Why do people have the desire to talk?

Profound insights should not be shared openly, do not cast pearls before swine. If there are people truly and enthusiastically interested in philosophy, then they will rise to the top of the hierarchy, over time. Philosophy is a very constrained social endeavor and rare ability. The few people in the world who are philosophical, or philosophers, will appear over time. This is not to be confused with Academics and college professors, who “study philosophy” but themselves are not philosophers. To be a philosopher, is unique and rare. It is a genuine interest, therefore a genuine nature and state of spirituality, that this or that individual is a philosopher. Wise men, of the ages.

Wisdom is shared between philosophers through the ages in texts, more classically and popularly known. Philosophers don’t necessarily “connect” with contemporaries of their own time, because of how far removed and advanced a philosopher can be, compared to the modern people. It’s like an NFL quarterback winning the superbowl. He then cannot have a very fulfilling time playing with amateurs or even the lesser of professionals. When you get closer to the top, fewer and fewer (dialogues) will be interesting or inspiring.

For example, can you link me a few threads of your own that are deep, profound, or interesting? Your own philosophies?

It can be a sexual chemistry. Philosophy, among males, is more often competitive instead, increasing male fitness and appeal.

It would be easy.

Most extroverts are egotistical and selfish. Narcissism can be expressed by extroverts or introverts.

Philosophy tends toward intimacy because a philosopher, who wants to explore the world, and therefore people within it, will reveal the secrets, thoughts, desires, and depth that most people want to lock away and keep private. Philosophy is very much against privacy insofar as examining the ‘truth’ of people. All is revealed and exposed to a proficient and honed philosopher. There would be nothing you can hide. Intimacy is then implied.

You are naked to the eyes of a philosopher, every thought, feeling, dream, inspiration, value, laid out on a table in full. Completely deconstructed. All your parts are known.

This thread was, almost certainly, started by a male. You, a female, are responding, and therefore confirming my thesis. You did not start this thread. And could you even? Can you even begin and create similar threads that provoke interesting thoughts and dialogues? Can you, as a woman, become a leader? The odds are against you. How many threads on this forum are started by males? The stats speak for themselves.

No. Talking is the involuntary movement of the lips which usually involves spontaneous thought so is the least intellectually demanding form of communication
Posting on a philosophy forum [ or indeed any forum for that matter ] requires logical thinking and correct grammar. So it is therefore a more demanding form
of communication. One is usually posting alone from ones computer so there is no social aspect to it either. I have no problem with this form for I am a recluse
who keeps himself to himself. So I like reading and writing words much more than I like speaking them. I cannot avoid not speaking at all but I try to keep it to
an absolute minimum. I also much prefer listening to talking but prefer being alone most of all

Males outnumber females on philosophy sites, so of course there are going to be more threads started by males.

Why state the obvious, males post more threads, as if it answers a secret unknown?

Most philosophers on the loco sites state a great deal of the obvious, redundancy, but in their minds they are uncovering something hidden, why is that?

You’re not digging deep enough, as per usual.

Why is philosophy, or hard sciences, 100 males to 1 female ratio?

Why are soldiers in war 10,000 males to 1 female ratio?

Isn’t it obvious that gender, sex, accounts for these discrepancies? Because it is beneficial, natural, or even necessary for such males to do so, or be so interested? And with females, why so little, relatively, interest? If existence applies to all organisms, male and female alike, then why are females so uninterested in examining and exploring existence? Could it be, that all the ‘negative’, ‘bad’, and ‘evil’ aspects of existence, are shielded and protected, away from females, by males? And that it may serve no great interest, or purpose, for females to engage as such?

Or that there ought to be a female NFL quarterback. Nobody thinks this. Nobody considers it. The possibility strikes no one. Yet we dance around these observations as if they’re nothing. But they’re everything. And you’re ignoring the fact.

And isn’t it also obvious, for females, to have different priorities in life, namely, to mate, bear children, give birth, and nurture them? Isn’t that also the natural and necessary component of a woman’s life? So where would that leave priorities, such as war or philosophy, on the list of most women?

I’m not saying it cannot be done. Don’t misconstrue or misinterpret me. What I’m saying, is that any great exception doesn’t prove what you want it to.

Thought Experiment for Wendy:

Let’s imagine for a moment, that it were necessary for all women on earth, to have at least one child. What would that then mean for earth, humanity, and nature? Would things become problematic? Would they change a lot? Or isn’t it most obvious, that things would remain relatively the same, since that’s what women do anyway? Is it a choice? Should it be a choice? Don’t instincts already determine these answers, and that when the time comes, you obey instincts, and cling to whomever attracts you most?

Modern humanity wants to deny instinct and nature, so much, to prove political points. To be relevant in a ‘liberal’ environment. “Look at me, deny my nature, and die for social justice, am I not righteous and saintly? Shan’t I be remembered and heralded forever? Am I not a martyr?”

It’s unimpressive. There’s a vast difference between denying nature, and embracing nature. There’s nothing wrong with women having children. In fact there may even be something right with it.

Women becoming educated in mass is relatively new, still not found worldwide. Woman holding a variety of jobs…is relatively new as well. Why are you in denial of these facts that little more than a hundred years ago, illiterate woman were trapped in their houses knocked up with 10 illiterate kids to look after. Half of the men were illiterate or had only up to a forth grade education.

