posted
Fight the power Survivor! (fist) I like to see anyone who sees being human as being an upright business man with a bowler hat with a stick up their @$$es normal deserves to get stoned and sruck then go swimming in the middle of the pacific ocean (gone with the wind of my insanity. don't ask) Humanity is simply one of those things that cannot be proven to have a literal meaning nor a literal connection to humans in general. Wow I am so immensely exhausted. I am going to read this post later and see if it makes sense. Feel free to call me autistic if you want, savy?
quote:Is there a "male" and "female" psyche? Are men and women, in general, psychologically fundamentally different?
A couple of thoughts on this:
To the extent that there are separate and distinct "male" and "female" psyches, I truly believe that they are culturally determined much more than they are biologically determined. It starts with a blue or a pink blanket at birth, and proceeds with how boy babies and girl babies are talked to and treated and encouraged or discouraged from doing and being interested in certain things as they grow up. American society still pushes those gender roles, just like they did in the fifties and before. Just watch the ads during television shows targeted at children if you don't believe me.
I was lucky enough to not be brought up with those sorts of stereotypes within the home and so I test out slightly more androgynous than most on psychological tests, despite cultural pressures I was exposed to in school and in the media. This is probably why I feel the way I do on this question.
I also think that the natural variation within males and within females probably allows for females with many "male" psychological characteristics and for males with many "female" psychological characteristics without this being pathological in any way.
quote:To the extent that there are separate and distinct "male" and "female" psyches, I truly believe that they are culturally determined much more than they are biologically determined.
As soon as I saw this my mind flashed back to the other day when I was at a picnic for my fiance's nephew. (He's 4) There were lots of kids running around about knee height, along with their parents. When the parents came in they said to the one girl who was present, "Aren't you pretty!" The boys were told, "Aren't you getting big!" if anything was said at all about their apperance. Most of the things said to the boys were actually more personal.
<rant> The whole scene actually depressed me, I tried to push it out of my mind. When I was growing up gender was never menetioned. My dad told me, "You can do anything you put your mind on!" and never once said, "Despite the fact you're a girl," or anything remotely like that. I would try to treat my kids the same way, but here I am at a picnic, and the other adults take it all away from you by doing crap like that. I'm worried enough about being an adequate mother without seeing that I could be undermined by the rest of everyone. I suppose it's something I'll just have to deal with. </rant>
posted
The whole thing depresses me the opposite way -- all the bunk about women being able to do anything and everything and then the lowering of standards and qualifications to make it so while denigrating the traditional female role, which happens to be part of ANYthing and EVERYthing.
Firefighting and the military come to mind, though I worked where men complained about women getting the same factory jobs, but the men were asked to help the women with the heavier aspects of the work. The men were doing their own jobs and part of the women's, but everyone got the same pay. So much for "equal pay for equal work."
Sure, some women can do some of the traditional male work, but they aren't the norm. And even among those who can, there are those who don't want to (see my earlier post). If they can really, truly cut it, fine. But they're not going to have it all and look like little miss sex kitten and have everything fine on the homefront.
If feminizing the male and masculinizing the female is the agenda, count me out. Talk about homogenizing! Talk about lack of diversity! Suppression is a dangerous solution. Look at all the Ritalin used on little boys to keep them in line. We need the fullness of both the male and the female, not a watered down version of both.
quote:"....boys need to be civilized, their agression properly channeled and their boisterousness constrained....But...a boy's heart can be made of pure gold...his capacity for unselfishness is vast, and...his strength and courage, when he becomes a man, is still necessary...."
That's an excerpt from Mona Charen that gave me goosebumps yesterday. That's the male I want to write. But the stock female character today isn't worthy of him.
posted
Since I asked the question, I probably ought to supply my own answer.
My opinion on this is actually pretty close to littlemissattitude's, except I think there's a bit more. From experience, I would say that women are generally better suited for doing things that require multitasking (doing and thinking of many things at once), and men are generally better suited for doing things one at a time. I believe this is supported by the fact that four times more boys are diagnosed with ADD/ADHD than girls. (ADD/ADHD is mainly characterized by the inability to concentrate on things that are not interesting, and the extreme ability to concentrate on just one interesting thing.)
I've also noticed that women seem to be more patient (you could call it less agressive) than men, which may be linked to that. It makes sense to me, anyhow.
