|
|
|
|
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 51 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/2/2009 4:48:22 PM |
endless intellectual (and no doubt physical) wanking
Well, they say the most important sex organ is the brain, and if that's true then boy oh boy, I must suffer severe sexual disfunction. 
I have had a look at some of the ego tripping intellectual nonsense that fills the academic journals from cover to cover, trying to see if I could find the answer that people would expect to find to this question....snip....I don’t think any of this particularly useful or interesting but I suspect it is more like what most people were hoping to find on this thread.
You're right... discussion goes stale rather quickly unless there's an angle to pick apart and personally I am glad Kontraseptic started the monkey chatter. And actually I thought the subsequent discussion was of a pretty normal level without being particularly intellectual, but apparently some seemed to find it so. Scholar, don't let the put downs get to you, your posts are great ...lots of people like to loudly profess their own intelligence and yet seem to hide it rather well, but you actually demonstrate intelligence. And for some reason it appears that quietly going about your business and being intelligent is a bigger crime than bragging about being intelligent. Go figure.
Me I am going to go back to thinking about why we have feelings which prevent us from immediately moving on as if nothing has happened. It should be obvious that people who could just move on would have more decedents
Interesting question. Perhaps a side effect of natural selection?...eg. those who have been more capable of feeling have had greater reproductive success overall, and therefore it's a trait that has become stronger amongst the species...which would make the feeling of heartbreak and taking time to recover between relationships a side effect of a biologically beneficial characteristic rather than being the biologically beneficial characteristic in itself. | |
|
| |
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 53 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/3/2009 3:19:16 AM | Ok I think I've worked out the answer to the question of how long to wait between relationships. It's 42. (isn't it always)
Now I just have to work out if it's 42 seconds, 42 minutes, 42 hours, 42 days, 42 months or 42 years.
the 'monkey chatter' assumed a life of its own only after the concentrated nit picking of the most vocal member for the 'Beta-Female-Liberation-Front (Sunshine Coast Chapter)' who is also the sole and founding member of the "Association of Feisty Mountain Nymphs'.
*bows* ... *dodges tomatoes* Nit picking is better than nut kicking, doncha find? And anyway we have two members. And tonight we're voting on which 42 waiting period between relationships will go into the Mountain Nymph's constitution. I'm thinking the "42 minutes" will have it. At our age it's too hard to get dressed in 42 seconds.
I for one am practicing my english.
Aren't we all.
when catching a glimpse of the sexually excessive life male Alfas are accustomed to enjoy here in the forums!
Hmmm, you lost me there, but....perhaps you meant to say "alfalfa"? We see it as a tiny, stringy, germinating sprout... thrown into salads sometimes but it doesn't look particularly attractive. Definitely hard to tolerate in large quantities because it contains an amino acid called canavanine which can be toxic. I've never been a big fan of it myself, but apparently cows like it.  | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/3/2009 4:27:25 AM | The bovine stamp of approval? A swishy tale indeed! You just wanted to say amino acid... one way, or an'udder. Anyway, that particular shrivelled up sprout - Alphalfa - is hard to tolerate because it's asinine. Even in small doses.
By the way, 42 isn't the answer, it was a typo.
Bearing in mind the computer that produced that answer was the most advanced form of intelligence ever developed... It's inevitable that it was dyslexic, because the smartest ones always are for some reason.
And remembering that it said "I answer U - 42".
Clearly, what it really meant to say was 24 - U. Which, translated from dyslexic binary text speak, comes out as - Two Four You...
So I find it very interesting, in fact rather compelling from an 'unfathomable purposes of the divine universe that we all must submit to' point of view, that there are two members of the Mountain Nymphs Ass.
Which seems kind of small? Hardly a mountain at all... more like a bit hilly? Two small hills N. Ass. perhaps?
But nevermind, two for you, or me in this case, sounds just right.
| |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/3/2009 7:22:13 AM |
Interesting question. Perhaps a side effect of natural selection?...eg. those who have been more capable of feeling have had greater reproductive success overall, and therefore it's a trait that has become stronger amongst the species...which would make the feeling of heartbreak and taking time to recover between relationships a side effect of a biologically beneficial characteristic rather than being the biologically beneficial characteristic in itself.
