Emerald

I think this framing misunderstands the level of detachment that's happening for someone who is actually on a path of transcendence. It's not about "going against your desires." That's more of a repression and "fighting with your humanity to maintain a spiritual identity and worldview" thing. It's about fundamentally seeing through the illusion of the character you're playing and the entire reality that you exist within as that character. It's realizing that you're a character in a story. And that character will never transcend the confines of that character... including the desires, needs, limitations, and attachments that come with that character. Instead, it's about realizing the entire book that you character exists in was always a falsehood... and even your desire to transcend your wants and needs is part of that story and is used to build and reinforce that story. When my story was thrown into the fire, revealing that the Emerald character and the entire reality she existed in was an illusion... I realized there was no version where Emerald would ever be enlightened, even if she became enlightened within the story. In the same way that Gandalf is written to be Gandalf... his enlightenment is fundamentally false, as Gandalf isn't real. It's just part of the story. The same is true of the Emerald character. She dissolved along with the entire existence she lived in. And there was pure nothingness. But Emerald never become enlightened... she ceased to exist. Then, the nothingness eventually reconstituted the Emerald story and avatar because that's what it preferred. And that's when Emerald the character stopped trying to be anything other than an ordinary human with all the ordinary human patterns, needs, and desires. So, I don't want to re-attach myself to the previous strivings to be desire-less... as all of that was just extra stuff in the Emerald story. And it wasn't even fun. Instead of being like Bruce Wayne trying his damndest to be Batman and transcend his ordinary humanity... I'd much rather be Superman performing the most convincing Clark Kent disguise that he can muster.

Well, it's less like a happily ever after... and more like, we can continue to build without incompatibility issues getting in the way. And it's not really hard to find. The main thing is developing discernment about what you want and need... and making romantic decisions on that basis.

If that perspective works for you, more power to you. But I think you're in denial about your own basic human needs... and that you have some kind of superior identity of being "The extra special person who is beyond human needs and who knows better than all the sheeple." That's the vibe that I'm getting. And that will almost certainly backfire on you in your friendships and relationships, because you lack the self-honesty and self-awareness to recognize that you even have needs in the first place.

Yes. And I'm a lay-person who has an inner work practice that's not geared towards transcendence. But it perhaps can be done if a householder commits themselves to monastic levels of detachment in this life with zero personal interactions with other humans. It's just a lot more do-able to commit one's self to monastic levels of detachment by living in a monastery... and I'm not sure if most householders can pull that off. So, I'm always skeptical of householders who claim they are. But it's not my preference to use this lifetime to play the game that monks are playing. I prefer a different game that has a lot more to do with immersion into the avatar perspective. So, I am not trying to transcend my humanity or talk myself out of having basic human needs. And I have no desire to "escape" the Maya as I don't see it as something that needs escaping. I am an ordinary human animal with ordinary human needs, patterns, and limitations, and I have no qualms with that fact. I am simple a sheep among other sheep. So, I have zero desire to use my inner work practice to mold myself into an ubermensch who is beyond the pull of basic human patterns. If I desired that, I would become a monk. So, you'll not find me trying to fight my Earthly nature to transcend my needs for food, water, safety, connection, or anything else. That's how you end up with people who identify as spiritual repressing their humanity... instead of truly transcending it because they didn't actually truly want to commit to a monastic life.

I scare off the wrong ones for me... and attract the right ones for me by being clear about what I want. That's always been my experience. Edit: The only problem is if a woman knows when she wants and expects it from a specific guy who isn't the type of person who wants to give it. Meaning... If you know you want pears, get a pear tree. Don't get an apple tree and expect pears from it.

First off, I'm not single. So, that's a non-concern for me. But if I were single... guys who aren't interested in driving the relationship towards those labels and milestones are not a good fit for me. I And if I lowered my bar, I would just end up in an incompatible relationships that are an anti-nutrient to my life and that make me feel anxious and put me through a lot of pain at the inevitability of needing to end the relationship when things predictably don't work for me. So, it would be a big waste of time and energy. And I need my energy to be going towards my children and life's purpose... and not towards doing a ton of fruitless legwork trying to make an unworkable relationship work. The reality is that I know myself and I know what I need. And what I'm looking for is reasonable and not too difficult to find, because I am great at sorting. So, I have no reason to relax my standards. And a woman who relaxes her standards to widen the pool of guys who she will accept affection from, will invite all kinds of unnecessary mayhem into her life. Bear in mind, women are always actively being pursued by a lot of spam guys. So, relaxing compatibility standards or quality standards is like taking down a spam firewall in your inbox... and your inbox comes flooding through with 90% spam messages. The main thing, is to know yourself and be very clear about your own needs and dealbreakers before choosing to get into a relationships with a man.

