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…
Arminius
I have no doubt that you may be correct. However I was only offering my own interpretation.
Hopefully this response will shed more light on the matter of influence - with any luck it should make sense.
I don’t know enough about Hegel or Nietzsche to comment. I am doing my best to break things down to their simplest components. Talking it seems to me is primarily about making noise and secondarily about getting a point across. Communication on the internet is a slightly different construct.
For example:
When we are babies we cry - something drives us to make a noise in the first place. Is the cry not a form of communication?
Many young creatures in their early stages make a noise - quite often for a reason.
After we have finished our many bouts of crying we tend to move into a more benign mode of making seemingly random noise(often times rather adorable).
Before we move onto articulating more structured sounds, it seems that crying and laughing are two of the earliest sounds that indicate emotional states.
Eventually our first words come into being. Whether we truly understand our first words the first time we use them is unknown to me.
We may never have known ourselves to begin with. By talking we are able to reflect off others who we are.
I am working with the idea that desires exist in some sort of hierarchy that is built up over time. Before we started talking and understanding the noise that came out of our mouths I can only assume that we were not really aware of that desire. For now I am not really certain how else I can put this.
Regarding influence then, I am saying that part of the motivation when we have the desire to talk, is to influence for good or bad - whatever the case may be. But would influence not be at a much lower level such as when the baby cries she or he might be unintentionally influencing one of her or his parents? I am not certain how the baby might be intending power, however recognition is probable - in the early stages perhaps less conscious.
But yes - it boils down to information - lots of it - the more the better. Communication is all about information.
I suggest in the case of the baby that the health of the group(being the family) as a whole is at times based on the baby’s influence and is rather innocent - but I am certain that we could debate that too - especially on ILP. I view the family as a unit of society.
Influence also comes in the flavor of innocence.