Oh god, you miss rehearsal just the once and all of the players have been assigned new parts; I haven’t got to be the “trust your inner voice” person do I? Joan of Arc had an inner voice, she listened to it; she told everyone and the last barbeque that she was invited to, was not much fun at all.
Seriously that is exactly what I am talking about, though for it to work it would have to be an instinct something simple a rule of behaviour that is hard to resist. In your sentence “feeling” is interchangeable with love and someone else suggested intimacy; these will all contain the answer but are much higher level concepts than what I have in mind. I think I have found something that will work. I am doing the best I can to try and find a way of explaining it using ducks but I am afraid that we may end up having to have one last waltz in the treetops with the bonobos.
The reason that I don’t find answers to this question that take the form of a single number, whether that be a mean or a median particularly interesting, is simply that all the interesting information is lost in the aggregation. The interesting answers are all about the direction a characteristic of an individual or their partner moves the time they will wait before dating. There are the obvious simple examples, do men wait longer than women, and do people with children wait longer than those whose don’t. Even these simple examples will be conditioned on other variables age is an obvious example, if your partner is living is another, if so did you leave them or did they leave you, are you in any sensible sense still “friends”, if not did they die suddenly and unexpectedly or from a prolonged illness. The list of possibilities, combinations and complex interactions are almost endless, someone should look into it; they would probably get a PhD and then sell a lot of books on Opra. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/3/2009 9:14:01 PM |
someone should look into it It WOULD be really interesting to know, especially if you're compulsively interested in why people behave the way they do, as I am. Why not suggest it to Marcus, PoF creator? Would Poffers represent a reasonable sample of people? After all, there are already a number of questionaires we can fill in on the site and the medium lends itself to collection of information without having to try very hard. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/4/2009 7:06:18 AM | ^^^^
Would Poffers represent a reasonable sample of people?
Strictly speaking it would be a biased sample, a self selected sample like a TV phone pole, so no you couldn’t really do it that way. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/4/2009 9:58:14 AM | Anymore of this nonsense and I'm sending one of you to my room
I hope you’re suggesting something nice and banal Longtime. Perhaps you could even broaden your horizons and comparison shop.
So it was you Kontra who started the monkey see monkey do stuff. I sure as hell wasn’t going to read it twice to exonerate the guilty. As it was I got a headache first time round. Not been seeing too well lately anyway, needing new specs an‘ all…… hmm! Hope me pension arrives soon. ’Only two swigs left and the local shop doesn’t stock metho.
Scholar, don't let the put downs get to you
Give us a break Naamah. You’ve actually read enough of my stuff to know I don’t do that…. Well, not much anyway. It needed to get back on track a little. Have you forgotten that Hijacked threads tend to get ‘binned’ around here. Kev’s got as much right to start a thread and other people not ‘nick it’ as anyone else. Scholar wasn’t the only one having a go at that, and he wasn‘t doing it intentionally anyway. ’Sides he’s probably big enough to look after himself. Seems o’kay to me and has earned the much coveted TYS stamp of approval. Cheque in the post please Scholar.
We see it as a tiny, stringy, germinating sprout...
My God you have led a sheltered life.
Definitely hard to tolerate in large quantities
Now that I would believe. 
Seems a few of you lot have taken offence to my pick up on Alpha male. Thought I’d have a little fun and now I’ll enlighten the conclusion jumpers with a little insight. Truth be known I wouldn’t know how to approach a woman with amorous intent, or to approach a woman that might be the object of my desires in any way, shape or form at all for that matter. The reason for this is simply that I’ve never had to do it.
I’m a very ordinary looking sort of guy, dress like a bum most of the time, have no charm whatsoever and little patience for the drivel that SOME women (and many men for that matter) carry on with. The one thing that I’ve had the least problem ever doing is pulling birds. I didn’t even realise this until a couple of years ago when some mates of longstanding and I were discussing this very thing. They had to told me that amongst the four of us I had always been dominant male as far as getting the girls was concerned. I’ve known these guys for more than 40 years and it took me a lot of reflection to realise that what they said had more than an element of truth to it. Now despite Briz saying I was beating my own drum, I was really just telling it like it is. It doesn’t make me special… just lucky, or perhaps unlucky depending which side of the fence you’re on.
