Psychology using sex difference as basis

Magritte, The Menaced Assassin    

Supplements to

Procedural Analysis

Mostly Advanced Matters

These pages are mainly for matters, subsequent to the publication of The Tyranny of Ambiguity, which remain unresolved even after that piercing investigation into human sexual behaviour, using sex differences and evolution theory as a basis.

Simon G. Sheppard

To answer an important question:

How is Procedural Analysis different to other systems of behaviour analysis?

Procedural Analysis is:

The PA system was summarized in Suppressed Science 5: Procedural Analysis (1998).

The Mental Assault is renamed back to being called the Psychic Assault, because it sounds better.

Some Remaining Questions (for Advanced Students):

Compound Benefit

A feature associated with Malign Encouragement needs naming. Malign Encouragement (which has not, to my knowledge, been formally defined hitherto!) is encouraging an Opponent to pursue an adverse policy.

If the Protagonist also obtains benefit from the policy, there is Compound Benefit.

Example: A drug dealer giving away samples of heroin or crystal meth to someone he doesn’t like, or bears some animosity toward. Getting them addicted would be Malign Encouragement. When he later sells them the drug, perpetuating the habit, this is again Malign Encouragement, but now he profits too, conferring Compound Benefit. He benefits firstly by harming his adversary and secondly by gaining financially.

However in accordance with PA we need a sexual origin to serve as an archetype. The following, from TOA (1st ed. footnote p. 451, 2nd ed. pp. 483-4), seems inadequate as a really definitive case but will serve as a further example.

A memorable event has been shared with a female. Some time elapses, and she is met again. However when the previous occasion is mentioned she claims not to remember it.

The female raises the costs of sex. Specifically, in this case:

  1. The male is confused, which is of benefit to females collectively;
  2. The female gathers information – the male is encouraged to relate his memory of the previous encounter (“You must remember how we...”), by which means she learns how he perceived it;
  3. The female weakens the markers which were placed during their previous encounter, such that the male is unable to build upon their previous relationship;
  4. The weakening of markers is to the collective female benefit. (Say he took her to a fairground: then the male would likely impart less significance to taking a subsequent female to a fairground.)

By imposing costs on the male (e.g. Diminishment of Self; Time, as he ponders the problem afterwards) and simultaneously profiting from the procedure (certainly in terms of Information), the multiple payoffs obtained make it Compound Benefit. There is Compound Benefit also, by obtaining advantage for herself and for other females. That the female can act for her own advantage and simultaneously for the benefit of females generally is nothing new; it is an expression of the female Conspiracy strategy.

Compound Benefit occurs whenever payoffs accrue in multiple ways or on multiple levels (e.g. individual, collective).

Females and the Laws of Nature

When male animals fight, they usually fight for territory. They may only fight virtually, and just posture and threaten, but it is still a struggle for dominance. The loser retreats, surrendering his claim on the territory. The point is that in nature, females come with the territory. Whoever dominates the territory also mates with the females within it. In human society, the fact that females have intelligence and language only enables them to employ specious arguments to justify their actions, as in the case of the alien takeover of our territory. The laws of nature are paramount. Man cannot defy them. Or, if he does, it is only temporarily.

A Paradox Solved

A contradiction exists in that while females are more sensitive to nuances of speech and manner, they are yet easier to deceive than males. This paradox was solved by something uttered by a character in the Agatha Christie novel, Ordeal by Innocence: “There’s nothing a woman won’t believe if she wants to.”

Women as Ducks

One day I looked out over an Amsterdam bridge to see several ducks happily floating along on a large slab of polystyrene. They exploited that facility with a blissful, animal ignorance – not for them the intricacies of oil drilling, petro-chemistry and manufacturing processes. They just found the floating platform, and used it. Similarly women drive around in cars, use mobile telephones and all the other accoutrements of modern technology, unaware of how those devices work, who invented them, or who developed them. To the female, unless she is continually reminded, the object is merely an item of utility, with no appreciation of its (invariably male) origins.

Orthodox Psychology

As as afterthought it strikes me that any psychological approach worthy of the name should be capable of explaining how women are able to manipulate men so successfully. This, to my knowledge, orthodox psychology notably fails to do.

An Update on Approaches (2007, 2014)

I am unsure whether the following should be denoted ‘Pending’ or whether I am just retracing old ground. Sometimes I get rusty on my own theory, as I must occupy myself with other matters and PA is pushed to the background. Notwithstanding, the following is likely to be instructive.

A possible contradiction arose involving Response Displacement and EBIAR. At issue is whether making approaches is the natural role of the male or the female. The female has superior verbal ability, is more capable of making “small talk,” more readily employs self-effacement, and has a more opportunistic nature than the male (all these with sound evolutionary origins). These features make her much more adept at approaching a potential mate. Yet seemingly she expects the male to adopt this role.

It was concluded in TOA, largely following observations of Response Displacement, that formerly females had approached males. Only recently had these roles been reversed, so that now she requires the male to approach her. “The female manipulates the male into doing her work.” The sight of males pushing prams readily illustrates this process.

The potential contradiction stems from observations of clumsiness by females on a couple of rare occasions when they took the lead. I think I remember spilled drinks and bumping into a table. If this is exaggerated behaviour, it would make making approaches an alien role for females, contrary to the supposition above. I am assuming in light of the female’s abilities listed that making approaches is her natural role.

There are two immediate facets to consider. Firstly, the clumsiness could be just that, and due perhaps to nervousness. If it really was EBIAR she might give a very obvious pick-up line (Approach Statement), not clumsily spill drinks. Usually EBIAR has an obvious association with the former or typical behaviour (e.g. new non-smokers becoming vehemently anti-smoking; female driving examiners being inordinately strict; females given authority applying their new power excessively).

The second aspect is that having divested her role to the male, the female may become so lazy and unpracticed that she can become incompetent even in her natural domain.

Acknowledgements for the Magritte images which illustrate some of these pages are due to Mark Harden’s Artchive, MK, CGFA and René Magritte disliked Freud’s system of psychoanalysis intensely and I like to think that he would have approved of this application of his work.

      Main Directory      

–– The Heretical Press ––