When I am constructing a psychological profile on a person, which I do on everybody I am in relationship with, I compare the individual to the rational man, based on every exchange, action, and word. I am sure that many people will react negatively to this idea, and that is a reflection of the impoverished state of reason and relationship which has become the norm in todays world.
It seems obvious to me that we would want to intimately understand the people that we are in relationship with, but relationships have deteriorated into superficial, personality addictions, we like someone not because of who they are but because of how they make us feel, based on the way they look or someone or something they remind us of. People are playing characters, they aren’t being honest or authentic. Nowadays both people in the relationship are acting like they are something they are not.
In my psychological models, no action is necessary, so every action is meaningful. You eat because you want to live, etc. Being that their are two types of behaviors rational and irrational there are also two types of minds, male and female or sociopathic and psychopathic. Every interaction creates an end that is either sociopathic or psychopathic (based on how I define those terms). Whereas, a rational person can remain consistently rational, a psychopathic person must act psychopathicly (irrationally) in order to do their will. They think this makes them smart and unpredictable but just the opposite is true. It is because they can’t behave rationally that they are predictable, they will try to take some unfair advantage, they will attack, they will not have a reason, and they will not warn that they are about to attack, of this you can be sure.
A reasonable person can only be defined in relationship, in relationship with reality, in relationship with other people, in conversation. Shared states are participation, agreement, conversation, and understanding.
Also, it depends on the environment itself, is the environment rational? is the other person rational or are they being strategic. To remain rational while the other person is being irrational is irrational because it is unsustainable.
A rational relationship has to be sustainable, it has to succeed, it has to create a surplus of value, not a deficit (which is to say it has to create more value than it consumes). It has to allow all parties to do their will. No person in the group can be given more value from the group than is sustainable based on their contribution to the group. A rational relationship has to increase the value of the members and the members have to increase their ability to create value for the rational relationship. This presupposes that in this rational relationship, which we eventually see is a philoish, or a philosophical family, people learn, they grow, they teach, they only relate to one another in a positive and educational way, not in a negative strategic way. You increase the value of those around you. You help them become rational and get better results in the world. This is the relationship of all relationships, the original perfect idea of relationship.
Everything said can have value in one of 3 ways, it is true, it is useful, and it makes you feel better. Of these 3 the least valuable is making you feel better, this is true of female minds including children, and they irrationally esteem this communication of positive emotional data over the other three. Children are irrational, emotional creatures, so it is necessary to communicate to them positive emotional data that is not always true or useful until they get to an age when they are capable of being non-delusionally in relationship with reality. This makes more sense to the female mind than it does to the male mind, because as Deborah Tannen says women ventriloquize, interpreting to the husband the emotional data communicated by the child. Evolution compartmentalized the female mind to be more interested in and sympathetic with babies. From the female perspective the emotional/irrational reasoning of the child is more valid than it is to the male mind which is more interested on survival. But the end result of both instincts determines whether the relationship is rational or not.
When I build my psychological models, every deviation from reason communicates to me something about the person I am in relationship with or conversation with. Does the person identify with reason? If reason is their highest good, then reason informs their behavior and narrative. How and when they deviate from rational relationship leaves traces, clues as to who they are, their psyche, their soul, how they are in relationship with the world and the individuals in the world, rationally or delusionally, authentically or strategically, psychopathicly or sociopathicly.
THE AUTHOR REFERS TO THE SOCIOPATHIC BRAIN AS THE RATIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL MALE BRAIN, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS LIKE PARRHESIA AND AGONISM BEING SYNONYMOUS WITH PHILOSOPHY AND REASON AND PARTS OF RATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RELATIONSHIPS AND FOUND IN LESS FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY IN FEMALE NARRATIVE, THOUGHT, AND BEHAVIOR.