@PrettyLuv Depends on context, expectations and situation. A bad action can be perceived as good and vice versa. All one has to do is read history as written close to an act and then reassessed 100 years later. Good and bad are subjective terms at the mercy of the good or bad in fashion at the time.
I'm not sure where I would fit on this since I feel I can be sensitive (or at least respectful) to others' opinions, needs, boundaries, etc, however I'm not sensitive in the sense that I get easily offended. Or at least I'd like to think I'm not. Certainly the less close or familiar I am with a person, the less their words or thoughts of me have an effect on me. I may care a bit more if say a close family member or friend that I hold in high regard out of the blue started yelling at me or calling me insulting names, using intimate details of information about me to go for low blows. Even then I do my best not to let it bother me.
Basically I don't know if I'm considered sensitive or not based upon me trying to show empathy and care towards others' feelings while at the same time not letting negative words or actions affect me as much as possible. I will say that the latter meaning definitely has improved over the years. In my younger days I may have taken offense to things more and gotten into more arguments. Now I just say I can choose peace rather than this, or laugh something off, ignore it and do something I enjoy like listen to music or something.
@CSnMUS87 this is why it is a case by case evaluation. You are like most people—you vacillate according to context, mood, and a host of other variants. I do too.
@CSnMUS87 idk, I think you’re a little weird…that’s not one or the other though. Since the question was poised I think it’s odd you don’t appreciate your rubber band ball properly. 🤗🤗🤗 and you’re highly empathetic. Penguin paper clips agree.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming: @BoomerSpooner it’s not cut and dry you’re right because the woes of the world are based on hero values. Inherently if one exists it’s on a foundational level a threat to the other. Our realities can’t exist at the same time and thus evil is born.
Edit: I should have said deeply ingrained values that can’t exist at the same time. Saying woes of the world was a little general. I should say, it’s a breeding ground for evil since that is subjective. Not the root of.
How did you mine this data?
@BoomerSpooner I guess, with that logic a lamb and a wolf is just a matter of perception then, as is psychosis.
I think that’s the kind of conclusion that enables wolf survival. I don’t agree with it though…. I think there’s an inherent consistency that makes plain what is indeed good and what isn’t (outwardly and inwardly speaking).
@BoomerSpooner Yes I see what you mean.
@stormydaycuddle I'll take that as a compliment. why settle for being "normal"? lol 😁nice use of office supply thoughts with the rubber band ball. 😊 Thank you again. Have the penguins started marching out of their containers?
@Tygus I agree. You are a plus to the forum.
@CuddlykittenPup - the data about the number of men in Indianapolis was from the Census Bureau. The 71 men in Indianapolis active within the past month was a quick search on CC using filters. The curve is just speculation (no data).
@JohnR1972 while I may not agree with the theory I do think the basis for the mathematical equation seems sound for an estimation. That probably sounds weird and contradictory. I mean I followed where you were going and my mind does math a little more creatively .
This is one of the better threads I’ve seen in a long time. I think it’s helpful to remember that categorizations are tools which are used to understand general trends but often fail on an individual level (happens all the time these days) Also language is also a tool yet an imperfect one. As others have pointed out, “sensitive” has many possible meanings. Being empathetic Having strong somatic responses Being caring and highly attuned to others suffering. Being easily hurt or offended Being highly aware of what’s going on around you (even this can have a wide spectrum from changes in weather and pressure to changes in group dynamics and unspoken social cues)
These are just some different examples and not at all exhaustive.
Within this, someone might be “insensitive” in ways such as being unaware, but may still deeply care about others.
Or the opposite, they may be highly aware but not care about others at all (these are your sociopaths.)
There will alway be a point where language will fail us.
I loosely agree with the assessment of the OP with the caveat that there is a lot more nuance that can be added. A general trend in having a lack of nuance in many online mediums I think is also a contributing factor and one of the reasons I’m liking the effort and care on this thread.