I think we also tend to downplay the physical. The physiological differences between men and women will definitely affect the environmental input that goes into their psyche. Women are far more likely to have their appearance be a factor in the early stages of their relationships because of culture. I don't stop at just blaming "culture," though. Isn't it possible that one reason "culture" is the way it is is that women's physiological changes during puberty are so much more apparent? (I'm not talking about just breasts, here. Girls simply go through more changes to their shape than boys do. Boys get bigger and grow some hair. Big deal.)
Already I can tell I've upset somebody again. Oh, well.
Kolona's got some good points, I think. Personally, I'm very glad that my wife chooses to stay home and raise our children, rather than cheating them by having them raised by someone else. She has the capacity and education to be a very successful businesswoman. Is it an assault on her individuality that she believes she can do more important work at home?
(I know. I've upset more people again. I'm truly sorry...really.)
[This message has been edited by pickled shuttlecock (edited August 09, 2003).]
posted
Kolona, I used to think that feminism had gone too far. I grew up in a frankly sheltered life where I naively believed that sexism was behind us. It's not. Let's put aside jobs requiring physical strength for a moment (I'm coming to them) and talk about an example from my own life.
A couple months ago my fiance and I met with a woman we had never met before about putting together music for our wedding ceremony. We made introductions, and my fiance and I both mentioned that we were programmers. The woman smiles brightly, turns fully to my fiance, and says, "Oh, then you can help me with my computer problem!" What am I? Chopped liver?
I've seen people who think standards need to be lowered so that women can have jobs like firefighting. I think they're nutsoid. If I'm in a burning building I want a firefighter who can pull me out. Asking that standards be lowered is an insult to women, as far as I'm concerned. Those women who are strong enough to do it on their own (and some do exist) need to be proud that they have attained what they've done. Getting there on pity is useless.
On the other hand, physical strength is a factor in fewer and fewer jobs nowadays. Even in the military there are a great many jobs that have nothing to do with physical strength. They may have to do with coordination and reflexes but not so much strength. I have no problem with women in combat.
Now, Kolona, you said my story earlier depressed you in the opposite way, that telling women they can do anything is bunk. But what good is it to tell a girl that she can't? What good is it to constantly tell her that she's weaker and less able? What, do you think we're getting her hopes up? Because I don't even believe that. With enough strength training and hard workd women can become powerful fighters and body builders. Yes, women can do ANYTHING AT ALL. I truly believe it. You want to be a firefighter, well, you'll have to work at it harder than a man to get to the same point, but you spend hours in the gym and go for it.
Here's the real point, and the one I firmly believe in with all my heart. Tell someone that there are no limits, that they can do anything, and they'll find their own natural talent and niche. Tell someone that there are limitations, though, and they'll end up only ever living up to the low expectations they feel you have set for them. I say they feel you have set for them because you might not even think you're setting such low expecations, but in their mind you are. Give them the stars and they'll go to the moon. Give them the sky and all they'll find is earth.
quote: Here's the real point, and the one I firmly believe in with all my heart. Tell someone that there are no limits, that they can do anything, and they'll find their own natural talent and niche. Tell someone that there are limitations, though, and they'll end up only ever living up to the low expectations they feel you have set for them. I say they feel you have set for them because you might not even think you're setting such low expecations, but in their mind you are. Give them the stars and they'll go to the moon. Give them the sky and all they'll find is earth.
Nice quote, Christine.
I just feel, though, that I should point out that there are always a few who will take being told they can't do something as a challenge....
posted
Christine, Feminism has gone and is going too far. They lost me years ago when a prominent Feminist said that to be a true Feminist, you had to be willing to be considered a lesbian, even if you weren't. Follow that up with all the anti-male, anti-traditional family, pro-abortion stuff, and add in the weird politics, and you have one bankrupt movement.
Sexism is a slippery word. A guy can get in trouble just being a gentlman. Sure, I've had things like you mentioned happen. But all Feminism is doing -- at best -- is shifting the barbs. For instance, on a white water rafting camping trip I was one of only a few wives -- I was also the only one not rafting and the only housewife. A banker was complaining about his job, how he wanted it to be more exciting, not have to deal with housewives and their unbalanced checkbooks. He caught my eye when he realized his foot was in his mouth so I just let him stew. (I guessed he'd rather deal with businesses and their messed up books. )
People are human. There'll always be those who like the taste of shoe leather. However, at its worst, the vendetta against sexism is restricting free speech and criminalizing merely stupid or crass behavior.
