a fool if you refuse to do so, and they will discount your belief, and be better prepared to make arguments against it in the future, to protect themselves from becoming unwitting victims of that poisonous mentality. But if you don't let people talk (especially on public venues) - well then, that doesn't happen. Shouting people are no threat. (It's why I'm not too worried about the radical feminists and radical LGBT members). Whispers - those are a threat. Those breed in secrecy.

Well - this concludes my effort to persuade you all to harbor my perspectives regarding generalizations!

I'll try again another day. Haha.

 

[sushi]

form and substance

form is appearance, substance is personality

basically shallow people only see form, it takes more time to know substance

 

[baccheion]

Looks, money, status. Any one will leave room for viability.

Women seek security and stability, leaving their maneuvering after high school much different from the years during.

Women experience peak desirability somewhere between 18 and 21 (depending on the source). After, appeal steadily declines with age. Males experience increasing desirability with age until the mid 40s, a time after which it begins to decline. I'd say the effective peak is 26, though, given the ages of women creating the demand.

Tick tock..

Women seek security and stability? It's more that 19.4% of white women are ISFJ and 16.9% are ESFJ. The third most common type, ESFP at ~10%, also seeks balance later in life. Same with ENFP at ~10%. Etc. Not all women are the same, but the drives tend to line up.

80% of women older than 40 have had at least 1 child. 80% of people over 40 have been married at least once. 50% of marriages between those 26-35 end in divorce within 10 years. 2/3rds for second marriages and 75% for third. The typical age at which males and females get married is 29 and 28.

The Tinder/dating-app phenomenon has wrecked odds for males. Gender and swipe skew leaves an edge only for the top 20% of males. They are also enough to take all the viable women (top 50%).

PUA, RSD, looksmaxxing, hyoid, posture, gym..

Tongue action, health(y glow), fitness, dressing, grooming, etc..

It may just be hookups until not desirable enough to attract who's desired. After, maybe pack it up or become a sugar daddy.

Except ~5% of the time..

You don't know the meaning of idealism until it's seen what these ones are really thinking. Versus the world at large, INFP and INFJ are most common online. Idealism. I thought myself familiar with who they really are. Then I witnessed how much the PUA BS applied. Further, I gathered all the answers (by personality type) from the older version of OkCupid. Mind boggling.

Associations, affirmations, hand holding, etc. Not logic. But I heard that from a young age, so I assume most know already.

Total waste of time, unless she's really hot.. or hot + makes me part of the 5%.

Attraction patterns vary based on time of the month. During ovulation, alpha type. After ovulation (when progesterone is higher), effeminate males. During the lead up to ovulation, feminine/child-like faces. The hormone profile associated with effeminate = lower testosterone + lower estrogen (+ preferably lower cortisol). Easy to achieve. Iodine protocol, even.

If not approaching when they are at a time of the month lined up with your hormone profile, it's a losing battle. If not on a date while also aligned, nothing again. Good 'ole.. vibe..

With a feeler, vibe will always win..

Most attractive among women on OkCupid: ENTP, ISTP, ENTJ, and ESTP. That is, it's all right back (to thinkers) if going by looks. Except ENTPs. They are feelers.

 

[BurnedOut]

I'm not making judgements based on values I'm looking at this as an engineer looking over someone else's machine and remarking on their design, if you don't like it don't blame me, it's not my design. Natural selection favors genes that propagate by the simple fact that those that do are more competitively fit those that don't, so it follows that people's genes and by extension their psychology is the direct result of natural selection. If you think about it tits and ass are incredibly arbitrary things to be attracted to, guys don't find them attractive by coming to the logical conclusion that they're objectively aesthetically pleasing, it's dictated by instinct and profoundly so, you can't brainwash/condition/force a gay person to find the other gender attractive, people have tried.

You are actually underestimating the impact of postmodern era on our minds. It is increasingly evident that 'nurture' is defeating 'nature'. This is a hyperreal era. When you have unlimited information at your hands which can be bent and twisted and again posited as real (simulacra), how would you follow your genetic proclivities purely ? Even when they do arise in unwanted situations as a reminder of our sentience, sentience itself can be rationalized in several different ways and in turn recode your genetic tendencies.