@Redfox16 I really like your comment about the opposite struggles people go through. I made a thread years ago on that topic and think it’s very key for understanding, especially with issues involving touch (cause it’s a “sensitive” topic 😜) but really with anything.
I think that's a very astute analysis. The "normal" ones most likely are in relationships.
@JohnR1972 I read your model/idea. Then I read it again a couple hours later.
You just might be onto something there. Intuitively it would make sense that most folks on here would not come from the middle of that bell curve you described.
I think a theory is all it is. I fall in the middle but can move in either direction due to my nonchalant yet deeply invested choice of posting on the thread. Much like your post I think about things on certain levels and only choose to invest my thoughts into this group, with good and bad returns. But nothing that impacts my life, which makes the theory viable if based on social concepts of what is defined for all three descriptors in terms of psychological outcomes. If it becomes I had a buddy named Cleetus that was on this site...... It becomes study.
Right now its a interesting theory to project.
Interesting.
Just a thought: Why assume emotional sensitivity is normally distributed? Clumped distribution is arguably the most common type of dispersion found in nature. Often this type of distribution is due to an uneven distribution of nutrients or other resources in the environment. It can also be caused by differing social interactions between individuals.
Clumped distribution may actually simplify (and better support) your overarching argument. Occam’s razor, and all that. 🙂
As far as I understand what @JohnR1972 originally intended (and he can tell me if not), is that the model he made is solely there for illustration purposes. I don't get the feeling it's meant to pass as an all inclusive scientific study.... with all variables or possibilities taken into account. Heck, even actual scientific studies don't attempt to take all variables into account. Believe me, I've had the pleasure of reading through hundreds of studies to date! 😫 and the term "sensitive" is subjective.
Here's the points as I understand them;
-There are a small percentage of men on here that exhibit "predatory" or bad behavior.
-Most threads about said behavior is specific to this small percentage of men only
-Most posts of that type don't tend to include specifiers (like, "I don't think ALL men are bad") because that's not really what people are used to doing on forums
-However, a much larger percentage of men (not the predatory behavior men) tend to view these threads as attacks on men in general...them included.
-Therefore, they feel the need to comment things like "not all men", or "I don't do that" or simply trying to defend bad behavior as having been misinterpreted.
-This, in turn, makes women feel their experiences or feelings are being dismissed as exaggerations or mistakes....and basically that men are calling them liars (which is historically how women have been treated when we talk about these types of issues....so it brings up some deeper seated issues)
-And then we all descend into utter chaos and try to burn this whole site down....and mods have to come in and put everyone in time out to lick their wounds and vent to their IRL friends....
And yes @Jubal and @Debster Probably why we don't see much of the middle ground arguments on here Haha
And also @BoomerSpooner ....I agree. Everyone is different and behaves differently based on so many factors, it's impossible to sus out! Like, if I get too much sugar in me, I might let my ADHD be the navigator too much....so there's NO guessing if I might behave "typically" or not LOL
However, a much larger percentage of men (not the predatory behavior men) tend to view these threads as attacks on men in general...them included.
☝️very true
I'd like to suggest that the issue may not lie with inherent differences in sensitivity but rather with social conditioning and societal expectations surrounding masculinity.
Traditionally, cultural norms have dictated that men should be less emotionally expressive, fostering stereotypes such as "boys don't cry" or "man up." This social conditioning may create a discrepancy between men's actual emotional sensitivity and their perceived sensitivity, leading to a potential misinterpretation of the observed distribution.
Instead of a bimodal distribution based on inherent sensitivity, it could be argued that men across the spectrum possess a range of sensitivities but may feel compelled to suppress or express them based on societal expectations. This conditioning might contribute to the observed patterns in online discussions, where individuals respond to comments about "men" based on their internalized beliefs about how they should express or suppress their emotions.
