Psychology / SocialSkills / InterHumanCompetence

Why is that incredible unawareness or “blindness” of women when it comes to probably the most important task/decision making process on how to pick the right mate.

actually… “decision making” judging far reaching decisions, has never been the strong suit of humans, but humans do way better than this than apes.

The human brain is different from the ape brain, especially in the pre frontal cortex:

  • “Area 10 is one of the cortical areas of the frontal lobe involved in higher cognitive functions such as the undertaking of initiatives and the planning of future actions…”
  • “in the human brain is larger relative to the rest of the brain than it is in the apes”
  • “and its supragranular layers have more space available for connections with other higher-order association areas.”
  • “suggests that the neural substrates supporting cognitive functions associated with this part of the cortex enlarged and became specialized during hominid evolution.” (source)

Making mistakes here could endanger not only whole nations, but the very survival of all of mankind, the species of “homo” sapiens.

In other words: has nature “forgotten” to update the human’s brain on “how to pick a suitable mate” to the modern world? (where muscles and big breasts are still nice to have, but should not be the deciding factor)

We (mankind as long as it has brains) consider some truths to be self evident such as 1 plus 1 equals 2.

in the same category of “self evident” truths fall the following:

  1. men and women are both humans
  2. all humans have a psychology
  3. nature “designed” humans
    1. in a way, that nature “thinks” will ensure the survival of the species the best
      1. massive biodiversity (every human is unique in his genes = biodiversity = someone will have the right genes for the right immune system to survive the next pandemic)
    2. installed programs on humans, that nature “thinks” will serve it’s aims for maximum probability of survival
    3. ensure the best biodiversity, preserve “the individual” (!) human, the individual couple, the individual family…
  4. men have to be best at everything especially football and soccer (run fast, throw far, so when they ever encounter a lion they are the ones to (probably) survive the best)
  5. women have the very challenging task to identify the traits  in men that are “probably” best suited for survival (of herself, the kids = the genes)
  6. this is exactly the reason women favor men that drive expensive big cars, because big expensive car “look like” this dude is “surviving well” in the currently rule set of capitalism
    1. So men are always under the pressure to drive the biggest best most expensive car or at least advertise themselves like “the best”
    2. women are under constant pressure to select the best man from this massive amount of (largely fake) and “make believe” and “where are the traps?” advertisement
  7. almost needless to say
    1. men often cheat in the advertisement process
    2. women often enough fall for the fake ads and fail to identify the cheaters early enough (before marriage and before kids) for various reasons
      1. whatever “looks” good on the outside, is not necessarily “good” on the inside
      2. if the package had “ashole” written all over it, it is irresponsible and unreasonable to still open the package, but women do anyway and then complain that what they picked is indeed an “ashole” completely unaware of the consequences (endless trauma, divorce and so on))

The psychology of money is also counterproductive in this, because brain scientists found, if humans center to much around money or the idea of money they tend to become reckless egoistic asholes.

But if women even encourage men to become asholes than we got:

moneysystem says: you should become an ashole


women say: you should become an ashole

= planet full of chaos & destruction by asholes

so why is it, that an expensive big car is STILL for (stupid) women enough “positive signal” to marry someone?

Even when it turns out expensive big cars can only be bought (not by hard fair labor) but also by:

  1. drug trafficking
  2. prostitution
  3. corruption

So capitalism is pretty clever in tricking the program nature installed on women.

A direct result of this, is the enormous amount of

  1. singles unable to find a suitable mate
  2. women pick “the wrong guy” (the asholes) thus actively encouraging more men to become asholes
  3. unlike 100 years ago (almost 100% of couples marry) to the year 2020 (almost 0% of couples marry) to almost 0% of couples want to have kids (breed more asholes)

Solutions for the dilemma please?

So the task for men and women (mankind) is to come up with a financial economic system that incentives positive human traits.

