We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The current socio-political meme is that men are pigs, sometimes but rarely aggressive pigs, when it comes to desire and sexuality. As somebody who is privy to male fantasies, I have no doubt about that. As Freud taught us, human apes are civilized and restrained at great cost.
But what about women? Wholesome women are libidinal too, if less aggressively so. All or most honest females will admit their needs for romance and exciting sex lives. It's biological that both men and women want sexual satisfaction as often as possible. Because of culture and moral demands, many keep it safely in the fantasy realm.
It's a challenge for women to keep their men charmed and enchanted by them, and vice-versa. Worth the effort, though. Besides trying to remain interesting and fun, it never hurts for guys and gals to look good naked.
The term has expanded in its use from the original idea of one person making another person doubt their sanity.
In current usage, it refers to any relationship abuse that seeks to distort reality to include things as far as, I think, major deceptions or major lying which puts a partner in another reality. Of course, in any given situation, either one or both people might actually be crazy or half-crazy but that is not about gaslighting.
Regardless of the extent of the sadism, narcissism, or destructiveness involved, it's a real thing and it is evil: Gaslighting.
However, there are many ways to be male, as many ways as there are to be female. During youth and adolescence, people develop what we term "ego ideals" - notions of what our best self might be. These come from family peers, from the culture, and from experience which teaches us what things are effective and what is not.
Our ideals for ourselves are often at variance with our genetics and with our potentials. Reality is the toughest teacher and toughest grader ever.
It's my experience that women prefer masculine men (however defined) but it rarely means brutal or unkind men. Men and women have ideals not only for themselves, but for partners and friends too. What is my ideal life partner? Strong mentally and physically, smart and savvy, athletic, brave and adventurous, high life-competence and adaptability, emotionally-reserved but open to friendship, and sexy and tender at times. I found one of those guys. The detail that he knows how to make money is just a bonus because I make a good living on my own.
nb: I am not a Psychologist. I am an MD, a Psychiatrist. But we're all interested in people and what makes them tick or not tick.
People snark that Psychologists are not known to be the most manly guys or the most feminine women, but I wonder what readers think the APA is really trying to say?
A solidly above-average IQ is handy for complex and especially abstract tasks. Also for difficult academic tasks. AVI muses on the topic here.
But let's leave aside things like SATs and IQ for a minute and consider the highly-adaptive, or maladaptive, character traits which can support or interfere with the pursuit of life goals regardless of IQ. That's where Psychology's Big 5 enter the picture. Briefly, they are:
- Openness to new experience (curiosity, adventurousness, risk-taking, inventiveness) - Conscientiousness (dutifulness, energy, self-discipline, etc) - Extraversion (taking some pleasure in others) - Agreeableness (playing nice with others, making yourself welcome company) - Neuroticism (being odd, difficult, etc. rarely helps unless a genius)
Is it true that "character is destiny"? Jordan Peterson always emphasizes something he terms "competence," along with some physical attributes to his list of advantages in life pursuits along with IQ and the above considerations, like attractiveness, fitness, and social skills.
Back to IQ, here Prof. Peterson discusses IQ and "the Jewish question" (yes, Ashkenazi Jews average one standard deviation above other Europeans. That's a lot.)
Loneliness is a tough problem. We live in a world full of all sorts of people, but connecting beyond a superficial level takes a special and complex combination of factors, circumstances, serendipity, and opportunity. Another problem is that we aren't necessarily all that appealing to many people, but we can hope we are appealing to a few people who appeal to us. We all reach out to people who we enjoy, and sometimes it works.
As the article points out, loneliness can spiral into excess neediness, or avoidance, distrust, and isolation. That's not a happy life.
I have only heard Scott Adams discuss "talent stacks" in reference to himself or to Donald Trump. (By the way, he is not a Trump supporter, just an admirer of his skills.)
Adams' point, if you have not heard him, is that there can only be one Tiger Woods who possesses a single world-beating talent, but you can move towards your hopes and dreams quite well if you have a good-sized talent stack of "pretty good" talents and abilities.
By "talents," he seems to mean mainly natural gifts like social skills and social instincts, IQ, appearance, curiosity, comfort with novelty and adventure, adaptability, interpersonal style, sense of humor, athleticism and physical grace, observational skills, communicative skills, and so forth, as they are matched and combined with acquired skills.
We also noted that Adams does not discuss flaws. Sadly, we can be blessed with a decent talent stack but be cursed with a few unfortunate or even one fatal flaw which act as anchors on our lives. People have deficit stacks too, but they are not fun to talk about.
There is a thing called "complicated grief," but I feel all grief is complicated. I do not believe that grief ever heals.
I think griefs scab over, but it doesn't often take much to knock off the scab. A long-term incapacitating depression after a loss is another matter, but I do not even think that a lengthy mourning is pathological. There is a lot of pain in life. It's part of the deal.
That's the title of this post, but I do not mean to restrict this little discussion to the workplace. The issue is that, wherever men and women congregate regularly, "chemical" attractions occur commonly.
These of course range from very mild to intense. It is difficult for people to focus on what they intend to do when there is a powerful attraction to a nice person of the opposite sex who is in regular proximity and contact. I have had people say to me "Is there anything you can do to help me get rid of this crush on so and so? It's messing up my workout/job/tennis game, etc."
A colleague and I were talking about this recently, and he (jokingly) suggested that people in that situation should just jump into bed together and eliminate the romantic/sexual tension and eliminate the mystery. "Get it over with. It's just biology." And of course their are rules about these things in the workplace.
In my view, such things are not necessarily a sign that a person is in a lousy relationship. Could be, but humans are designed to experience these things.
If a close friend confesses to you that some guy or gal at work or somewhere else is driving them nuts with desire, what would you say to them? Would you say"Grow up!"?
The only self-help book you’ll ever need, from a psychiatrist and his comedy writer daughter, who will help you put aside your unrealistic wishes, stop trying to change things you can’t change, and do the best with what you can control—the first steps to managing all of life’s impossible problems.
The famous psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott came up with the term Transitional Object. His idea had to do with things that symbolically connect with Mom during the process of independence and separation.
Since then the term has expanded to encompass a larger territory. We all understand that humans live in conflict between safety and comfort, and adventure and newness. Winnicott, in his psychoanalytic way, connected it all to connection with Mother but it goes beyond that.
Things and ideas that connect us with our past (which includes our orienting culture in general) are meaningful to those who have strong attachments.
Jordan Peterson often speaks of the importance of the instinctive "orienting reflex" in animals and humans. We all observe how much people vary in their fearfulness and adventurousness. You could view adventurousness as a way of creating excitement by becoming somewhat disoriented, away from safe, familiar, and orienting things, places, and people.
Then for most people, the somewhat disorienting adventure is finished with a return to the things and symbols which signify, or actually are, safe, comfortable, and familiar. Adults do what little kids do.
The current socio-political meme is that men are pigs, sometimes but rarely aggressive pigs, when it comes to desire and sexuality. As somebody who is privy to male fantasies, I have no doubt about that. As Freud taught us, human apes are civilized and restrained at great cost.
In one way or another, most books are about human nature. This one is now a best-seller: 
F*ck Feelings
The famous psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott came up with the term