It is common for women to want these things... but definitely isn't something that ALL women want. And it's not difficult to find a man who wants the same things. Probably about half of guys are looking for the same thing. The only real difficulty from my past-self's perspective, is to be able to end (or avoid starting) relationships with men whose vision for their life is incompatible with my own. So, it's definitely not a "hands full" situation, as it's not difficult to find. And if I were single, I wouldn't need to convince anyone to operate the way I do. It's just a matter of finding someone who already wants to operate that way and is actively taking looking to take steps towards those milestones.

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I suspect that my friend has this view partially because of some avoidant tendencies. So, he could definitely do some examination with that... as I don't think it's serving him. But it also connects back to his views about connections and relationships, given his background in a traditional environment where everything was governed by labels and roles. So, he has a strong value regarding liberation from oppressive religious and traditional structures. And he sees marriage and the labels in relationship as part of those. And he really believed that no one should find them meaningful, as he found them to be oppressive and arbitrary. So, it makes sense to me that he'd be aversive to them. It's more of a matter of incompatibility. I'm the type of person who is very oriented towards devotion to a specific person who is mutually devoted to me. And I want the milestones and labels to reflect that mutual devotion. This is, of course, a common orientation to relationships. But it definitively isn't the only one. It's just the only one that's compatible with me.

It was the lack of labels and clear distinctions... and him having a belief that labels are unnecessary and are purely unimportant bits of social construction that shouldn't mean anything to anyone. But for me, if a guy doesn't want to put a label on the relationship and move towards marriage, it's just not a good fit for me. And I will never feel comfortable and satisfied with the relationship, as it feels like the level of depth has been permanently capped in a meaningful way.

That would be a dealbreaker for me because it's not going all in... and reads to me as a lack of seriousness and devotion. It would definitely sew seeds of doubt in me about how open he is to actually growing deep roots with me.

Thank you for letting me know.

The lack of labels is definitely a relationship dealbreaker for me. Labels and clear definition, enable me to feel secure enough in the relationship to open up and go deeper. And his value around not having labels, left me in a state of ambiguity where I didn't feel like the relationship could progress to a deeper level... and gave me the fundamental feeling of unsafely in the relationship. So, it honestly was the main issue we had irreconcilable incompatibilities with. It wasn't "Something I'm not telling you." It was an issue with labels. The reality is that labels have a lot of meaning to me. Like, a man I'm with being very clear that, "I want you be your partner." or "Will you marry me? I want to be your husband." holds a lot of meaning for me. And if a guy doesn't want that because labels feel too confining or arbitrary, I'm going to feel anxious and blocked the entirety of the relationships until I have not other choice but to end it. But I tried to operate his way for about a year, because I didn't realize how much of a deal breaker it was for me. And I never could get clear or comfortable regarding how he felt about me or what we were or where the relationship was going... or even where the relationship could go. That's not as to say that he's wrong or that you're wrong for not wanting labels. I'm sure there are some women out there that feel the same way. But to me, labels equal devotion... and have a lot of meaning. And anyone who's anti-labels just isn't for me.

I definitely agree that this is true. And I suspect that the growth in these instances is to come to the realization that not everything negative exists to be overcome. Some negatives are there to accept and surrender to. But it did bring up a question that I'm curious about, as someone who has gotten insight into my issues with chronic pain via my medicine journeys. Basically, I've had back, neck, and jaw problems of a mysterious origin since I was a child... with a lot of pain and stiffness in the neck. And each Ayahuasca journey that I took began with my neck automatically swiveling around and "unlocking" this area of the body to reveal repressed unprocessed feelings of terror and grief. And the message seems to be more about being willing to feel those feelings constantly without resisting them... rather than finding relief from them. And one of the insights about why I had all this pain was because all the suffering of the world was located in my throat on some higher dimension of reality. And that higher dimensional element of myself (God) started to swivel our neck around, and all of the universe turned into a whole amusement park of suffering and mercy, where it became unclear where suffering ends and mercy begins. And it was just one of the games that God plays with itself. And it was showing me that I needn't worry about it as much as I do... as that which experiences it sees no distinction between suffering and mercy in its games. And every journey that I've ever taken has had a lot to do with unlocking the neck and jaw. Even once, when I was getting a procedure that required localized Lidocaine... this had the effect of immediately loosening up my neck and jaw muscles which have been perma-clenched since I was 8 years old. And that enabled me to become aware of feelings and a part of myself that I had been repressing since early childhood (like 4-5 years old). So, that makes me curious... Have you ever gotten any insights from your psychedelic journeys about your autoimmune issues? If so, I'd be very interested to hear them... just out of pure curiosity.

