The Fellowship of the Aristocracy

Hola mi Gente,

I don’t have too many principles, but the few I honor and hold dear, I try to keep. For example, I believe in the principle of dignidad -- the principle that says all human beings have the right to live with dignity and respect for their humanity regardless of their circumstances. I also believe in respecting other people’s property. In other words, I refrain from stealing. As a human being, I also realize that I am not perfect, but I try to be as consistent as possible with certain core principles.

If I were to consistently make exceptions to these principles, what would that make me? Need a vowel, a lifeline?

This is why I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. Principles matter and the more you compromise them the further away you move away from your right to live with dignidad. I’m posting the following brief video interview of journalist, Abby Martin, because she manages to articulate the essence of my stance on the matter:

I periodically post the following as a reminder...

* * *

 

The Occupation at Zuccotti Park

The Aristocracy

“I believe in aristocracy... Not an aristocracy of power, based upon rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the considerate, and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all nations and classes and all through the ages, and there is a secret understanding between them when they meet. They represent the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos. Thousands of them perish in obscurity, a few are great names. They are sensitive for others as well as themselves, they are considerate without being fussy, their pluck is not swankiness but the power to endure, and they can take a joke.”

 -- E.M. Forster

 My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization… 

The Friday Sex Blog [EQ: Men vs Women]

¡Hola Mi Gente!
Busy day today -- meetings and more meetings. Have a great weekend. In the meantime, it’s Friday and it’s all about…

S-E-X!

* * *

Are Women more Emotionally Intelligent than Men?

Emotional intelligence (EQ) has been defined as the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions. It is often assumed that women are more emotionally intelligent than men. This fallacy (myth) is one of my pet peeves because it serves neither men nor women.

I once developed a leadership development workshop and one of the fist things I addressed were leadership stereotypes. You see, in our society gender roles have a lot to do with leadership. For example, when I asked workshop participants what media images they most saw portrayed as leaders, both men and women participants came up with images and words related to masculine gender roles. Words such as strong, decisive, courageous, proactive, take-charge attitude, etc., were often thrown out as describing images as portrayed in the media as leaders. I call this the Rambo or John Wayne School of Leadership.

Words such as nurturing, empathy, sensitivity, and intuition -- words often associated with women's roles -- were hardly ever used, though these qualities are extremely important leadership characteristics.

However, that should come as no surprise since for the most part women in our society aren’t seen as leadership role models. The stereotype is that women are too weak or too “emotional” while men are strong, “rational.” This stereotype does a lot of harm to both genders. Relationship skills, or more specifically what is now called emotional intelligence (EQ), are often considered feminine in our society. Women are deemed as having a more robust emotional life than men, which is… bullshit!

Unfortunately, both men and women buy into this stereotype. You hear women complaining all the time that men are emotional cripples while men complain equally about women and their intense desire to “talk.” The problem is that we live in an emotionally illiterate society. Talking about emotions doesn't equal emotional intelligence just as not talking about them is evidence of a lack of emotional intelligence. The fact is that when this issue of emotional intelligence is looked at more carefully, what appears is a far more complicated picture. For example, when children are asked to take someone else’s point of view -- to imagine what another person is thinking or feeling -- boys are just as skilled as girls. Even in studies that show women better at reading facial expressions and body posture, tone of voice, etc., show very little difference between the sexes.

One researcher in the late 1970s examined the question of women’s intuition from an innovative perspective. The researcher asked thirty-six pairs to work on a task together, with one person assigned to teach something to the other. Both were asked how they were feeling and how they thought the other was feeling. It turned out (gasp!) that women weren’t more sensitive to their partner’s emotional state then men were -- but those playing the role of student were more tuned in how the “teacher” was feeling than the other way around.

The reason this makes sense, the researcher later noted, is because people in subordinate roles need to pay careful attention to their leader's state of mind. Their livelihoods and careers depend on it. In addition, because in real life our society is structured in a way that makes access to power easier for men, men are more likely to hold dominant positions while women have to defer to them. It's not surprising then that, “women have become the more sensitive sex -- Women's intuition' would be more accurately described as "subordinate intuition.”

Another aspect of emotional intelligence is how we respond to feelings. This is called empathy and it seems that the assumption among the Oprah Winfrey-watching circuit is that women are more empathic than men, more able to feel other people's pain and joy.

Here, some findings depend on who is doing the research. Interestingly enough, experiments performed by women researchers are more likely to find female subjects more empathic than experiments conducted by men. What seems to matter most, however, is how empathy is measured. One review of over 100 studies reported that there is “a huge sex difference in self report of empathy (emphasis added) as measured with questionnaires [but] little evidence of a sex difference in physiological response (emphasis added) to another's emotional distress.”