@RedFox16 - 100%. That is exactly what I was trying to communicate. I was wanting to offer a possible explanation of why so many threads degenerate without sounding accusatory or defensive. I’m hoping this thread can be the proverbial “ounce of prevention” to help everyone understand different perspectives the next time a thread comes up about harshly worded profiles, sexist and aggressive messages in inboxes, etc.
@me2 - Good points. “Emotionally sensitive” was the best term I could think of but I realize it is a very imprecise term. In chapter one of any dissertation (and I’ve read dozens of them over the past few years) you define your terms, explicitly state your assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, state your research question(s) and the significance of the problem. In Chapter two you review the related research that has already been published on your topic so your study can build on what is already known.
My theory on this post does not meet any of the rigor of an academic study and I readily admit it is full of unproven assumptions such as the idea of “sensitivity” being a normal distribution among men in the general public. My major professor when I was working on my PhD was fond of saying, “nothing is more practical than a good theory” because it offers a way of thinking about a problem that may be very helpful to solving the problem.
@RedFox16 wait?! I thought you were supposed to feed the monster sugar? Kinda like a ritual sacrifice of your productivity. You are right. Individual circumstances play a big part.
@Debster ”normal”? What?
@TD1964RGK
Often this type of distribution is due to an uneven distribution of nutrients or other resources in the environment.
That’s one I haven’t heard. How do you think nutrients play into sensitivity levels?
Identifying, preventing harm, supporting victims, and accountability go into a lot of the threads we are talking about. It's identification that seems to be the problem for bystanders. Less about how sensitive they are and more about how much they identify with what is being said therefore harming ego, triggering hero values and escalating things. On the flip side defending is seen a lot of times as defense of predatory behavior. So maybe mindfulness is in order? Unless you are the one advocating for the bad behavior or doubling down on it as a bystander think about separating yourself and ego from the behavior being discussed. This thread is starting to take on elements of a rabbit hole that ends in thinking our identification with something means we are owed an apology. When in reality the discomfort comes from somewhere. It might not be a horrible place but seeking it out may lead to more answers and growth than taking on something that was never meant for you.
Mindful detachment: Promotes Empathy Fosters Accountability and is a Catalyst for Growth.
Unless someone is directly and clearly attacking you remember there is a second person narrative often in play in these forums. Its hard but try not to turn it into first person identification. Will it always work? No. Will someone get on your nerves. Yes. In my opinion its important that topics get discussed especially when they are important. If its making you uncomfortable ask why? I get uncomfortable all the time but stepping back thinking am I taking on someone else's narrative or should I use this as an opportunity to grow usually helps. And I'm laughably imperfect at it but I do try. Hugs!
I think people have a tendency to double down on both ends and that’s where defensive lines get breached. If people respected other’s perspectives such radical moments and radicalized perceptions of what another says wouldn’t happen.
Identification is human nature. Hero values exist. Which is why turning second person narrative into first is the problem. Not sensitivity.
There is no reason for one person to respect another person's perspective. There are millions of cases where people shouldn't. Respect for a person can be warranted but that leads us to hero values. **Politeness and human decency can be called for but respect of ideology and perspective isn't required. Nor should it be. We're human.
@JohnR1972 when open ended blanket statements are made, it begs the question, is it intended for me or someone else, does it not? They’re not made for second person dialogue. It’s aimed at everyone including thyself.
So of course, a sensitive person is more than likely, and understandably so, to take it rather personally.
This bell distribution curve, if true, would essentially show just how many men would potentially take it personally here, which one should be sensitive of … if the true intention is to be sensitive of their feelings as well as one’s own.
@stormydaycuddle
Politeness and human decency can be called for but respect of ideology and perspective isn't required. Nor should it be. We're human.
personal attack removed [Shake]
I guess that’s where we differ.
We're human means we are influenced by our own limited perceptions. Politeness and human decency are different and should we respect Hitler? Then a blanket statement was made. This is a call for ones own perception of values to be respected not a merit based system.