My point is this. Some of the people in this place have been here a quite a while. I see many of them (both male and female) as being Alpha’s in many facets of their intellects and character traits. I cannot see or even imagine some of the difficulties that they are encountering. I’m thinking more and more as I peruse and communicate with the personalities on here that it is a lack of confidence more than any other trait that keeps them here. I would further suggest that many, if not most, of this group (excluding the one’s that do get out and about Briz) are the one’s that departed an abusive relationship be that physical, emotional or material.
Somewhere else I also suggested that the right time to seriously re-enter the ‘dating game’ was when ‘we’ feel comfortable about ourselves. Sure it’s a simplistic thing to say but being comfortable about ourselves and the situations we place ourselves into is also the surest way I know of regaining a lost confidence. Getting straight back on that horse after a severe ‘fall’ just doesn’t work with damaged hearts.
As long as it takes has got to be the answer. And don’t let anyone try and convince you otherwise is Aunt Aggie‘s advice.
Naamah. I did recognise you had tried to conclude the monkey thing when it was getting out of hand. I meant to say that to you in a previous post. I didn’t. Got caught up in some other nonsense. I apologize for not having said this before.
Be nice people. It doesn’t hurt too much when you do it often. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/4/2009 3:13:54 PM | Somewhere else I also suggested that the right time to seriously re-enter the ‘dating game’ was when ‘we’ feel comfortable about ourselves. Sure it’s a simplistic thing to say but being comfortable about ourselves and the situations we place ourselves into is also the surest way I know of regaining a lost confidence
Be nice people. It doesn’t hurt too much when you do it often.
hear hear. i have it on good authority a certain refined mind amongst us has found the novelty has just about worn off for posting in the forums.Why dont we deliver random acts of kindness , instead of knocking each other?i completely agree with Mr ToldYouSo.Try this for a change:
"The story goes that some time ago a mother punished her five year old daughter for wasting a roll of expensive gold wrapping paper. Money was tight and she became even more upset when the child used the gold paper to decorate a box to put under the Christmas tree.
Nevertheless, the little girl brought the gift box to her mother the next morning and then said, 'This is for you, Momma.'
The mother was embarrassed by her earlier over reaction, but her anger flared again when she opened the box and found it was empty. She spoke to her daughter in a harsh manner.
'Don't you know, young lady, when you give someone a present there's supposed to be something inside the package?'
She had tears in her eyes and said, 'Oh, Momma, it's not empty! I blew kisses into it until it was full.'
The mother was crushed. She fell on her knees and put her arms around her little girl, and she begged her forgiveness for her thoughtless anger.
An accident took the life of the child only a short time later, and it is told that the mother kept that gold box by her bed for all the years of her life.
Blowin kisses is free.It might even make 'how long is long enough" be shorter.
(the thoughts of a forever kind of person who is out of town today) | |
|
| |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/4/2009 4:15:28 PM | ^^^^... ohh your crying yourself to sleep....
pats you on the back...
there there....... there there....
opens ....enids ... the magic faraway tree..... and begins to read...
see? there really is beauty and magic and hope and dreams... and much delusion in the world...
people choose their delusion..
how long , is long enough?
hmmm. for me.. it was knowing i was still "in love" and had hope, fantasy?... that it could work... one day......I'm the sort once I'm in love.. im true to my heart/soul.. and my body tends to want only that person..
Once I realised.. It was not .. workable on many levels.. with the one I was in love with.. and so.. had to face that reality.... tell my body.. no more... tell my spirit/heart/soul ..no more.. with this person.. and convert that "in love" energy.. to .. I love you.. .. (as in no bitterness... wish you well.. want to see you happy with someone else ..etc ..=true love) of the spirit kind..
I believe once we love someone.., we never stop... but...we can convert.. that love energy to other parts of us.. so we can move on...
to be "in love"..
Ive done that now... like a poster said above about 6 years?
yep it was about that for me... took about that long.. to ... accept... it just cant be...
Im open and able to be in love... again.. without.. comparing.. without substituting another for what I truly desired..
actually 'HE' assumed I'd live in the same place forever... and could always find me...