You are right. But we are also fatter, lazier and dumber than our prehistoric versions.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Look at the woman as if you are leaning back and gazing at a heavenly sunset you've never seen before and she will feel it.
Like to see a movie with me Friday night?
Like to grab a bite of lunch sometime?

Be casual, relaxed, be attentive, be wow'd by her.
Have in mind where you want to go and ask.
Act as if you know women like you and that you are lovable.
You might have to repeat to yourself daily, I am lovable, I am love.

 

[dr froyd]

Look at the woman as if you are leaning back and gazing at a heavenly sunset you've never seen before and she will feel it.
Like to see a movie with me Friday night?
Like to grab a bite of lunch sometime?

Be casual, relaxed, be attentive, be wow'd by her.
Have in mind where you want to go and ask.
Act as if you know women like you and that you are lovable.
You might have to repeat to yourself daily, I am lovable, I am love.

unfortunately most of us are not characters in a romantic novel

 

[birdsnestfern]

ok, but its not what you look like, its how you love what you've got.

Louise Hay affirmations, next time you are in a mirror repeat this and look in your own eyes until you believe it:

I am worth loving
The fact that I exist means that I am worth loving
I am lovable because I exist
I am lovable and worth loving
_____ is lovable and worth loving

 

[ZenRaiden]

You are right. But we are also fatter, lazier and dumber than our prehistoric versions.

This is part true and part wrong.
We are fatter, because we have steady stream of calories yes.
Lazier we are because technology simply does not allow us to do more no matter what. But dumber is also not quite true.
People today live more complex lives than people in the past.

A farmer in the past simply had nothing to do apart from harvesting season and planting crop season.
A lot of farming in 4 season territory was just waiting game and small task menial jobs.
When it comes to smarts, we don't use the intuitive and emotional brain as much.
Because it was built for time and era that no longer exists.
Emotions and connections are not easy to do in modern world, because our brains evolved for 10 000 + years in environments where most of what we have today did not exist.
We were not built for concrete jungles or farm life.
We survive and thrive in civilized world yes, but our brains are painfully stuck in stone age emotionally, but our intellect is not.
We use our slow thinking logical brain almost 24 7 365.
We never develop according to our nature and our DNA> we don't walk, or run, or hunt or gather, or build ad hoc tools, or live in small tight knit communities of 100s, but instead we live in communal life of millions, where most people you interact with are mostly just acquaintances.
We were not built to struggle with personal conflicts on daily basis, or negotiate our differences 24 7 with people we know nothing about or be yelled at work by our boss.

We were not made to work 8 hours using our slow brains, while ignoring our intuitions and have careers where we get so specialized and deformed and get payed to butcher our psychology and body to fit a round peg into square hole.

Worst thing about it, you won't find modicum of sympathy from anyone complaining about this, because its not practical to do so.

 

[ZenRaiden]

ok, but its not what you look like, its how you love what you've got.

Louise Hay affirmations, next time you are in a mirror repeat this and look in your own eyes until you believe it:

I am worth loving
The fact that I exist means that I am worth loving
I am lovable because I exist
I am lovable and worth loving
_____ is lovable and worth loving

This is true I can learn to love myself, but I am pretty sure I cannot make a modern woman love me. There is just primal part of my cave man DNA that screams no all the time when it comes to women. I know I have been traumatized and I have listened to psychologist. Relationship advice from psychologist makes me anxious and I know why. It just being authentic and emotionally vulnerable does not work the way women think in my mind. My instincts rarely get triggered by women.
I can appreciate women for looks, but when it comes to women "the gatekeepers" ultimately I have nothing to offer.
I could get a relationship probably if I force myself to fake it, but honestly I just can't lie, most woman fantasy will fall apart the moment they know the real me.
All I can guarantee they will know the real me right from the get go.
That just me venting, but I am dying a virgin probably. lol. I can rewire my whole brain if it comes to this, but I cannot rewire my DNA.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You are actually underestimating the impact of postmodern era on our minds. It is increasingly evident that 'nurture' is defeating 'nature'. This is a hyperreal era. When you have unlimited information at your hands which can be bent and twisted and again posited as real (simulacra), how would you follow your genetic proclivities purely ? Even when they do arise in unwanted situations as a reminder of our sentience, sentience itself can be rationalized in several different ways and in turn recode your genetic tendencies.