In other words, women are more likely than men to describe themselves as empathic, but when it came to actual measurement, there was no difference. This may be a reflection of how people see themselves rather than how they are actually responding. When researchers judge empathy by watching faces and measuring heart rate, men and women usually score about the same. It's wrong then, to attempt to make a case that sex differences in emotional intelligence are clear-cut -- let alone innate -- just as it's erroneous to argue that that intuition and sensitivity has more to do with gender than with power.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

Aristocracy

¡Hola! Everybody...
Regarding the ongoing saga of my back: it’s worse... I’m going to the doctors this afternoon... Thanks to everyone for their concern and wishes.

* * *

-=[ The Aristocracy ]=-

“I believe in aristocracy... Not an aristocracy of power, based upon rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the considerate, and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all nations and classes and all through the ages, and there is a secret understanding between them when they meet. They represent the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos. Thousands of them perish in obscurity, a few are great names. They are sensitive for others as well as themselves, they are considerate without being fussy, their pluck is not swankiness but the power to endure, and they can take a joke.”

-- E.M. Forster

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. LOL

Love,

Eddie

Monday Madness [The Caress]

¡Hola! Everybody...
I like having fun when it comes to sports. fuhn as in like talking major caca, or “talking smack,” as they say in the vernacular. I call it “giving a beat down.” LOL! I tease terribly and I do it in a way that’s insufferable.

It’s all in fun.

Also, I can take as good as I give. In fact, in the scope of things, I could hardly give a rat’s ass who wins; the fun is in the messin' around.

If you don’t like my way of having fun, you have several options: you can stop associating with me, which is fine -- really. Alternatively, you can send me a private note or take me to the side and express your unwillingness to engage me in such a way, or, alternatively, you can choose to engage me. What you cannot do is act like a fool and not expect me to rent space (free) in yo ignant lil head. Love me or leave me, I refuse to compassionately engage the various complexes stemming from your lack of proper upbringing, masculine insecurities, or the consequences of your abandonment issues, narcissistic parents, or any lingering traumatic issues you still carry from previous relationships. I am not the one.

::smooches::

* * *

-=[ The Caress ]=-

The following was inspired by a real person...

She felt like everything good and wholesome. Like the first warm breeze of spring and the refreshing taste of lemonade on a summer’s eve, the crisp autumn air promising change and the first snowball fight when you’re a kid. Her body was soft and full of promise and her grip strong and her heart beat rapidly against my chest. I could smell her shampoo as I breathed in her essence -- felt her downy hair…

* * *

Love,

Eddie

Willful Ignorance

¡Hola! Everybody...
Yes, I am still here, more contrarian than ever, thumbing my nose at the hypocrites, committing crimes of the heart, and saving damsels (okay! Okay! I know sodomy is not considered a good deed... ). Warning: some of my posts will be dangerous to your ignorance.

I will be gone for most of the day, so play nice kiddos. Today I mourn a death...

* * *

-=[ Ignorance & the Death of Reason ]=-

To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

-- Amos Bronson Alcott (1799–1888)

American teacher, philosopher, writer, reformer

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

-- Derek Bok, president, Harvard University

There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion.

-- John Dalberg, Lord Acton

Due to a national tragedy -- the death of Reason -- today’s notes will seem more strident than usual. I offer no apologies for that. Reason died a horrible, tragic and unnecessary death. And please hold your prayers! If you want to offer condolences, I appreciate it, but I would rather that instead of praying, or extending your condolences, I hope that today you make a pact to learn, or help someone learn something new today.

In this way, you honor what Reason’s life was about.

That is how Reason was; she always stood for the value of education. She dedicated her life to it, and she had many flaws, believe me, but the worst was the one she and I shared: an absolute abhorrence toward ignorance. She detested, most especially, that people paid more attention to their cars than to developing their critical thinking abilities. Her mission was to open the eyes of the willfully ignorant -- those who shunned her presence

Alas, she failed…

We were raised poor in some of the worst neighborhoods in the country, but Reason always valued education. She and I were both “smart,” but she always said I left her in the dust when it came to the brains department. However, I know that was just Reason’s way of reinforcing my thirst for knowledge. She showed her love by her actions and not through mere words or religious dogma.

When I was growing up, other kids would often make fun of Reason and me because we were “smart.” Moreover, throughout my life, I have been the recipient of personal attacks because people perceive the manner in which I express myself as condescending. However, Reason taught me that most of those attacks come from people who, loathing their ignorance, attack others instead of attacking their own ignorance.

For a time, Reason stopped talking to me because I decided to fit in and ignore my intelligence. Eventually, many years later, we came together again and she was the most happiest when I entered university and graduated first from NYU and when I was accepted to Columbia later. She was the one that taught me the responsibility attached to the gift of intelligence and she made sure I understood that the responsibility is to give it back, to give back to the larger familia, La Communidad.

Today, I choose to honor reason by questioning everything and prodding others to do the same. She never let me forget that was my responsibility, no matter how much I fought to deny it and tried to “fit in.” And for that, I am eternally grateful. I love you Reason. Your absence is felt all across this land of ours.

