Women Operate from the Right side of the Brain

As usual, you raging feminists and gay white knights, hold your rage until the end, you might be pleasantly surprised (or not; either way the information is real and important).

There are some fundamental objective realities you need to be aware of before you can digest this piece properly. In brief they are:

1. The theory of the Dual Brain I came up with based on work by others too (I am a synergist and I always try to provide references for the work of others I use).
2. The neuroscience work done with people who had their corpus callosum cut (usually a procedure done to help people with extreme epilepsy) that proved the left side will simply make things up on the spot, and BELIEVE them fully, to justify an action the right brain initiated, even though the left brain has NO KNOWLEDGE or information as to why the right brain did what it did.
3. The fact that structurally the female brain is demonstrably DIFFERENT from the male brain.

The links I provided above are basically background for those of you that want to know more, are skeptical of my theories (you damned fools!), or simply want the background too.

This is the most relevant part of point 2 above for our purposes:

Interpreter studies (Gazzaniga, 1980s): Left hemisphere explanation of right-hemisphere actions. Left hemisphere generates immediate but fabricated explanations for actions it did not initiate. Narrative self-construction is a left-hemisphere function operating independently of actual causation.

The following quote is even more clear and explains already a LOT with respect to female behaviour when compared to male behaviour:

Emotional processing shows a similar pattern. The right hemisphere tends to be more involved in processing negative affect and certain forms of emotional recognition, while the left hemisphere is more associated with positive emotional valence in most individuals. With the corpus callosum severed, these processing streams decouple. Brain lateralization of emotional function, which is subtle and integrated under normal conditions, becomes more exposed and more consequential after callosotomy.

Notice the difference: The right brain tends to be processing NEGATIVE emotions and remember that the right brain also doesn’t have LANGUAGE. While the left brain, that DOES have language, and more readily processes logical processes, tends to focus on POSITIVE experiences.

Now, given that my theory is that women operate mostly out of the right brain what does this mean?

Well, first we can check the premise of what I just wrote above, which I believe I already did to the tune of some 50 million people looked at and a number of studies and meta studies on the concept that women do not, generally act as they SAY they want to act, but rather, make up STORIES (on the spot, especially in arguments) as to why they did what they did. And absurd, obviously wrong, false, and deceitful as those stories can be, they apparently, far more often than a man would, BELIEVE them too. At least with enough conviction to really be indignant if questioned on it.

Now, while women DO have a corpus callosum, 1 and since it is also measurably THICKER than men’s it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they are quite aware, on some level at least that they are absolutely talking shit a lot of the time. 2 The more self-aware women are aware of this and admit it, yet, unlike men, tend to experience ZERO guilt about it. Which of course, is in keeping with their demonstrated solipsism. A woman may be perfectly aware that whatever emotions and feelings she feels about a person, event, or ideology X on Monday, can very much become the exact opposite of it on Tuesday. The reasons she will make up for it, very often, are merely squid-ink cover for the real process. At least in part to cover her own culpability, lack of accountability, deceitful behaviour, or actual crime, BUT, and it is important to state it, ALSO, at least in part, due to her right brain coming to whatever conclusion (usually based on ancestral, social, or genetic behaviour modes, that are ancient, opaque, and invariably concerned with baseline survival as the primary motive [regardless of how wrong or inappropriate for the specific circumstances of that moment]) and that conclusion being at least in part opaque to her left brain, so her left brain makes up something “reasonable” to justify it.

What is reasonable to a hormonal, stressed, woman that is acting on some primitive and outdated biological modality her lizard brain has kept around because it was advantageous 17,000 years ago, is, of course, possibly quite far from what an objective, in-the-present male brain might consider as being such.

This however, explains not only the generic “deception” women exhibit, the lack of concepts like honour as men understand it. It also explains her infinitely mutable nature. Some of us have seen women we know well go from one political or ideological or religious extreme to its very opposite simply based on the man they were having regular sex with. And then go back AGAIN to the original one and make up a story about that too, once they move on from that last guy and start with a new one that has her previous, or even entirely new, philosophies.

Now… bear with me.

Assume my theory of the dual brain is correct, and it finally explains the behaviour of women once and for all, what are the consequences?