Essentially this.

 

[ZenRaiden]

unfortunately most of us are not characters in a romantic novel

But can a woman be wrong? Probably not. That is even if they are wrong.
Froyd was right about something, but he simply could not figure it out because the pieces of puzzles were killed in process of making civilization happen.

 

[birdsnestfern]

First let go of fear, than review the words of row row row your boat song to recall that Life is but a dream.
This means you need to dream while you are awake in bigger and better versions of yourself. Say, every day in every way I am getting better and better. Allow for the possibility. Have a few minutes every day to dream and say affirmations, then ask your divine connections for their help, and thank them. Keep pushing your mind to just be happy with yourself and feel deserving. Then you start to create a pathway in your brain in that direction. Do it for six weeks and you will have a new self.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Then you start to create a pathway in your brain in that direction. Do it for six weeks and you will have a new self.

Yeah I know. I just needed to vent.
I used to think positive thinking was bunk, because I could not even do that.
Truth be told when I get emotionally stuck in some pattern, I start thinking and I can think of all kinds of amazing garbage.
I think I can do more of positive thinking these days, but Ill need more like few months if not years, to rewire my mind to think positive.
I spent most of my life being negative inwardly and later in life outwardly.
Also every time I tried to be positive life just got worse. So its not easy to rewire a mind to not be disappointed.

 

[Black Rose]

The "scientific man" is seldom very successful in dating. No woman wants to be thought of like an animal. If you think of her like an animal, you don't value who she is as a person. She's not much more to you then a bunch of cells in motion. Furthermore, this kind of man seldom values life, itself. Whether its his own life, or the lives of children, or animals.

By contrast, most women value life very highly.

So you see where the deviation is here? And also, where the dangerous misconception comes in? Men believe that by becoming more objective, and more scientific, they can somehow "crack" the female equation - but the act of doing so causes an even bigger gap of relatability. And no matter the gender, men and women are more successful at dating when they are better able to relate to, and understand the opposite sex.

That is why my first bit of advice is that men should surround themselves with women. Men need to dedicate themselves to understanding how women think and feel. Having female friends is an excellent way to do that.

Men are more focused on the external and women are more focused on the internal.

Because men can control what happens they become able to know what it is they must do to get "results".

Women have to be more self-aware because their survival depends on it. So many things can go wrong they cannot afford anything that is not in accordance with those things that make them "feel" wrong.

So a loss of control for men makes them weak and men need to feel strong.

Women are fine with feeling things so whether weak or strong they do not need to personally be a certain way but they do need others to be a certain way to feel safe.

My next bit of advice is that - whether you're a man or a woman - you have to address your own insecurities. If there are things you don't like about yourself, or things that make your feel insecure, it's your own job to fix that problem. It's what mature people do, and whether you're a man or a woman - immaturity, laziness, complacency, and self-esteem issues are not attractive. Of course, it doesn't mean you can't find someone who will love you and accept your flaws - but you're not entitled to that. That's just the cherry on the sundae.

My insecurities stem from society telling me that being strong is bad. I should obey authority because if I do not I will be punished. And I should help people and not judge them because that is bad and my morality tells me that I should be a nice person. It is that if I do anything "bad" I will be shamed. I am supposed to let people take advantage of me because that is what a good person does. I am not supposed to be aggressive or strong physically. Bigger people than me will punish me if I act out or stick up for myself.

Why would a sub-optimal male feel any confidence being around women? Why would they surround themselves with women unless they were trying to make an alpha concubine? Who does that? I know that you want to make women want you but then if everyone only wants you then who is being excluded? Women want to be safe men want to be strong that is what happens. So if women feel safe around men that understand them and their feelings it makes sense that only a select few men will get all the women. To surround themselves with all the women excluding other men and thus changing the population density with men only who can get the women in the future who will breed new men who are not suboptimal.

(1) Immaturity
(2) Cowardice
(3) Shallowness

1) Women then will pick older men or they will go for the young men who are able to understand things emotionally even if young. To them, aggressive young men seemed mature because in the past an aggressive young man could get things for the young women. Women see men who both understand them and can get things for them as strong and mature. Which leads to looks and behaviors.