Incompatibility doesn't have anything to do with that, as it has nothing to do with performance what-so-ever. I'll give some examples of what an incompatibility is... Example #1: Let's say Partner A and Partner B are in a relationship and they deeply care about each other and are very attracted to and attached to one another. But Partner A is a home-body who likes to settle down in one place and build a life-long community grounded in on location. And Partner B is a thrill-seeker and traveler who wants to go on adventures and move around all the time. And let's say that Partner A and Partner B, settle down in one location like Partner A wants. But Partner B starts nagging them about going on adventure... which Partner A doesn't want to do. This is an incompatibility. And it won't work out in a long-term relationships... without Partner A OR Partner B being miserable. Example #2: Let's say Partner A and Partner B are in a relationship and they deeply care about each other and are very attracted to and attached to one another. But Partner A is a deeply social person who wants to spend a lot of time with Partner B... and to constantly invite people over for get-togethers and parties. And Partner B is an introvert who prefers occasional small get-togethers... but mostly wants to stay in and either hang out with Partner A or have some free time by themselves. And let's say that Partner A's lifestyle wins out... Partner B is going to feel exhausted and annoyed at having their quiet introverted lifestyle up-ended. And if Partner B's lifestyle wins out... Partner A is going to feel trapped and stifled. And they may nag Partner A to connect more or be more extraverted. These are incompatibilities. And it doesn't mean that anyone was doing anything wrong. It's just an "oil and water" situation. For me, my incompatibilities in past relationships came from being a very roots-oriented/connection-oriented person. And I like to have very clear definitions on what the nature of that relationships is, and I don't feel good in a relationship where there's ambiguity. And a major part of how I feel loved and secure in relationships, is to feel like that person is very clear about their commitment to the relationship. Like, I once was in a relationship with a guy who didn't like the idea of labels and had this whole philosophy against it (he was raised very traditionally in a religious community and eventually deconstructing from it, so he saw things like marriage as being controlled by the religion). And his thing was, "I love you. So, why would I try to fit that into a social construct?" And I cared about him a lot. So, I tried to make that work for a while. But I never felt secure... and I sensed that there was no room to go any deeper than things already were. So, it created a limit at how deep our roots could come to grow intertwined. So, I would feel this strong driver to go deeper... but would be met with a door. And I would start trying to get closer by asking questions and nagging... which just pushed him away more. And then, as he pulled away more and get more avoidant... that would cause me to go more and more into anxious mode and to try to get closer and not lose him. Eventually, I had to stop seeing him and just be his friend, as there was a fundamental incompatibility about our views on relationships and labels. Contrast that with a relationship where the guy is clearly on the same page about what he wants in a relationship and wants to lock me down for his and only his, I feel very secure. So, I don't have to try a bunch of naggy tactics to try to get closer or establish a deeper connection to try to keep an incompatible relationship together. In fact, because he's compatible, he'll do all that legwork without my needing to ask very much. And it's not to say that my friend is wrong in how he was looking at it. It's that labels are incompatible with his ethos. And relationships without labels are incompatible with me.