Well, at a minimum, if you are even half-way intelligent, the following points will be noted:

1. Female agency is impaired. Their ability to process anything objectively is statistically inferior to that of men.3
2. Their so-called ‘“female intuition” can indeed be a thing. However, ultimately it is merely the right brain picking up micro-cues to a higher degree than the average male brain, which is more logical and processes things more objectively so is less likely to notice micro-cues. For some of us, who have a rather high IQ and can process also very well with the right brain (it may in fact be my most dominant hemisphere) our capacity to have an almost supernatural intuition can be superior to that of the average woman, but this too is generally speaking the exception to the rule, at equal levels of IQ, the female use of the right brain is statistically going to be higher and thus her capacity to spot such micro-cues (unconsciously) from her environment will tend to be better than that of men. Of course, depending on her IQ in general, her instincts may still be way off because they are processed with the same 17,000 year old reasons (but so may be the male brains, if to a somewhat lesser degree due to the influence of the left brain which is more dominant in men). These factors mean that an attentive man, using both SOME right brain perception (unconscious) and tempering it with good left brain logic, is probably no worse off than a woman with a higher functioning right brain, having a “feeling” about something. The man’s primitive sensations might be tempered by logic applicable to the current day. In a female by the way, the tempering of her basic right-brain instinct, at the lower levels of IQ can be catastrophic. She can be conditioned to ignore her instinct based on FALSE social engineering principles. i.e. all humans are humans, and walking in a bikini on a beach in Mogadishu is just as safe as doing it in Sweden. No, it isn’t.
3. They tend to focus on, and remember, the NEGATIVE emotions primarily. Which over time, tends to degrade any relationship if she tends to hold on to the negatives and dismiss or forget the positives. Which also explains the roughly 70-80% of divorces initiated by women after a couple or three decades of marriage. It is explained in the Bible rather classically with Lot’s wife turning to a pillar of salt, which I believe is a metaphor for shedding so many tears your life becomes meaningless, which, generally speaking is what happens if your focus in life is not only the past, which is bad enough anyway, but the negatives of the past. This kind of way of thinking is anathema to people like me, who at age 13 invented their own motto, made up of two aphorisms from different cultures: We will cross that bridge when we come to it (English) and Don’t burn bridges behind you (Italian), which I changed to: We will burn that bridge as soon as we cross it. I.e. there is only one direction: Forward. Which probably also explain why I divorced twice and went through a lot of women before finding the right one.

Now, does any of this mean that women can’t be objective, think properly, realise their own faults, improve as human beings, be good wives, mothers and positive members of society? No. It does not.

But they DO have these factors that make it a little bit harder for them than for men.

Of course, never forget that one of my philosophical heroes is Professor Cipolla and his five laws of human stupidity, so there are plenty of criticisms we can level at men in general too, and most certainly to humanity at large.

This is not a bash women post. Quite the contrary, it is my (rose-tinted glasses, absurdly, wildly optimistic, utopian) hope that if you grasp this issue, you will be better able, as a man, to navigate your interactions with women in general, and that as a woman, you will now be more aware of your tendencies and work hard to overcome whatever limitations you might recognise they have caused you in the past.

At any rate, I would welcome your comments and feedback in respect of how accurate you think this theory of mine might be.

Poll at the bottom too, but I’d prefer detailed comments if you have them.

There are further consequences, which I have mentioned before:

If the above is true and correct, then should women REALLY be allowed to vote? I mean, it really doesn’t matter right now because it’s not as if ANYONE’s votes count for anything in the pedovore run planet we exist on, but on some hypothetical actual democracy, surely, some sort of minimum cognitive test based on objective reality should be applied before we are allowed to vote. We certainly have one for age. Mental infirmity, and so on.

And that’s just one area. Given the results we now have from across the globe concerning the outcomes of single parent families and how catastrophic the stats on single mom children vs single dad children, should custody not be statistically now primarily perhaps switch to fathers in the interest of the child?

And are we even surprised at the fact that without exception single mom children are inevitably statistically worse off than single dad children? I mean if one of the two does not have the same level of capacity for seeing reality as it is, and is more likely to be swayed by their own negative emotions, thoughts, and memories, is it any wonder the children of THAT person will turn out worse off?

There are HUNDREDS of other areas of life we could discuss regarding this issue, and none need be extreme or treated in an extreme fashion. But reality is what it is. Accepting it, of course, might be more difficult for you if you are a woman.

Subscribe now

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

[ X ]

This entry was posted in SubStack. RSS 2.0 feed.