2) Weak men feel insecure because they cannot get results from doing things externally. They must get results or they will get in the state where everything does become frightening because nothing is working. Women will not feel safe around them because those men will not protect them. Men being suboptimal has everything to do with being rejected by other men in comparison to themselves. Men that cannot fight and get resources are useless. Some men feel dejected and stop trying, it is where the fear builds up.

3) Men must find simple answers because those answers are what work every single time they are done. These simple answers get results no matter what. That is a tremendous survival advantage. It is not that these men are neglecting the emotional side of things necessarily but when it comes to understanding women they believe that getting resources is most important and if the women need emotional support that too is what they must be doing. But when it comes to true shallowness that is a matter of self-awareness. They are not self-aware enough to understand that other people matter other than themselves. So if they themselves only matter then the women they are with won't matter. Women notice via empathy and men notice this via empathy in women. Other people are supposed to matter, it is why the group favors shaming and bullying to get other people to start caring. But shallow people just do it to make themselves feel good. Not to get people to start caring actually just to be mean.

(1) people need to understand the world as it really is and not be physically or emotionally weak.
(2) weak people cannot get resources or take care of others.
(3) people need to care about others and be self-aware.

I have always felt stupid.
I have always felt scared of people because people don't care.
I was always told I was bad.

Society has different tolerances for emotional expression in men and women.

Men in society today are told to be weak to submit to authority and that they do not care about other people. That they need to acquire resources and then women will get with them. So they need to get a good job and be rich. If they don't they are a loser.

Women are told that men can't protect them so they need to be self-sufficient. That the only way to get men to like them is to be superficial because that is what men want they are told.

-

In order for me to have any goals at all I had to isolate myself from people who were not like me. Anyone who was even close to just being unaware I avoided. People who were not nice, people who were mean, people who were emotional.

I have met almost no one who accepts me. Everyone is too defensive and everyone is unable to be objective/see things as they really are. Some people call this autism. My doctors have diagnosed me with schizophrenia. But so far it is all a bunch of bull ****.

People with high empathy are not able to find other people with the same level of a high empath as themselves. Which is not a male or female thing. But men are more autistic in this regard: they avoided feeling things and focus on getting what they want. Women are told to do the same today, to crush emotions and either be powerful or extremely superficial. There is no one source for this.

Love is about trust happiness and acceptance, people cannot get this by being all emotionally expressive and projecting onto others what they want them to be. What happens is that because everyone is all messed up we fantasize that other people love us and when they do not meet expectations we are crushed. We do not have the ability to realize other people are not who we think they are. So we fight over what we see as the other person's problem not our own problems inside us. People need to fix their own problems for relationships to work. Only a quarter of people have no insecurities.

 

[ZenRaiden]

@Animekitty dude its like you done some serious research on this topic.

I agree with most things, but I often think that shallow people are actually defense mechanism. Not saying people aren't shallow, but honestly most of our modern day interactions are shallow.
Take for instance this forum. Most of what we say is shallow and none of us are invested enough to breach the barrier of shallowness.
Its not that people are shallow, but we live in world where anything but shallow takes time to develop.
We learned to be shallow because going deep triggers uncertainty. Uncertainty breeds contempt even in the best of us, because it crosses invisible barrier.
I am just saying, because I too often regard people as shallow, but I know that most people are not shallow, but my brain cannot simply make up a reality that does not exist.
To put simply I am rarely in situations where going deep is something appropriate.
Even modern day dating is shallow endeavor.
Unfortunately the best psychologist say is be authentic and be yourself which practically means get used to rejection. But no matter how hard I try rejection sounds kind of bad. The flip side of coin is to not fear rejection, but when I don't fear rejection I also don't allow my self to be emotionally available.
Kind of be damned if you do, be damned if you don't situation.
Nonetheless your post is great.
Most women want to see the emo side of us I know that, me too.
But also the problem is that most women want also someone worth it.
Fragile enough to be a good partner, but not too frail for life it self I guess.