He would of been right.. except..circumstances out of my control...ie a big capitalistic bulldozer... changed that..
"he" recently... tried finding me... I have not called him back.. in over 3 years...
only reason is though.. b/c we were always mates.. from the soul....is b/c if he gets drunk and calls me at 3am... he disrespects.. that I've asked him not too..
so its more of a sleep issue.. than a I dont want to talk to you issue..
There are signs in others, that let us see, if they are ready to move on..
peace | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 62 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/4/2009 5:18:28 PM | Give us a break Naamah. You’ve actually read enough of my stuff to know I don’t do that…. Well, not much anyway.
Seeing as you have seen fit to tell me what my opinion is, best I tell you what it really is. I read enough of your posts last time you were here to see that you weave veiled but rather toxic comments intended to bait certain people into your posts. And I read enough of your posts last time you were here to see that when people give it back, you tell them to be nice. And I've read enough of your posts to know that your input to threads most often consists of listing commentary about other people (telling everyone who's a good girl or a bad boy as if you've got some sort of Santa complex) rather than the subject matter, and that you have a habit of contrasting the toxic content with praise directed at others so as to present yourself as popular. These days I only skim read what you write in order to follow a thread, and I found the things you've written on this thread laughable and mostly not worth responding to which is why I have not once addressed you or anything you have said on this thread. Go back and check...see for yourself. I only do so now because you made reference to me by name in your post and publicly stated what I apparently "know".
The discussion about primates was part of an ongoing discussion extending from a comment made that revealed a particular point that some posters identified as part of the foundation of the topic at hand. Subsequently, the discussion might have, at times, appeared to become a bit tangential, but only until a convergence of understanding was reached about that particular point that had piqued interest. As long as it’s still discussion originating from and related to the opinions held regarding the topic at hand (which can extend into the reasons behind those opinions), or offering clarification where a rebuttal has been posted, with more than 2 participants involved, and remains a contribution of ideas that have not deviated into chat or flaming (which it didn't until you started posting to make comment on people)…there is unlikely to be any perceived issue in the eyes of the real alpha males and females on this site…(they are the moderators… by the way). This might seem odd, right, but the site actually encourages intellectual discussion. However the rules contain no protective mechanisms for shaky alpha delusions.
Those of us who were talking about whether there was any validity in comparing the nature of relationships amongst other primates to those of humans were certainly not saying anything "not nice" about anyone. In fact, nobody was discussing other posters at all at that point. We were discussing subject matter. I also believe the content of those posts was more on topic than your stories about how often you get laid. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/4/2009 5:40:43 PM | | 12 months??? Too long, I think. I think you should take it slow, but give it a couple months, not 12. I married at 18, then again at 31, been single since with a few boyfriends afterwards. I'm enjoying the freedom and friends in dating, as kids are all grown up and on their own. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 12:23:03 AM | I have the ultimate answer 21 x2 (twice half its length)
when you start again fresh and you find that your capable of loving again.divide the length of time you waited by two, then measure the half way mark...
times the half way mark by twice and there you have your answer ...simple folks.!!
if your NEW relationship fails 20 yrs later, then you didn't wait long enough and start again.(or buy a horse(see hilly))
just like any piece of string is twice half its length so is your waiting period....
like sands in the hour glass so is the something or other...screw you guys, I'm going home !! | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 12:29:43 AM |
Blowin kisses is free.It might even make 'how long is long enough" be shorter.
This is so totally true but then again chucking the bird is totally free also and so much more fun.
Me thinks we need a "Don't feed the troll" sign. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 4:51:49 AM | Blowing kisses is an example of healing people with encouragement, and building selfesteem.It brings em to the place they can go again...start another relationship.
Public cruelty and criticism,and tearing people down slow their recovery between relationships.
how long is long enough? depends what happens in between. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 5:52:48 AM | like sands in the hour glass so is the something or other...
Doesn't it go like this...
Like meatloaf through a straw
so are the days of our lives
???
I have a very short attention span, and now I have all this visual imagery distracting me ... half a string, boxes of kisses, a horse?  | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 6:25:25 AM | | i think that it depends on how long the relationship was. if being a few years. i would give it probably a few months to a year. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 1:43:42 PM | Seeing as you have seen fit to tell me what my opinion is, best I tell you what it really is. I read enough of your posts last time you were here to see that you weave veiled but rather toxic comments intended to bait certain people into your posts.