I’m giving woman time to acclimate themselves to a richer reality where they are no longer openly held back from becoming all they can be. Change takes time to spread. Men have fucked over our world and its resources for over ten thousand years, women deserve a few hundred to reign in all your craziness.

For every bobble-headed woman there will be a smart, no-nonsense, competent woman eventually. Hey, you men knock up dumdums based on their looks, killing your hopes of reproducing scientists of either gender in your dumdum families. Men, who are supposedly superior, are dumbing down their offspring based on chicks who make their dicks hard, rather than romancing women with brains who can wear more makeup to cover their fugliness.

One child per woman, a decline in the current population. Would what things become problematic…specify? We need a decline in the population.

A recipe for the disaster we are already in. It’s time for people to start making smarter decisions. Looking before leaping.

I want to say the desire is in the context of problem solving, though ideally men do and women talk (should be less talking and more doing for men).

So why do men like to talk? To sound smart, to express their feelings (yes, even under guise of doing philosophy…that’s you Autsider), to socially bond with other men, and to get different insights/info. Some men are not loved or are generally ignored, so they ‘invent’ ways to draw some extra attention to themselves, and these ways can be rather creative indeed. These are usually the clowns or drama queens too. Also one of men’s apparent needs is validation, either through actions or social interactions (those things, though are usually done in a self-reflective manner, that is, a man will create a certain standard and try to hold himself up to it). Although you might see a man who doesn’t give a shit about anything or anyone (apathy), I don’t think that is a mans natural tendency. His natural tendency would be to be more involved in the environment and engage it. And it is healthy for a man to have a goal because it facilitates the flow of his energies.
Anyway, women usually talk to express their feelings and share information. And bond with other women.

Women talk because they want others to solve their problems.
Men don’t because they want to solve their problems on their own.

Men need to solve the problems they created…yes…on their own so they can learn from their mistakes since they are way more pigheaded than women.

I think it’s widely accepted that man=reason and woman=emotion.
How can you say that men are more pigheaded than women?
I agree Joker is more pigheaded than women but he’s not a good representation of men in general.

One easy example, when men are lost, they won’t ask for directions. In general, men hate asking for help which borders on psychosis. Yes, you want to solve your own problems but by being pigheaded your problems often spill over into other people’s lives causing unnecessary hardships.

MA,

Women ask for help to get problems solved, I’ll agree with that. I think that is because women are more practical and efficient than men. While a man would rather struggle to accomplish a goal on his own over a longer duration of time, a woman is like…what’s the quickest way we can get this done right because I have a ton of other things to do. A man, on the other hand, will fiddle faddle with the problem alone into infinity.

Men tinker.
Women organize…streamline.

That is because we have to seriously think about how to solve it before anything else can be done

Unfortunately.

Seriously?

Men hesitate to do many things that women might very willingly do and for one simple reason:
Throughout history, men have been very willing to feel, think, and even say, “She is merely a delicate, disadvantaged female. I should bend and help her out.” Women throughout history have craved for and depended upon such. Women are very accustom to being treated a certain way. When they display serious ignorance, foolishness, and naivety, men forgive them and attempt to compensate for their pathetic needs. The real truth is that such is the very nature of evolution’s command. Without the female being so helpless and the male being willing to compensate, the human race would not exist.

The end result of that, among many other concerns, is that males do not expect forgiveness from other people for their weaknesses. They correctly assume that other people will disrespect them for not knowing what perhaps “everyone should already know” or not being able to do what “everyone should be able to do” (unless female). Women live in a state of male forgiveness. Other women quite often see the issue more realistically and scorn women more accurately than men. But in our current age of accentuating weakness and promoting dependence and frivolous aspirations (all for a purpose), the common Media presents the image that the female’s inherent weakness is a strength and a good thing, and merely because males fall for it, “what suckers men are”.

So yes, males tend to hesitate to ask for directions. Why? Because they are still trying to not be meek, helpless females and rather instead, be contributors to a stronger, more self-reliant society or group (thus anti-socialist).

Even weak pathetic men (stereo-typical gay men) have trouble contradicting their inherent urge to be a man. Females seldom comprehend the difference. Although for such naivety and blindness, women are regularly forgiven … because of their natural helplessness (not so much gay men).

Woman, don’t cross the line with me. Don’t even think about it.

I don’t mind asking for help. The reason I generally don’t is because people generally do not want to help.

Whenever I am weak, I will certainly seek out help. However, if I realize that there is noone out there who can and who is willing to help then I will have no choice but to accept my fate.

There is, however, a breed of men who, unable to accept the reality that other people do not want to offer help, came up with a theory according to which people actually want to help it’s just that they have degenerated to a lower state of being from which they have to be rescued.

Their desire (to receive help) overpowers their reason (the obvious fact that they won’t receive any help.)

It makes them feel better because they don’t have to mentally process the consequences of the fact that there is simply noone out there who is willing to help.

And I think that women have a similar mentality, if this is not a feminine mentality itself.

They do not merely ask for help.
They expect and demand to receive help.
And when they don’t, they get angry.

To James: Why are you ranting? Man, don’t even try it with me or else, Buster! And when did your name become Magnus Anderson?
To Magnus: Stop with your pessimistic assumptions that no one will help and ask, for crying out loud.

I have seen men in situations where I couldn’t offer them the help that they wanted due to concerns for my safety. For instance, men as stranded motorists quickly become angry creatures especially late at night.

They are SO easy…