 

[dr froyd]

whatever happens, never listen to women when it comes to dating advice. Tis' the wisdom of the ancients

i don't say this to be mean to women. The fact is simply that women don't have access to the male vantage point of the situation and its somewhat harsh realities (I'm pretty sure women would find it comical if men tried to give them advice on dating)

if I am a woman and scroll through dating profiles (or expose myself to potential males in general), then I don't realize that the top 5% guys – who would gladly fuck me even if I am an average gal – are actually fucking 10 different women that I don't know of. This creates a perception on my part that I can require insanely high standard in partners. The important consequence of that is that the preferred behavior I would like to see from these high-quality males (who I believe are within my realistic scope of mating partners) is: they should adore me, compliment me, treat me like a queen etc, because the underlying message of such dynamic would be that a high-quality male is pursuing me as a mate – which provides me with a lot of good emotions. What happens if an average male does that? I spit in his face – this is creepy. I.e. the optimal behavior of the average male in this scenario is something entirely different from what the woman would advice males to do.

this is what I meant by the "unfortunately most of us are not characters in a romantic novel" comment earlier.

 

[BurnedOut]

But dumber is also not quite true.
People today live more complex lives than people in the past

Getting late? Book an Uber. Want to have groceries? Look up online. Oh, how to resolve a fight with your best friend? Google's got you covered. Don't want to go to college? Don't worry, we got an online degree? Don't wanna walk? We got a treadmill for you. Suffocated by pollution? We got an AC for you, no need to actually mitigate the problem. Don't wanna find someone using your flesh? Don't worry, we got dating apps. Your child cannot take a shit? Here's a youtube video on taking a shit.

I cannot see an iota of complexity in any action a modern human carries out. The outcomes are complex but nothing but a result of hivemind like-share-subscribe-or-cancel model. We got answers for everything but sadly those answers are insulting to one's innate adaptive skills. What the fuck are people adapting to productively these days? It's only a process of choosing the colors of the bars of your jail when you asked for a more comfortable life

 

[ZenRaiden]

I cannot see an iota of complexity in any action a modern human carries out.

Most of human history people did not even read.
Your contempt for how much smarter we are is obvious, because you think easier life is something bad for us.
Why our ancestors 40 000 years ago did not read? Were they lazy?
No they just did not have the time to do it?
Is hard life a badge of honor in your corner of the world?
How about I tell you that you can have a cushy life and not struggle and be happy and still grow as a human being?
Making life hard is easy! And sometimes its worth it. Man do it for women too.
At the end of the day though this society does not always reward hard work, or intelligence or honesty or good qualities.
And if it does its very specifically usually about agenda.
Evolution has its own agenda that is above and beyond human comprehension, that's why sharks and sloths, snails and cheetahs are on the same planet.

Is our life style deprived of balance? YES! Is it perfect because of technology no!

And you are bottom line right that we as humans reached a point were gadgets and tech reached a point where the usage of them is in territory of harming us more than helping us.

That is not however easy to mitigate by simply doing things the old fashioned way.
So essentially the world needs new solutions that are actually de facto good and not just calories spent diddling with tech or wasting time becoming the next versatile terminator.
That is the real test of adaptation.
Because growth pain and pain of needless suffering often seems or feels same, but one makes your life better the other just wastes time.
Knowing which is which confuses the fuck out of people.
We can easily confuse pain of growth and pain of loss, and often times we as humans can get stuck in pain of loss keep in it, because pain also makes us think we are gaining something. Sometimes its hard to admit its not.

 

[Black Rose]

Why our ancestors 40 000 years ago did not read? Were they lazy?

Brain power back then was completely extraverted.

Our ancestors were like all animals, they used their senses to hunt and gather and did not spend time thinking so much as looking at stuff.

My brother for example watches paint dry, ants colonize and grass grow.

They needed big brains to get from point A to point B, navigating and anticipating where food would be. Our hands are used to grab things, usually, we just use rocks or sticks to kill food. but our brains needed to be big to be extraverted.

Today all the extra brain power is used to remember symbols, pictograms, and hieroglyphs. We need this to function in society so we look at 2D things rather than 3D things.

3D takes mucho brain power. But 2D things create introversion. We no long look at things in 3D. And so society creates divisions of who can memorize vs who can do physical things. Life today is not hard because of a lack of resources but because we cannot do physical vs mental activities. It comes to the point where the division of labor is what defines you. Your skills.