Psst. Psst. And a load of crap.
The discussion about primates was part of an ongoing discussion extending from a comment made that revealed a particular point that some posters identified as part of the foundation of the topic at hand. Subsequently, the discussion might have, at times, appeared to become a bit tangential, but only until a convergence of understanding was reached about that particular point that had piqued interest.
I repeat. ‘ego tripping intellectual nonsense’
I have not once addressed you or anything you have said on this thread.
Yes Naamah that is correct, I had noticed that. I have noticed it before many many times with many many people over many many months in fact, although that was not the case in the past as no doubt the old timer‘s will recall. You used to be my biggest nit picker, a compulsive one in fact. You seem to have quite a high opinion of yourself and spend a great deal of your forum time directing attention to and at yourself rather than addressing the thread at hand. These threads are often written by people who have some difficulty in expressing themselves and getting their point across to the forum readers. You seldom (nee almost never) address your answers or opinions to those members of this community preferring to banter your own off target diversions often only amongst your own little clique.
Much of your stuff is well written, well thought out and well presented. Some of it is even humorous. Despite all those entertainments the reality of most of it drips of ego and a ‘look at me look at me’ attention seeking NEED. I know you can’t see this, but I, and many others can, and it is those people (or at least those who are prepared to say it openly on the forum for all to observe) you only EVER have disputes with. Immediately above this post are six others. Best mate Hilly is in support which is fair enough. Are the other five trying to pull you off yourself and direct your self discussion elsewhere? Pause for thought perhaps.
I and others do pull you up short sometimes when you get overexcited about yourself, and you don’t like it. So much so that you have reported members simply because in some way they have offended you or challenged your ego. As always ego centrics never like having their balloons popped. I am the total opposite of you. I actually enjoy other people’s criticisms of me. They often give me pause and cause to reflect on what I’ve said and expressed, and the way I’ve done it. I am completely at ease with this. Apologizing to forum members when I’ve offended them or misunderstood what they’ve said comes easy to me, and I do it often. No one gets angrier with me than me when my sometimes caustic observations have driven people back into their shells and in one shameful moment off the forum. I compliment others even when I’m in total disagreement with what they’ve said, if in my opinion they’ve said it well. I can’t hold a grudge for three seconds… somehow it’s just not in me. And so on.
I think you’re and attractive, intelligent, sharp witted woman. I also think you have a great deal to learn about yourself and other people, and the way to interact in the broader spectrum of life. This forum is a microcosm of that spectrum and it belongs just as much to the dull, ordinary, not so attractive, inarticulate everyday battler who form the majority of people on here, as it does to you. | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 1:59:14 PM | A sad story that needs to be written.
So be it here.
I didn't know the rules.
Went to Sydney too soon.
In the middle visited my friends in Nowra.
2 months later she ended up in the hospital and never made it home.
I would have never seen her again.
My ineptness of romance turned out to be a blessing in disguise.
Edit.
UUUnnnbelieveable !!!
Between the time I wrote that and now my ex from Sydney just called me from Honolulu. Weird how things happen. | |
|
Naamah
|
Joined: 11/1/2008
Msg: 71 | |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 5:41:58 PM |
but I, and many others can
It always amuses me when someone can't state an opinion without implying crowd support.
most of it drips of ego and a ‘look at me look at me’ attention seeking NEED
That bit made me laugh. Irony often does.
So much so that you have reported members simply because in some way they have offended you or challenged your ego.
Actually you can only report people when they break the site rules. That's why all your mates who used to report me several times a day for personal reasons didn't get anywhere.
If someone like you doesn't think well of me, I must be doing something very right. Given that your opinions don't interest me, I don't find the rest of your diatribe worth responding to. And I doubt whatever you say next will be either.  | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/5/2009 6:19:53 PM | | somewhere along time ago in a previous life I seem to remember something about two years being the accepted norm....dont remember why that was given as the time frame cause it was before relationships Australia changed its name from Marriage Guidance Council...some of you still practicing must know...enlighten us | |
|
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/8/2009 7:56:39 AM | One last piece on intellectual nonsense on this subject.