News flash: The standard-lowering nutsoids are winning -- on several fronts. That physical strength is needed is less jobs doesn't negate the fact that in those in which it is needed there's a lot of foolishness going on. Even with strength training, a woman won't surpass a man with comparable training. We're just built differently.
I, and many others, have a problem with women in combat. A wise person I know asked: Why do women want to give up the best parts of being a woman for the worst parts of being a man?
There's a wisdom and tact involved with speaking to people of their dreams. No, you don't browbeat a person with negatives. Trying and failing are good life lessons, after all. But encouragement and false hope are two different things.
Kind of like the self esteem fiasco, which is really all about ego inflation. We're raising a generation of kids who think they're pretty rad, but have no basic skills. Self esteem comes from accomplishments, not trite little self-love messages.
So -- the problem in all this in writing is twofold: audience and publishers. I read far less than I ever have because of all the Feminism-inspired claptrap. Publishing is a pretty liberal industry. A rock and a hard place.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited August 12, 2003).]
posted
Kolona, thanks for that last post, I understand where you're coming from a lot better. I agree with a lot of what you said about extreme feminists. Whoever said you should be a lesbian to be a feminist needs to have her head examined. And don't even get me started on the self-esteem movement.
I am sometimes frustrated that women who choose the life of a housewife/mother are looked down upon. Just because women have been given other choices does not mean that we should give up the single option we used to have.
I also am frustrated about the walking on eggshells bit, that men can't say the least thing wrong without getting bashed. Political correctness has gone too far too, but honestly, it's a separate issue.
quote:I, and many others, have a problem with women in combat. A wise person I know asked: Why do women want to give up the best parts of being a woman for the worst parts of being a man?
Because that is their choice. And who am I to judge the best parts of being a woman and the worst parts of being a man? In my mind, the feminist movement was about giving women options, and we are not all cut from the same mold.
Some people have taken their feminism too far, but these are a small and very vocal minority as far as I can tell. Here's something I've noticed about humans: we're reactionary. We see people taking an idea too far so we back off of the neutral opinion so that we can counterbalance the wackos. As long as I have more trouble finding work as a programmer because I am a woman, as long as people assume my fiance knows more about tech stuff than I do, as long as little girls are prised for their beauty and little boys for their strength and intelligence, there is still some room for improvement.
I don't belive I'm taking any of this overboard. I am not out to get men. In fact, I am very much in love with one of them. I don't want men to start staying home and raising babies (unless they want to), I don't want men to suffer or receive less. I'm afraid that what I do want, though, is a genera iattitude adjustment that will only come with time and patience. I am not at all a patient woman.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited August 12, 2003).]
posted
Actually, the quote about women giving up the best parts about being a woman for the worst parts of being a man, though it included the issue of women in the military, was not limited to it. Woman in combat goes against the grain for a slew of reasons (pun!), but of course this isn't the place for them.
quote:Some people have taken their feminism too far, but these are a small and very vocal minority as far as I can tell.
That small and vocal minority are calling the shots and setting policy.
posted
All I can say is, you'd better watch out for SiliGurl when she gets a chance to rejoin us. Go tell her, a successful officer in the military, that she "doesn't belong there." Go on, I double dare ya!
I know a few women in the military, and believe me, no one lowered standards for them to succeed. They went through the same boot training, go through the same obstacles, and yes, run the same risks as men. Should they be there? If they can keep up with the boys without any standards being changed, then hell, yes. It's their choice, just as not joining is another woman (or man's) choice (so long as the draft isn't reinstated).
Sorry, but I'm a pinko liberal commie by nature, and when people start talking about where women (or anyone) does or doesn't belong, it gets my dander up. No offense meant to anyone else, and I realize we're straying dangerously off-topic (I think I hear Kathleen knocking on the thread door), but I just couldn't resist.
posted
In college I took a course on American military history. It was a very interesting study, and one of the things I learned that I just recalled is that military standards have been steadily going UP since World War I. For example, GED's are no longer good enough, you have to have a high school diploma. Physical requirements have also increased. I could not get in even if I wanted to because my vision is too poor.
I'm no pinkie liberal commie , in fact, most of the time I think I'm a little conservative, but I agree with you, Hildy. I, too, have known female officers and I got to tell you, they could kick most guys behinds!
posted
As long as you all can keep this discussion in the general area of how males and females are depicted in writing, we can consider it on topic.