There's usually a series of line where, once it's crossed, I set a boundary in measure to the line-stepping. Like, I once knew a guy professionally, where he confessed to me on three separate occasions that he had feelings for me. And he's about a decade younger than me with very little experience with women. So, I wasn't as sharp as I normally would be for someone older and more experienced. The first time, I said, "I'm flattered. But I'm married." The second time, I said again, "Well. I am married. So, I'm already spoken for, like I said last time." The third time, I said, "Listen, I've already explained to you twice that I'm married and not available. So, I need to get a lot clearer on this boundary. Please do not communicate your feelings to me again. Our relationship is professional, and there is no path to get closer to me." For him, he really needed it spelled out for him. And he seemed to take it fine once I did. I don't think he really got it until I was a bit meaner to him. (And in my head, I was like "Dude! Don't make me have to be a bitch to you!") But I think you need to get clear on your lines... professionally and romantically. With the tax thing, it's as simple as saying, "I always do everything by the books. it's against my values to do it otherwise." With the hearts, you have to decide if it's over your lines... and how serious he is. Like, I've had guys try to flirt with me. And most of the time, it works to just not give any response or reinforcement and move on to the next topic. This usually gets the message across, "I'm not interested in flirting." But if he's very adamant and attached, think of the boundary line and what to say and do once that line is crossed. You could even set a boundary like, "I appreciate you paying me extra. But it's definitely not necessary." But I have also had a lot of clients in my time who want to pay me extra or compensate me for missed sessions... and that was just their own values. So, both of those are within your own discretions, and aren't problems in themselves. With the hearts and the touching however... ask yourself "Is this over the line for me?" and if the answer is "yes" it's important to communicate that.

It's not that liberal people support Islam itself, as the chosen philosophy that they follow. Like, it would be uncommon for an American person with Liberal values to say, "I think the official religion should be Islam." or "I think we should spread Islam." or even "I think Islam is a good philosophy." Instead, it's more of a value around freedom of religion... and support for people who are marginalized on the basis of their religion, like Muslims often are. And most left-leaning people will probably view Islam similar to how they view Christianity and Judaism.... in the sense that it's important to respect the freedom of religion to practice these religions. But regarding the content of the regions themselves, they may have issues with the patriarchal nature of each of these religions. And many Lefties are secular. So, they won't like Islam any more or less than they like Christianity. The main thing is to support ALL people to have the freedom to practice a major part of their culture and spirituality without the white Christian Stage Blue power structures in white-majority countries, crushing the rights of Muslim Stage Blue people or people who practice other religions and philosophies. Ultimately, it's about preventing the Stage Blue cultural forces that have the most imperial and social power (White Christian Nationalists from Imperial nations) from crushing the Stage Blue cultures that have less imperial and social power (everyone else). This is also to the benefit of Liberals to maintain a society based on Liberal values, as it weakens the monopoly that Stage Blue has over the general culture... by being divided up into different religions and different cultures. For example, Stage Blue Muslims and Stage Blue Christians probably aren't going to form an alliance to ensure that the society is Stage Blue. They wouldn't even recognize their similarities enough to do that. But for a Stage Orange/Stage Green liberal in America, the greatest authoritarian threat to that paradigm is Stage Blue Christianity. So, even beyond the genuine pluralistic values... it's strategically to the American liberal's advantage to defend less powerful Stage Blue cultures, so that White Christian Nationalism doesn't dominate them and consolidate every drop of the power. And so, there's an ally-ship there along common causes... even if the liberal opposes the Stage Blue ethos of both the dominant and non-dominant Blue groups.

A monk is going through a hard-core process of renouncing all elements of worldly life. So, they won't be engaging in romantic relationships, and therefore they do not need to consider compatibility. Of course, they may be deeply repressing their own needs in the process of trying to transcend the Maya. But that's for the monk to work through. But I'm NOT talking about monks. I'm talking about householders who want to have romantic and filial relationships but who are lying to themselves that they are in "monk mode". It's honestly unrealistic for a householder to think they're just going to choose to transcend their needs... and simply go beyond their own humanity whilst engaging fully in human life. Instead, they will almost certainty be repressing their needs to maintain their identity of "the super-human person who has no needs" or "the stoic monk-mode guy"... and then get resentful at their partner or distant from them when the partner doesn't meet their needs. I just don't take householders seriously when they make the claim that they're operating like a monk does. And even highly dedicated monks will struggle tremendously to transcend their attachment to their humanity without going into denial and repressing their humanity.

Any human, including myself, can fall into logical fallacies when faced with cognitive dissonance. The solution is non-defensive self-honesty and willingness to engage with the nuances of the opposing argument. So, I'm not shaming you for using logical fallacies. But I am pointing it out. Can you recognize that these statements are defenses that reflect a lack of openness to engagement with opposing perspectives?

It's common in left-leaning political circles.