If parents do not care about the probability of survival of their kids – needless to say, the survival of mankind is at stake (exactly NOT what nature wanted).

to Women:

  1. ignore the Porsche
  2. build and train awareness what, REALLY makes a good mate fit for family & survival of the family and mankind (and even if that dude never will drive a Porsche, stick with it)
  3. if women fail to encourage men to become good humans (anything but psychopathic asholes) mankind is f***ed

everyone deserves to be happy (happiness in the buddhist sense is sustainable lasting satisfaction, be in balance/at peace with oneself and the world surrounding).

consciousness should be considered to be an important part what makes humans intelligent.

without conscious decision making, the most powerful tools (logic is just a tool) are put to bad use that could – in the end – endanger the survival of all mankind.

but who cares, if capitalism turned 90% of mankind into a bunch of ignorant, egoistic, idiotic, individualists that do not care about anything or anyone but themselves.

if those that get paid most, destroy mankind.

this needs to get better, otherwise the motivation if those that try to rescue mankind is seriously damaged and transits to desilution and isolation and “acceptance” of what seems to be impossible to change: the death of all mankind.

the dying out process has already begun with women subconsciously already knowing its going to end bad, no matter the state pays for childcare.

u can print money (if money is paper or digital)

u can not print planets, water, clean air, food or consciousness


who manages to stay mentally healthy in an crazy environment – has achieved a lot

THE worst side effect of this (financial debt created economic competition) system is: it makes people hate people

think about this: ScenarioA – city

People ransack a store in Veracruz, Mexico, Thursday Jan. 5, 2017. Anger over gasoline price hikes is fueling more protests and looting. Officials say the unrest has resulted in the death of a policeman, the ransacking of hundreds of stores and arrests of hundreds of people. (AP Photo/Felix Marquez) source:

you live in a densely populated area that can not sustain itself without the flow of money.

Your subconsciousness is in constant danger “will the flow of money still work tomorrow?”

Every other human appears to you as a competitor about resources (and if those resources are finite and non-renewable, this of course is true, your subconsciousness is true to you!)

now think about ScenarioB – countryside

in the countryside where there is space (not more than 10x people per hectar = 10000m²= 107639.1ft²)

people might have less money, but they are less stressed, because the “fallbacksystem” (as long as living conditions on this planet are somewhat in balance/climatechange) are right in front of their door

they can always go back to (organic, labor intense) farming and won’t have kill other people for the last can of beans in the SuperMarket (the most possible extreme version of “competition”)

ScenarioC – even more space

The Outback of Australia is hot, yes, but there is plenty plenty plenty of land.

So think about this: You travel the Outback… and there is no house in 1000 miles.

By accident you meet another person.

Chances are pretty good this person is not a outlawed bandit, but just another human being that tries to survive on this planet.

You will be happy to meet and greet and cooperate and help each other.

Because your common enemy is not mankind – but the struggle for survival in nature in the universe against the elements.

You might even appreciate the presence of another human (as long as this human is trustworthy of course).

humans always have been social beings that lived in groups for cooperation

It happened with the invention of money and television that people became ego-centric (the psychological effects of “thinking about money” are studied, they cause egoism)

Everyone wants to have their own house with their own pool with their own television to sit in front of – material wise “rich” but social wise very very lonely “poor” and unhappy (!) (because this damn pool needs a lot of cleaning and there is only ads and shit in tv) X-D

So when you meet another human in the vast spaces of space – chances are pretty good – there will be appreciation.

There are examples where humans have a POSITIVE impact on the environment, just by “being there” and living a an renewable lifestyle.

example: Native Humans of the Amazonas rainforest

as primitive as those people seem to western high-tech cultures and weaponry… it is actually their technological inability to cut down large trees (deforestation) and their inability to produce plastic, that brings about (non-intentional side effect) a livestyle “in balance” with nature – perfect renewable cycles of almostl every material. (because they only use renewable material, except maybe gold)

You could say – it was their primitive lifestyle that saved them – because they were unable to destabilize their own system – which is good.

But of course – if a meteor strikes – they would not have the science to deflect that threat.

So the truth about the perfect balance is somewhere in the middle.

You can ask any native human – they don’t know stress or burnout or mental illness – it just does not exist.

just as our ancestors: they had no plastic and used to dispose their biological wastes (from “shit in the forrest” to cooking waste) in the forrest… which “by accident” created very fertile soil called “terra preta