Love,

Eddie

Aristocracy

¡Hola! Everybody...
I’m still here, I’m still writing, still loving life. It’s good to be alive and not be consumed with resentment and bitterness.

I’m in meetings all day today. Yuck. Meetings suck!

Have a great day people. I’m in a rush and don’t have the time to write anything new, but I leave the following quote. It’s the perfect antidote to the feces-flinging primate mentality...

* * *

-=[ The Aristocracy ]=-

“I believe in aristocracy... Not an aristocracy of power, based upon rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the considerate, and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all nations and classes and all through the ages, and there is a secret understanding between them when they meet. They represent the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos. Thousands of them perish in obscurity, a few are great names. They are sensitive for others as well as themselves, they are considerate without being fussy, their pluck is not swankiness but the power to endure, and they can take a joke.”

-- E.M. Forster

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Love,

Eddie

Emotional Intelligence: Men vs Women

Hola Everybody,

I want to clarify something that can be easily misunderstood about my message: what I teach isn't "positive thinking."In fact, I have many issues with that school of thought. Anyway, I'll address this in a later blog.

Today is Monday Madness, the day I put to rest myths and falsehoods!

LOL

***

Women are more Emotionally Intelligent than Men?

Ha!

Emotional intelligence (EQ) has been defined as the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions -- It is often stated that women are more emotionally intelligent than men. This fallacy (myth) is one of my pet peeves because it serves neither men nor women.

I once developed a leadership development workshop and one of the fist things I tackled was the stereotypes of leadership. You see, in our society gender roles have a lot to do with leadership. For example, when I asked workshop participants what images they saw portrayed as leaders in the media, both men and women participants came up with words related to masculine gender roles. Words such as strong, decisive, courageous, proactive, take-charge attitude, etc., were often thrown out as describing images as portrayed in the media as leaders. I call this the Rambo or John Wayne School of leadership.

Words such as nurturing, empathy, sensitivity, and intuition -- words often associated with women's roles -- were hardly ever used, though these qualities are extremely important leadership characteristics.

However, that should come as no surprise since for the most part women in our society aren't seen as leadership role models. The stereotype is that women are "emotional" while men are "rational." This stereotype does a lot of harm to both genders. Relationship skills, or more specifically what is know called emotional intelligence (EQ), are often considered feminine in our society. Women are deemed as having a more robust emotional life than men, which is… (all together now)

BULLSHIT! LOL

Both men and women buy into this bullshit. You hear women complaining all the time that men are emotional cripples while men complain equally about women and their intense desire to "talk." The problem is that we live in an emotionally illiterate society. Talking about emotions doesn't equal emotional intelligence just as not talking about them is. The fact is that when this issue of emotional intelligence is looked at more carefully, what comes out is a far more complicated picture. For example, when children are asked to take someone else's point of view -- to imagine what another person is thinking or feeling -- boys are just as skilled as girls. Even in studies that show women better at reading facial expressions and body posture, tone of voice, etc., show very little difference between the sexes.

One researcher in the late 1970s examined the question of women's intuition from an innovate perspective. For her doctoral dissertation, she asked thirty-six pairs to work on a task together, with one person assigned to teach something to the other. Both were asked how they were feeling and how they thought the other was feeling. It turned out (gasp!) that women weren't more sensitive to the other's emotional state then men were -- but those playing the role of student were more tuned in how the "teacher" was feeling than the other way around.

The reason this makes sense, the researcher later noted, because people in subordinate roles need to pay careful attention to their leader's state of mind. Their livelihoods and careers depend on it. In addition, because in real life our society is structured in a way that makes access to power easier for men, men are more likely to hold dominant positions while women have to defer to them. It's not surprising then that, "women have become the more sensitive sex -- Women's intuition' would be more accurately described as "subordinate intuition."

Another aspect of emotional intelligence is how we respond to feelings. This is called empathy and it seems that the assumption among the Oprah Winfrey watching circuit is that women are more empathic than men, more able to feel other people's pain and joy.

Again: BULLSHIT!

Some of the answer depends on who is doing the research. Interestingly enough, experiments performed by women researchers are more likely to find female subjects more empathic than experiments conducted by men. What seems to matter most, however, is how empathy is measured. One review of over 100 studies reported that there is "a huge sex difference in self report of empathy (emphasis added) as measured with questionnaires [but] little evidence of a sex difference in physiological response (emphasis added) to another's emotional distress."

In other words, women are more likely than men to describe themselves as empathic, but when it came to actual physical measurement, there was no difference. This may be a reflection of how people see themselves rather than how they are actually responding. When researchers judge empathy by watching faces and measuring heart rate, men and women usually score about the same. It's wrong then, to attempt to make a case that sex differences in emotional intelligence are clear-cut -- let alone innate -- just as it's erroneous to argue that that intuition and sensitivity has more to do with gender than with power.

Yours,

Eddie