Relative the dichotomy you mentioned of "subjective access' versus "empirical generalizability"... It's not that I'm saying that empirical generalizability itself is an issue. I'm just arguing for a more holistic and helpful empirical generalizability than what men currently have access to... which requires receptivity to how women actually experience attractions. Ultimately, empirical generalizability is the perspective that men have to work within, with regard to the female perspective on dating and attraction. And that isn't a problem in and of itself. The issue is that, a lot about the reality of the subjective female experience is getting lost in translation relative to the current popular models of empirical generalizability... as it over-indexes on short-term results. But it misses the fact that these paradigms in themselves create a ceiling that will make it MUCH more difficult in the long-run for these men. So, men operating through empirical generalizability is par for the course. And the current models of empirical generalizability often have tactics that are effective towards very specific measurable ends... but might backfire in the long term in other ways that are profoundly detrimental to the man in ways that he's not aware of, simply because of his lack of experience with the subjective experience with womanhood and really understanding what it's like to be a woman who's very attracted to a man. Also, the current models of empirical generalizability tend to get related to as a panacea understanding of women. That causes men who follow them and find comfort in them to hyper-attach to them... to the exclusion of the perspective of "How do women actually experience this subjectively?" And this is when those models act more like a security blanket that blocks out deeper truths that are more conducive to understand and have genuine connection with women over the long run. Honestly, if a man is so attached to these paradigms, he's not going to be able to really see and understand the woman he's with as a whole person because his cup is already too full with he knowledge of the "empirical generalizability" model that's he's using to maximize short-term success and minimize risk. Also, understanding the real subjective experiences of female attraction from a variety of women (and being genuinely receptive to these perspective) will also minimize feelings of alienation and shame, which is a major part of what causes connection with women to be scary and intimidating, in the first place. Right now, the practical paradigms end up ramping up the pressure and fear even more, because female attraction has been framed in a way within these empirical generalizability models in a way that's hyper-objective and operationalizable (as that's what gives the greatest level of leverage)... but it ultimately frames women's sexuality as something that feels alien and cold to them. So, it's really about developing a more holistic model of female sexuality that's based in the actual truth of the matter, even if that truth reveals something less certain or practically leveragable. And that requires a man to realize, "My paradigm on female sexuality was built for my comfort to minimize my vulnerabilities and to maximize my leverage in the situation. And while there are some effective practical parts of this paradigm that give me short-term measurable results, that doesn't mean that the paradigm is accurate or that the paradigm gives me a panacea understanding of women." So, it's more about getting them to recognize the limitations of these practical paradigms in general... and to say, "These practical paradigms will likely backfire on you in the long-run, if you don't understand how high-discernment women are actually experiencing these practical tactics." So, I would say... you can't develop true expertise about attracting women until you have a more holistic understanding of where your practical paradigms begin and end.

Everyone has needs. We're human. And being in denial of those needs and trying to "become a god monk" isn't going to work out in relationships with other humans... no matter how much you trick yourself into believing you're beyond your humanity. The wisest thing you can do is to be aware of what you need to feel content in a relationship. And if the person you're interested in, isn't compatible with that... don't get into a relationship with them. Plain and simple.

That statement doesn't make any sense... as no one has control over compatibility. Also, I've had both compatible and incompatible relationships. And in incompatible relationships, it's very anxiety-inducing. It's like, "How can I make this relationships work out and maintain this connection to this person that I care about without feeling terrible and starved of my needs?" And then, it's lots of arguments and nagging to try to get it to work... and getting very anxiously attached because I can sense the relationship's days are numbered. And it's not a good place to be. But with compatible relationships, that anxiety doesn't exist and I can relax. And I don't feel like I need to spin my wheels to make the unworkable work out. And it feels comfortable having a bit more space. So, you're either compatible with someone... or you're not compatible. And if you get into a relationship with someone you're not compatible with, there will be tons of conflict... and lots of criticism and nagging on the part of whoever feels most put out by the incompatibilities... or whoever falls into the anxious side of the relationship dynamic (which is women, more often).

It is indeed very creative. Humans get VERY creative with their arguments when they're protecting their identity or worldview in the face of perspectives that could undermine them. We'll often use arguments that we don't even believe in to protect the paradigms we're attached to. But these creative arguments go by another name... logical fallacies.

