If you have ever studied the boot sequence of your PC, you would be aware of two types of internal checks during bootup. Most of you are probably familiar with the first one, as windows (but not linux) often hides the second check.
Hardware Check: CMOS Checksum
Software Check: System Configuration Files
In some ways, the CMOS Checksum is analogous to human consciousness and the System Configuration Files are analogous to Personality. You must also be familiar with the concept of “factory settings”, a state where the System Configuration Files carry only the most basic information and default settings.
Now let us apply this to human beings. Let us say that we are born with “factory settings”, which are not the same for everyone but within a fairly narrow range. This is why we can learn the language and fit in the culture etc we are born in. The OS (our mind) keeps on updating the System Configuration Files, depending on what works and what does not. This is facilitated by society and its ways (network). We install new applications (abilities) as soon as we learn them and have the drivers (skills) to use them.
Given that most babies do not do a lot more than cry, laugh, suck and excrete, the system configuration files of babies might not be that different from each other. They may have different distributions of the OS, but the OS has not yet been fully loaded. The default settings in babies are cute sociopathy, not overt.. just enough to make sure they are cared for.
Now imagine that one group (boys) is exposed to conditions whereby they are encouraged to be less sociopathic, but the other group (girls) are given multiple passes for such behavior. How do you think the final OSes for both will look and behave? Even if the hardware is the same, many routines will never be used by one group.
It is quite likely that the ‘girl OS’ will infact become more sociopathic as the OS rewrites and modifies the original system configuration files towards a more optimal setting. Such sociopathy might not manifest itself in a manner similar to that in the ‘boy OS’ because of missing drivers and applications.
The only check on creating infinitely sociopathic system configuration files were physical and technological constraints such as lack of effective birth control and lack of domestic appliances etc. Those constraints are now gone and it is now possible for a ‘girl OS’ be infinitely sociopathic, as opposed to just old fashioned girl sociopathy.
What do you think? The next part is now up: Altruism, Adversarialism and Women: 05
This post takes off from my last one in this series, and tries to answer the question:
Why are women inherently sociopathic?
Most men have two types of responses to this concept:
1. I have always wondered about that myself.. but not all women are like that (which is partially true, as we will see later)
2. Yes they are, but is all due to evolution (which is bullshit as I will show you next).
The concept that womens sociopathic behavior is due to evolution is white-knighting made to sound scientific, and here is why..
Let us assume that the concept of fairness, decency and altruism are hardwired algorithms implemented in our neural network. While I have my own doubts about the validity of this concept, I am going to show you that even if we consider this to be true, it cannot explain the sociopathy seen in women.
Hardwired algorithms in any neural type network require a reason to be created and continue to exist. As such it is analogous to multimedia or game specific instruction sets implemented in x86 CPUs, where it is cheaper to implement them in all chips rather than not implement them in some CPUs of the same type. Ergo, if such algorithms exist, they will be present in both male and female brains.
CPUs often have more instruction sets than a particular operating system (software) implements. Therefore the software (OS + applications) and not the hardware is what really determines if a particular instruction set is used. You can probably see where I am going with this idea..
In humans cultural expectations, language, laws, social mores etc are the OS + apps. Therefore it is the human construct of our social system that determines whether any hardwired algorithm is used. However unlike current computers, our OS + apps evolve according to perceived needs and ideas.
Now consider which groups of women are less sociopathic than most.. They are uglier women and post-menopausal women who have accepted that they are post-menopausal. The question then is why are these two groups somewhat different.. Hormones or fertility are not an issue, as a younger woman may become ugly due to an accident or disease.
The real reason is quite simple, namely both groups cannot depend on their looks to keep on being sociopaths. Therefore they have to utilize parts of their brain that always existed but were never utilized before.
Evolutionary explanations like cost of sperm versus eggs are bullshit as far as human beings go for two seldom talked about reasons.
1. Unlike many other animals, humans cannot survive on their own for a significant period of time- even in the proverbial eden. Therefore human behavior faces constraints than many animals simply do not have. Since human beings have to be almost always part of a functional group to survive, a kill and screw approach would not take you very far (especially in a world at subsistence levels).
2. Excessive conflict and mate snatching would quickly kill off cooperation in smaller groups. Even the most ‘primitive’ and smallest tribes cannot exist for long if most of their members are trying to constantly screw each other over. Even if you were the conquering group, the way you treated the conquered would be noted and remembered by others in your group (because you could very well do the same to them next). The rape and pillage strategy only works in larger anonymous groups, which are historically speaking a recent innovation. Even then, most people used to live in small villages and towns until the last 150 odd years.
More about this concept in my next post in the series here: Altruism, Adversarialism and Women: 04