And as long as you all can keep from getting offensive to each other, we can consider it an acceptable discussion.
Some of the posts have been close to the edge, but I don't think they've gone completely over yet. I really appreciate the efforts to stay on topic and to get along. That's hard to do on a subject like this.
posted
Ah, but I didn't say women didn't belong in the military, just not in combat. And for those in the military, separation of training -- female oriented -- is wiser. I've read enough articles about the injuries women are sustaining, not to mention the pregnancy leaves/terminations which make the money spent training these women a waste. And the injuries are in spite of the watered-down training, which only a public relations facade claims otherwise. This is not your father's military anymore. Although, and it’s been a while since I read this, only the Marines haven’t compromised their training for females. That could have bitten the dust since then, though.
quote:It's their choice, just as not joining is another woman (or man's) choice (so long as the draft isn't reinstated).
(italics mine)
There's the rub. Should there be a draft, those of us who believe women shouldn’t be in combat or even in the military are suddenly in a bind.
None of this is to say women are weak, retiring creatures, incapable of doing the hard stuff when necessary. History proves otherwise. Circumstances often demand from women, and men, a measure over and above what even they think they're capable of. But too much of what is the Feminist agenda is deadly to traditional families.
Hildy, you surprised me – in a nice way, though. I fully expected you to call me a hypocrite since you critiqued my chapters and may remember that my main female character throws a guy. Although maybe that’s egotistical on my part, thinking you’d remember, since I’d hardly expect my story to be any long-term memory priority to you , but I choose to think you have an especially good memory and remembered the circumstances of the throw and that’s why you didn’t make such a charge.
For the benefit of those looking over our shoulders here, the poor guy thought he was kissing his girlfriend and of course he wasn’t and she flipped him. Total surprise. Actually, she does it again just a couple chapters later when he’s about to do her damage, this time thinking she’s a thief, but in a split second he realizes who she is and pulls his punch and – surprise again – she throws him. I maintain, however, that in a one-on-one, no surprises, she’d be no match for him.
posted
Kolona, of course I remember your story...it's still one of the better works I've had the pleasure of critiquing in a long time! And, no, I certainly don't think you're a hypocrite.
Okay, on topic (which was what? oh, right) - I think your story is actually an excellent example of a woman writing both strong female AND male characters. I don't think you have to be a member of a sex to write a believable, well-rounded character...you just have to know a lot of people, period. Borrow the traits you like from friends and use the aspects you dislike from enemies. This is as reasonable a method for developing well-rounded, realistic characters as any.
posted
I'm sure that this page of the discussion, being dominated almost completely by female viewpoints, has something to teach us about the difference between writing male and female characters, but I'm just too limited to learn it.
I enjoy many stories writen by women with male characters, and I enjoy many stories about female characters writen by men, but I am also incapable of believing a fictional representation, however amusing, is accurate unless my own experience tends to confirm it.
Plato's Republic presents conscription of women into the military as a necessary condition of true equality between the sexes...but of course it also discusses the abolition of marriage, the family, and even romantic love as being even more necessary. I would add that genetic or eugenic engineering to insure that the average physical strengths of men and women were more equal would also seem to be a necessary precondition, given how Socrates and friends seem determined to define "equality" in this context. I myself can't really take the idea all that seriously, particularly as I am completely opposed to conscription, and theoretically opposed even to paying soldiers to be part of the army as such. But that is neither here nor there.
In discussion of ideas, men and women tend to both use the dialectics current in their intellectual community. But this is simply a matter of reproducing a certain style of language. In POV narrative, despite some similar influence from the accepted conventions of the particular genre, there are moments when a writer displays a grasp of experiential truth beyond the conventions common to the genre, and that truth comes out of his or her own experience.
Those experiences are peculiar to the individual, not only because of the differences of situation but also because of the differences of temper ment. And men and women almost always have circumstances as different (or even more different) than their various internal characters.
Hey, I'm a sensitive guy. I can cry and still feel manly (well, as manly as I ever feel). But I refuse to write the POV of a person that cries over stupid crap like every woman I've ever known at all well (and far too many I haven't known very well). I don't know why women cry about some things, so I won't write them doing it from their POV. I also don't know what makes some women subscribe to the theory that men are some kind of monolithic organization of oppressors, so my female POV characters never think like that (on the other hand, I do know what makes men think that women are all a different kind of beings altogether).