I tend to do a lot of observation to be sure that the things I'm saying are accurate to my own experience. So, they will be difficult to falsify because I'm not making them up out of thin air. I'm really experiencing attraction that way. And my arguments are directly tied to my lived-in direct experiences of being a woman who is attracted to men. And I'm saying, "My experience of an attractive man has been like this. And I suspect that most women would report similar." So, the first part of the statement is just true about what I've experienced, as it's been my subjective experience of what makes a man attractive... and unattractive. And I know that these tactics for "becoming an attractive man" tend to have the opposite effect on me. So, that part is impossible to falsify without using cognitive dissonance tactics to discredit me and my perspective as "not a valid source of information" or "Not worthy of listening to". Where I could be falsified is if a bunch of women said, "No. Actually, I prefer it when men use tactics. And it doesn't really matter if he actually has a firm grounding in himself or his authenticity." I just doubt that very many women would agree with that statement. But that's where my speculation comes in... and women could definitely counter my argument if their subjective experiences of attraction towards men were fundamentally different from mine. But it's important to bear in mind... my arguments are about the subjective female experience of attraction. So, men aren't really in a place to falsify them, as they lack the subjective experience of being a woman. They do and will always have blind spots. And that's not the problem. The problem is lacking the humility to recognize these limitations... and shutting out any lived-in perspective that threatens their paradigm. It's similar to how someone of a particular racial or ethnic group might have certain experiences of bigotry or discrimination. Then, a person of another racial or ethnic group who doesn't experience that kind of bigotry or discrimination says, "No you don't. You never experienced it that way." The ability to falsify in this case, fully sits with the subjective experiencers of the experience... and not the people trying to understand it or invalidate it from an outside perspective. So, men can either choose to reject those perspective as "not worth listening to"... or choose to integrate those perspectives into his framework by recognizing that he has blindspots by virtue of simply not being a woman. That's where he would need to suspend his attachment to his own frameworks and open up to the perspective, "Maybe I don't actually know." This requires some humility, of course. And it means letting go of the comforting paradigm of certainty to open up to truths that exist outside of his scope of awareness. But they can't really falsify my arguments about female attraction, as they have never been a woman and have never been attracted to a man as a woman. It's similar to how, if I started making claims about what a man is attracted to that only tell partial truths... or totally misrepresent their subjective experience of attraction altogether... they're probably going to push back on that. And sometimes, I would think, "This guy may not understand himself very well." So, I'm going to take his perspective with a grain of salt. This happens all the time on this forum, when a guy might understand what sexually attracts him to a woman... but may not have a lot of self-knowledge what makes him fall in love with a woman. (There's another thread going on right now, where one person in particular strikes me as not really understanding the distinction between what he wants sexually and what works for him in a longterm romantic relationship. So, I may see him as an unreliable narrator and put a bit less weight in his understanding of his own subjective experiences) But if a man seems to know himself well and has given a lot of thought to what he's attracted to and why, then I'm more likely to integrate his perspective into my own... as I will be able to sense that he's speaking directly about his subjective truth. And his subjective truth is not something that I can ever verify or falsify... as I've never been a man who's attracted to a woman. So, I'm not even saying that all women's perspectives on what attracts them to men are equal in their level of self-knowledge. And with discernment, a man could choose to disregard those perspectives. The issue comes when there are women who do have a lot of self-knowledge in this regard.... but the man doesn't allow himself to listen to or fairly evaluate the subjective experiences of women being presented to him, and he immediately shuts them down. And he blocks himself off to any subjective perspectives that could sew any seed of doubt in his comforting paradigm. To go back to the discrimination and bigotry analogy... Let's imagine that there's a white person who has a comforting paradigm and they believe "Racism used to exist. But it doesn't exist anymore." Then a non-white person openly shares their own lived-in subjective experiences of being on the receiving end of discrimination and bigotry. And the white person can't take in their perspective without undermining their comforting paradigm. So, they seek to discredit and shut down the non-white person who opened up and shared their own subjective experiences. And they try to falsify it the non-white person's perspective on the matter... but they can't because that perspective is simply a sharing of what has been experienced.

You seem to be creating a strawman about what strawmanning is. People who strawman don't usually consciously do it. It's usually an ad hoc emotional reaction to uncomfortable or challenging information... try to put the opposing argument in the "I don't need to listen to this" box.