I previously suggested that if in the distant past some people could have just moved on, after a relationship failed, they would have had more decedents than others and given enough time they would have became plentiful, rather than as rare, as they now seem to be. Therefore the underlying cause of the emotional distress that prevents us from just moving on must be an instinct which is useful if not essential within relationships.
The conventional wisdom suggests that to err is human while to forgive is “divine”, a particularly human response, which is the product of our higher cognitive abilities. However research recently brought together for the first time by Michael E. McCullough in his book “Beyond Revenge” persuasively argues that humans, closely related primates in particular, and many other animals in general, also have a powerful evolved conditional instinct to seek reconciliation which is therefore not a product of our powers of reason but a companion instinct to the one that motivates us to seek revenge and is, in the right circumstance just as hard to resist. Therefore in the circumstances relevant to each of them failing to seek revenge or reconciliation and putting these feeling behind us are both conscious acts, both are difficult and both instincts reward us with emotional distress when they are not satisfied.
The instinct to reconcile with those with whom we have close relationships has no philosophical or ethical meaning in this context. What we are talking about is an instinct, a simple basic feeling which tells us that when something has gone wrong within a relationship we should want to fix it; we should take action to fix it, because if we do our brains will reward us with pleasure and if we don’t, or until we do, they will reward us with distress.
It should be obvious that if you and your partner are not saints, than it is impossible to have a successful relationship of any duration, without sharing a willingness to constantly forgive and reconcile with each other. If we replace the word “feeling” with “reconciliation” than I think that Naamah has already eloquently explained how this instinct to seek reconciliation could work within the context of a relationship and its subsequent failure.
those who have been more capable of feeling (reconciliation) have had greater reproductive success overall, and therefore it's a trait that has become stronger amongst the species...which would make the feeling of heartbreak and taking time to recover between relationships a side effect of a biologically beneficial characteristic rather than being the biologically beneficial characteristic in itself.
Therefore if for perfectly reasonable and rational reasons you decide to leave a relationship, it doesn’t mean that your instincts will not continue urging you to fix the relationship by disturbing you with, for example, feeling of failure. Likewise if your partner decides for perfectly reasonable and rational reasons to leave you it doesn’t mean that your instincts will not continue urging you to fix the relationship by disturbing you with, for example, feeling of bitterness. It also seems likely that couples who manage to somehow remain “friends” in some sense, still have feelings of failure but they might be milder and not last as long, though it is not obvious how this would affect the time it would take for them to be ready to move on.
This is not a complete explanation though it must be a significant part of the answer, it meets all the necessary criteria and does have an uncanny resemblance to the instinct that tells a bird to return and repair a damaged nest, most of the time it is the right thing to do, but if the nest has, for example, been disturbed by a predator then, well, bye bye birdy. Being an instinct means that just as in the case of the instinct to seek revenge you could at least in theory use your powers of reason to ameliorate the effects and perhaps shorten the time needed before you are ready to move on. Alternately you could just wait for time to assuage the anguish of your loss; though there is no evidence that your feelings alone will do this proficiently.
Oh an example using ducks; no sorry I got nothing, but so far, they have found very few animals that don’t have some measurable instinct for conciliation and I doubt that ducks would be among them. | |
|
| |
| How long is long enough
Posted: 3/8/2009 9:34:52 PM | ^^^
Is that like all’s well that ends well?
I don’t know, I don’t think I have ever read or seen “All’s Well That Ends Well”. It is certainly possible I don’t think there is any doubt that Shakespeare believed that there was such a thing as Human nature; that there were universals and that he explores them in this works. I suspect that whenever they discover that something, like this instinct for conciliation, is an innate instinct common to all humans you could go back and find it at least implicitly referenced, somewhere in his works.
On the other hand, I might have completely missed the point; some things are simple and straight forward but they always seem to go straight over my head. 
Never mind. While I find all this research fascinating, if you really wanted to understand the human condition the simplest and easiest thing to do would be to gather together a group of women who are all the grandmothers of at least eight adults and just ask them. It is an observation which is hard to doubt, at least were this kind of thing is concerned, that high intensity, high volume, nanna’s just seem to know everything. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
________ :
________
