Are There Just Two Types of Male Mindsets? My Idea

[crosse-stars]

As it happens, I have a doctorate in psychology, and I know a fair bit about pediatric psychology.

Generally, young boys prefer to expend their energy than to preserve it. It's not really an enjoyment of destruction, it's an enjoyment of being able to use what little strength they have to do something they see as great or powerful. For them, they might seem a king to peasants or a lion to gazelles. Most children have a bit of a God-complex to start with, and the fact that they have such "great power" reiterates it. Using this, we can segue into the "builders" of the boys. Speaking of children in general, I suppose you're right. There are those who like to reiterate their God-complex by destroying, and those who prefer to build, just to prove that they can do so. Interestingly enough, people who are "builders" are more likely to grow to be very good with people, whether it be in a social aspect or a manipulative aspect, and are more likely to be cerebral learners (within the mind), whereas the "destroyers" are more likely to develop socially slower and are more physical learners.

That's it.

[CH1YO]

crosse-stars

As it happens, I have a doctorate in psychology, and I know a fair bit about pediatric psychology.

No you don't.

[LiberAth409]

crosse-stars

As it happens, I have a doctorate in psychology, and I know a fair bit about pediatric psychology.

Generally, young boys prefer to expend their energy than to preserve it. It's not really an enjoyment of destruction, it's an enjoyment of being able to use what little strength they have to do something they see as great or powerful. For them, they might seem a king to peasants or a lion to gazelles. Most children have a bit of a God-complex to start with, and the fact that they have such "great power" reiterates it. Using this, we can segue into the "builders" of the boys. Speaking of children in general, I suppose you're right. There are those who like to reiterate their God-complex by destroying, and those who prefer to build, just to prove that they can do so. Interestingly enough, people who are "builders" are more likely to grow to be very good with people, whether it be in a social aspect or a manipulative aspect, and are more likely to be cerebral learners (within the mind), whereas the "destroyers" are more likely to develop socially slower and are more physical learners.

That's it.

Wow. Thank you very much for that insight! This makes so much more sense than what I was thinking. biggrin

[crosse-stars]

CH1YO

crosse-stars

As it happens, I have a doctorate in psychology, and I know a fair bit about pediatric psychology.

No you don't.

I think I'd know what's on my collegiate diploma better than you would, dear.

[CH1YO]

crosse-stars

CH1YO

crosse-stars

As it happens, I have a doctorate in psychology, and I know a fair bit about pediatric psychology.

No you don't.

I think I'd know what's on my collegiate diploma better than you would, dear.

Yes but you are clearly making things up.

[X of Castigation]

CH1YO

Jung was a fan of archetypes so I would be quite sceptical.

Whilst archetype psychology is the ideal you are trying to work towards you have fallen into a fairly common trap. Rather than establishing the system that you want you in fact have an erroneous dichotomy. Psychology of difference is pretty much useless without a grounding in the psychology of same unfortunately.

Plenty of individuals occupy neither the position of the generative or the degenerative, as you will no doubt encounter later in life. Furthermore what about girls and by extension girly boys?

Jung was also mostly bunk, if I recall correctly.

[CH1YO]

Render Soluble

CH1YO

Jung was a fan of archetypes so I would be quite sceptical.

Whilst archetype psychology is the ideal you are trying to work towards you have fallen into a fairly common trap. Rather than establishing the system that you want you in fact have an erroneous dichotomy. Psychology of difference is pretty much useless without a grounding in the psychology of same unfortunately.

Plenty of individuals occupy neither the position of the generative or the degenerative, as you will no doubt encounter later in life. Furthermore what about girls and by extension girly boys?

Jung was also mostly bunk, if I recall correctly.

I'm not sure what also is for in that sentence but you are correct to maintain a dim view of Jung.

[LiberAth409]

Okay I've honestly had it with negativity on this topic. Anybody who feels the need to insult other ideas on this topic will get blocked. Seriously, guys, it's not that hard, just respectfully contribute to a topic or respectfully debate other replies without insulting anyone's character or intelligence. mad

[LiberAth409]

And honestly, just unsubscribe if you've got issue with that.

[420 days]

hmmm.
I believe.
Every male goes through these as stages.
Builders when very small. then destroyers as teens.
Then once they have completely matured, (ready to settle down and start a family),
they are once again builders.