Quite complicated, so I’ll explain it in a few different scenario areas; a court case in which I was a witness, relationships and communication.
I was a witness to someone doing something really dumb. No issue, they just did something dumb. I was told that if I didn’t show up as a witness, I would get into trouble myself in a way that I didn’t think was wise. That I would lose my licence for negligent driving. Which I had not been doing, so it likely wouldn’t have stuck but I went along with the threat, as theoretically it was possible and driving for me is a part of my Self persona. In Australian culture a licence is a cultural norm, though I understand it is not in every country.
In the court case I was called in to take the stand. I didn’t mind being there, no qualms. I was asked a proposed story of a sequence of events. I listened, and flatly responded no and that it was a blatant lie. I got their point, it just was not in any way valid in any intelligent sense. There was no bending in my mind to take in the new information because it made no sense. A hypothesis that is a blatant lie, switching facts, etc; for me makes no sense and I can’t just randomly agree with something that defies evidence. They tried a few times to present to me different pushes, and they were all just stupid. I was there, obviously my word is law over a hypothetical that is idiotic. I acutely remember what happened cause I was ‘triggered’ at the stupidity of the moment.
This is not about the case. It is about my assertiveness in this case. A more agreeable, less assertive person maybe would have bent at the lawyers strength of character. I of course, considered bending for about 2.5 milliseconds before I realised that the person was wrong and then answered as if a General of an army. When I say something, it comes out like an wise iron fist. I comprehend the variability, and I answer as if there is no other strong option. Always.
This is in part due to my low politeness, low agreeableness, and high assertiveness. Mixed together it means that I say what I think regardless if it will hurt others. I may try and tone it down slightly, due to my average compassion, but even then, it sounds stronger than most people speaking from what I notice. In the court case it likely quietened the room in a sense. My strength of character, in my assurance of my situational fact, would have been horrible for the lawyer to contend with. Similarly, in daily life, it is horrible for most people to contend with. My teachers also aptly horrified when I didn’t take their authority as law just because they were present. I didn’t see the lawyer as anything but my equal, if anything I was superior in the moment due to the fact I was actually there when the incident occurred. So bending my will would have been a benign, pointless action.
Due to my understanding of this I have spent years and years researching myself. I have learnt to only stand up for those whom actually require it, rather than those whom are just my friends or on my side, as it can be abused. I have made error before of making others cry at the behest of protecting my friends. I do not regret those actions, but I decided to seek to only do it when it was required. Not aimlessly, due to people being human, this includes my friends whom are not infallible to error. Though I do feel that internal desire to instantly protect everyone around me. Destroy my allies enemy, as it were.
I have learnt over my life that I will stand up for an enemy if I feel their position is valid on an issue. This is extremely important. I am not afraid to stand up, ever. Whether that is good or bad, is another thing. If something needs to be said, I will say it, without hesitation. To be fair, I rarely have enemies. I have ‘people around me due to inherent compatibility’ and ‘people not compatible to be around me’. Sometimes I even prefer an enemy if they retain higher intelligence than an ally, and I feel guilt at being human and having preference and being unable to be able to gain their knowledge through frequent association.
I have also learnt that due to my ability to be strong willed, I need to accurately disseminate information and choose what is worth saying or validating. I have felt guilt over the years at the ‘risk’ of making someone believing something that is negative, or that my belief has reshaped due to more information years later. I always allow in other people’s information, but I understand the low politeness and high assertiveness gives people little choice whether to absorb what I’m saying or not. So due to my high openness, I spend a massive amount of my time checking my statements whilst researching them. I reword whilst speaking if something is still being developed but I want to talk about it. For example I place into sentences, ‘I think’, or ‘I believe’, if I am still researching and am not at an end point. To tone down the severity of my words. I do not wish to mesh what I know is personal fact with what is developmental assessment. This has taken me a really long time to concern myself with because its anti-Ego. Everyone always wants to be right, and it took me a really long time to reign in and control my sense of beating ‘my smarts’ into someone.
As you can imagine, being a female with 99% assertiveness and low agreeableness can cause some conflict with an ‘average man’ in a relationship sense. In a friend sense, it creates a stronger bond due to me having less sensitivity in discussing masculine interests. Though for relationships, it can cause conflict. This is due to societal assumptions, rather than each individual man. It does not affect high IQ people in my experience. Though affects a large amount of the general caucus.
I reasoned years ago that the kind of man I need is one who is either highly aggressive but whom is very adept at controlling it. Or a more feminine man, whom is acutely comfortable with his level of aggression. I feel in practice, both of these would work with me, though a situation of an ‘averagely aggressive man’ causes massive conflicts when paired with me.
Most men are taught through experiential statistics for how to behave with women in general. Many men form a mental behavioural pattern, and many return to it when they are in a state of confusion. The saying, ‘what is tried and true,’ applies here. Or, they rely on statistics gathered by entanglement. Ie, what information society brings through quantitative experiences. Rather than using qualitative analysis, this of course affects younger men more through possibly lacking deeper qualitative analysis. A man with a sister, a close female friend, etc, may see me as more individualised as they can separate unique females.
This video is relevant sometimes to how people react with each other.
So when a man goes to entangle himself with me personally, I expect individual adaption to take place. I am a human, they are a human, I expect the male to alter. This also applies in the bedroom. I refer to the phrase as, ‘he is fucking me like he fucked his ex’ rather than adapting to a new human being having different individual requirements. Similarly, many men when approaching a woman will respond to her without adaption.
Which is fine if you want to fail, but not if you want to succeed of course. As psychologically, I seem to be a more unique form of female.
I am a person who other people find alluring, but confusing. Due to my general demographic of being highly intelligent, and speaking about subjects that are extremely niche. With my high openness, I want to talk about these niche subjects with others. Engaging in intellectual communication fuels me.
When talking about these subjects, I do not expect anyone to have any knowledge of what I am discussing prior. As unless you have a specific interest in those areas, you would not think to delve into them. If I start discussing the inadequacies of fiat as an example, and a person doesn’t know what fiat means let alone has specific research into this area, my reasoning for starting the conversation was to talk about something I liked not to force them to create a faux opinion.
This is generally what occurs though. People try to remember anything at all they have ever heard about the subject I’m talking about, and then slot it in like it’s their own opinion and then get angry when I ask them a depthful question about their opinion. ‘Why do you say that’, ‘that’s a strange opinion to have based on what I just said’, ‘how did you formulate that opinion’, etc. They are trying to stay afloat, and I don’t blame them for lying, but they also appear negligent to actual intelligence.
A truly intelligent person can say: I don’t know. That’s interesting. Why do you think that. What drove you to find that topic interesting. What areas of this do you fail to like. The list goes on, there is hundreds and thousands of conversational pulls to keep someone actively engaged in a conversation with you if you don’t understand the topic. I know this, because I do it if someone else brings up a topic. I engage them in their own topic, cause if they brought it up it must be important to them. Doesn’t always need to be for me, no human is identical.
When I talk to someone who ‘lies’ to me, it is plainly obvious. Like being slapped with the stupid stick, and I instantly lose all respect for the person whom is talking. I feel my intelligence is threatened because they assumed that I would not notice a manipulation of data. Then what occurs is a mixture of me for 20 minutes trying to calm down my erratic volatility and trying to find anyway to escape the person.
Whatever association I had with the person before, tends to vanish very rapidly. As hitting a wild beast with a stick is always likely to turn them into a predator. I immediately turn ‘teacher’ and try to ease them down a conversational path of explaining how to have a conversation properly. So, the respect for the Other dries up due to an authority imbalance.
(c) 2021 Siren Watcher