When I write a female's POV, I make her completely atypical, because otherwise I would just be mocking what I don't understand. Some men can probably do it...though I wouldn't know. I do know that even my favorite female authors make some really funny mistakes in the way they portray men, but then, everyone makes mistakes. My favorite male authors make just as many mistakes for no readily discernable reason (or perhaps they are all actually women writing under pseudonyms).
If you've never whacked your head with a hammer just because it was fun, you don't know why anyone would.
posted
My favorite series of books is the Honor Harrington series by David Weber.
The main character is a female officer in a space navy. I think Weber does a good job of writing a female character, but if any women who have read the series would like to comment on things you think he got right or wrong, I'd be interested in hearing.
Honor gets into combat quite a bit, and I don't have a problem with that. Nor do I have any problem with Captain Janeway commanding Voyager in combat.
I have no problem with fictional women engaging in fictional combat. But when it comes to real women in real combat, for some reason I feel that shouldn't happen unless there is no choice. Probably the male protective instinct coming into play there.
posted
Here's a few things about writing the opposite gender to keep in mind. One thing is the societal context. Are we talking about a historical setting or a futuristic one? What are the rules of behavior for the culture?
Take an intelligent, analytical woman because most men can relate to her better than any other type. Stick her in the middle ages. Does she protest her situation, which probably involves housework, lots of babies, an arranged marriage, and an early death? No. Because that's all she knows. Feminists in the 1500's crack me up. They had bigger things to worry about. Now, if that woman was married to a dunce, ruining the farm and putting them all in danger, would she take control of the family and assert herself in order to keep her family alive? Probably.
Anyway, you can put here in all kinds of futures, but you have to have a culture to put her in. What are the expectations for women? For ideas, look at existing cultural norms for women all over the world as someonje on this thread already mentioned. (I'd attribute it, but I don't remember who said it.)
posted
I don't know about Honor since I haven't read her books, but I don't have a problem with Captain Janeway commanding the Voyager, either. However, if Janeway off and decked Chacotay (spelling?) and he came after her and she won, I'd have second thoughts about it. Fictional or not, it wouldn't compute. Now maybe if she was this great big muscular he-woman....
(Hmmmm....if a he-man is an especially strong man, is an especially strong woman a he-woman? Couldn't be a she-woman because that would seem to suggest an especially feminine woman. So would an effeminate man be a she-man? )
quote:I have no problem with fictional women engaging in fictional combat.
I agree for the most part, but I guess I have more reservations about it. I loved Wonder Woman as a girl, but she wasn't a normal woman so she could do all sorts of ridiculous things. Depicting supposedly normal women doing absolutely outlandish things causes me to grind some mental gears, though. Pirates of the Caribbean goes for a stretch in having the young heroine take over command of a ship among other things.
Okay, it's all fun and games. Trouble is, there seems to be an unsettling trend to believe what's on the silver screen. From people asking Robert Young (I'll date myself here) medical advice, to news reporters today trying to interview the cast of West Wing about political events, to the entertainment factor in too many news shows, the line is getting a little blurred between reality and make-believe.
posted
As regards women doing various things, the issues should basicly be the same as for any other character. There is a tendancy in literature (and even more in movies) to allow characters to reach beyond their abilities because they are determined and virtous and it patches up the plotline. This is a bad thing.
Even in societies that strictly limit women, a few will pick up any given skill. If those are the characters you wish to write about, go ahead. Stories about totally ordinary people are boring! (also unrealistic -- no one's totally ordinary) Do explain how she picked up the skill (close older brother, took over for husband who slowly went to drink, grew up in a poor neighborhood that just had to be practical, whatever) and how it effected her place in society.
As for fighting, a woman who knows what she's doing will beat a man who doesn't. Generally speaking, women are less eager to fight than men, and far less likely to engage in pseudo-fights (fights for status in which any attack with a real risk of injury is highly taboo), but give your character a good reason and she'll do either.
P.S. Survivor: I've never seen anything from you posted here that fell outside of human range. You pass the Turing Test flawlessly. Making sure you know how to kill everyone near you isn't all that far out. I typically have plans to deflect and disable anyone in the same room as myself, should that person try to attack me. This is fairly recent for me, the result of severely betrayed trust, but it doesn't seem far from what you described.
posted
I just found out that I write like a woman. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Some scientists have come up with an algorithm that is supposed to determine whether the author of some text is male of female. They claim 80% accuracy.
I plugged in the text of five short stories or scenes that I've written, plus my longest blog entry, and all but one came back as having been written by a female.
posted
It seems to be running at about 50% accuracy now, so there was probably a spike of feminists deliberatly falsifying their results a while back
I submitted a passage I wrote in a female POV, a subsequent passage of the same story written from a male POV, a short journal entry f, a longer journal entry, a series of journal entries f, an essay about Antigone f, an essay about Edward (Irish folk song, if you wonder) f, an essay about a dance concert, an essay about math education, and finally a short humor essay written by my brother.
Out of the ten entries, the program gave incorrect analyses of four entries, the short journal entry, the series of journal entries, and the essays regarding Antigone and Edward.
Of course, the program's "analytical" algorithm is so simple as to be laughable, it just counts the frequencies of a few common words, judged to be more characteristic of male or female writers, then bases your score on that. Just by using "the" a lot you end up scored as a male, simply by using "with" a lot you end up scored as a female.
Male Keywords [the] x +17 [a] x +6 [some] x +6 [number] x +5 [it] x +2
Female Keywords [with] 1 x -14 = -14 ['s] 0 x -5 = 0 [possessive pronoun] 2 x -3 = -6 [for] 1 x -4 = -4 [not] or [n't] 2 x -4 = -8
I think the fact that using negators and possessives is associated with a female score is actually very interesting, but hardly seems a firm basis for telling men and women apart.
I was reading a book by Jane Yolen (or whatever) the other day. It had a lot of passages that were just (to me) embarrassingly feminine ("I'm going to cry", "We're such good friends", "You just don't understand!") enough that I would never in a million years write a female POV that way, but Yolen gets away with it. Why? Probably because she actually knows what that kind of stuff is about from her own experience. If I were to try writing that kind of thing it would just be a sour falsetto.
posted
If you wanna know If he loves you so, It's in his... MRI?
quote:Such are the advances in technology and understanding that PET radioactive-imaging and MRI magnetic-imaging scans can now show whether a man and a woman are truly in love by measuring the amount of activity in the cingulate gyrus, an emotion center in the brain, Gurian says.
See here for an interesting story on brain differences between men and women.
posted
Interestingly, my results for the male/female author algorithm were female when I was writing female POV characters, and male when I was writing male POV characters (erring slightly in two male-POV love stories). Overall, my writing was purportedly female, though I am male.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted
Hey, anybody else notice that the algorithm assigns POSITIVE numbers for MALE traits and NEGATIVES for the FEMALE? Just what are they trying to say!!!
Seriously, though, I have two points that may help here.
First, as with any character, if you want to portray them realistically...do your research. If you write a story about a protagonist who's a prison guard, you'd definately read about and, in a perfect world, talk to a few prison guards in orde rto better understand them. Why should it be any different when your a guy writing about a woman.
And, actually, understanding women really isn't so difficult. You want to get inside a woman's head? Read the stuff she reads. Again, I know I'm going to get hit with the generalization card here, but devote an hour or two to reading everything from Cosmo to Ladie's Home Journal to Bride's. Pay close attention to the areas where the readers write in with questions, seeking advice or to relay some particularly embarrassing event.
Women can do the same. The good part about htis approach, is there is a magazine targeted at just about every gender/hobby/vocation breakdown you could come up with for your characters.
Second, I have a slightly modified version of the Logic vs. Emotion theory of behavior...which has worked pretty well in letting me understand people.
It is my experience that Humans in general ACT based on emotion, then use logic to rationalize their behavior. Every one of us.
Now, Men, apply their logic to optimizing the facts of a situation. Women tend to apply their logic to sustaining relationships.
In other words, we do, for the most part, whatever we want. Then we justify it to the rest of the world as "the right thing to do, because..."
I'm not saying that all our motives are simply selfish. Indeed, the soldier who throws himself on a grenade is definitely NOT acting out of self-interest. Nor is the corporate whistle-blower. But I believe such actions arise from a gut-level feeling of right and wrong, more than a logical analyis of pros vs. cons.
posted
^ My personal experience has shown the opposite of yours; I often act entirely differently from how I want because I rationally know that such is not how I ought.
For instance, my natural state is one of paranoid anti-socialness, but many persons who believe themselves close to me would characterize my personailty as friendly and outgoing - not because that is how I would like, but because that is how it should be.
Sometimes, the mind wins over the heart, but it is always the soul that guides.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
) 
)
