"Women can learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.
But the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves – primarily their sexuality – to reinforce prosocial interaction in society."
The key here is "Women can learn to be empathetic towards men". The "towards" makes it sound more like he is talking about some kind of sympathy (general sympathy rather than specifically Vox's) however this is the whole point of the debacle. So, for one, it seems logically necessary that what we call solipsism can on some level co-exist with empathy even though Vox denied this just recently. He also emphatically denied that women ever turn off their solipsism by stressing that it is always on.
Just from what Rollo says though along with observation, living in society clearly serves to be some kind of empathetic imperative for women. My suspicion is that other male situations we associate with high empathy may not build upon this imperative at all. It may take a very bizzare set of circumstances for women to really try to become more empathetic. The studies may be one of these. A reverse example is someone like Vox trying to see the world solipsistically. Possible? Yes. Desireable? Not in any obvious way.
I propose that women have low to no cognitive dissonance.
They can simultaneously believe two contradictory narratives and be completely unbothered by it. This is obviously very common in the political realm.
Applied to empathy, a woman can simultaneously be aware that her husband is in physical pain and still struggling to get work done to support her; and also be disgusted at his weakness and want the work done faster. There is no critical analysis and reconciliation of these ideas. She might flip rapidly between both as she goes about various tasks. She'll go to the kitchen, prepare hot tea and medicine for him, take it to him, and then berate him as she hands him the mug.
At a Christmas party with family, I heard a boyfriend and a girlfriend recounting some story from last year. The guy was talking about how his gf was laughing at him after he had a really bad allergic reaction. The woman was like "oh no I was really concerned, I just thought it was really funny" and then proceded to laugh about her reaction to the guy's allergy.
This is a fascinating idea. Intact empathetic capacity and insights but no or little cognitive dissonance to pressure her to choose a narrative. This could partially explain why they appear oblivious to the states of others. Applied to my term, low cognitive dissonance may be one of many female-specific reasons for lower or more selective empathetic imperative. Will be looking out for this particular trait in the future.
These guys say that women only score higher in studies that are based on (subjective) questionnaires, but when you add (objective) measures like EEG (brain scans), those results are rendered void. They're basically telling you that women lie on those questionnaires because they want to be received as more social, loving, and caring. That's the eternal problem with women: Their behavior changes significantly depending on the audience and their own goals.
Here is an example: My brother's wife and my female cousin hate each other, and each of them will tell you in private. But, when we have family events they behave as if they're best friends: "Hey, how do you do? We haven't seen each other for too long!" This would be extremely tiresome for men to do, but for women it's practically natural.
By giving women control over the studies' results, like letting them answer questionnaires that don't have objectively correct answers, you change the whole aim of the study. You're not measuring empathy anymore, you're measuring the individual woman's tendency to please her outward view of herself, i.e. being received as extremely empathetic.
The Bible teaches every man about woman in their first encounter in Eden. Any man who does not understand or accept that lesson is as doomed as Adam.
This is true and is a well known bias in the science. What I am saying though is that even without any studies at all, women still clearly have a capacity for empathy even if functionally it appears underdeveloped or absent. The issue with the studies is that women don't score significantly lower than men which is what we would expect if solipsism was unchangeable and women had no empathy. That would essentially be severe autism. As well, some studies are simply about being able to recognize other people's emotions and mental states. You can say women are bad at empathy, you cannot say they do not have it. Hence the proposal of empathetic imperative. I think they can selectively use it when they feel like they have a good enough motivation to like in certain studies.
Thank you for your replies. Some additional data points I think that are useful, purely inferential because going through psychology papers is unusually bullshit.
•The ultimate form of cognitive empathy, or sympathy, is probably games that are completely dependent on predicting what your opponent will do. The player who can model the opponent's mind will beat the one who cannot. Men are known to blow women out of the water in chess. And more interesting is this description:
"Is there any difference between game strategies played in women's chess vs. open chess? Which are better?
[...]
When you go over the games of Hou Yifan, Alexandra Kosteniuk, Ju Wenjun or Valentina Gunina, you will more often think you have stumbled upon a Tal game. Their games are full of tactics, dashing attacks, ‘burning their bridges’ and going for the kill.
They aren’t interested in winning on points - they go for the knock-out from the moment you enter a chess arena.
This tendency is not solely characteristic of top female players. Most female players in Croatia have a strong inclination toward tactical positions. From the top of my head I can’t name one female players that likes to play positionally and grind down their opponents in Magnus style.
And I know I am not the only one. My friend Leon Livaic, a 2500 player, once semi-jokingly said that:
In order to beat a female, you only need to exchange queens.
The only exception are games in which a female is lower rated. In a couple of my own games where I was 200–300 points above in rating, my opponents played very defensively and always seeked to create some sort of a fortress - a position with ‘locked’ pawn structure where it is very difficult to break through.
But such games are just an exception that prove the rule. In my experience, female players are first and foremost - strong tacticians."
Tactical play, which women can do well, focuses on immediate victories and forcing responses and favorable piece trades. The queen is central to tactical play btw. Positional requires you understand what your opponent is doing as you try to predict and influence as many important squares as possible, and men can do both to a high level. Naturally the question comes up, is the sympathy/solipsism split similar to tactical/positional play? "I'd hate to lose my queen, I'm sure they'll hate it too" vs "My opponent has more space to move his pieces than I do, better fix that". Who knows, but it's useful to know.
•Maybe solipsism is good enough for most social situations to come off as non-autistic. The next two bits are about women in foreign cultures:
"Autistic traits mistaken for "foreigness:
[...] What I'm getting to is I both got treated differently in ways I thought was solely on the base of being perceived as Asian ( and sometimes it was Autism) and sometimes people would perceive my lack of communication skills and not understanding social norms as simply being Asian"
"Finding shows that the negative moderation role of gender existed in the relationship between cultural distance and academic performance. Particularly, female students showed lower cultural adaptation after cross-border migration, which then influenced their academic performance in universities."
Do women in foreign countries or situations come off as autistic? Who knows, probably yes when you look at how obnoxious they can be in a tiktok of a tourist visiting China or a vegan woman visiting a traditional meat turkey Thanksgiving dinner. I think the reddit link about women's "empathy" collapsing when they themselves cannot relate to it is true. So that means the solipsism lets them function as normal non-autists as long as your circumstances are similar to theirs. Of course this would also mean actual autists have no home territory they fit into and look normal in, unless you count Train set conventions and DeviantArt which may actually be true and lets autists function normally in that context.
So solipsism and lack of sympathy may not be as restricting in a social situation as expected, as long as most of your assumptions match the circumstances. After all even if you're a solipsist if the thermostat is set to 90 degrees you will still be absolutely correct in assuming the other guy is also feeling hot and sweaty because of the shared space. But if the other guy comes from the Gobi Desert and truly doesn't care then the solipsism creates social failure. Similarly women do always assume men are women and prioritize the same things they do, which I'm sure we're both familiar with since we post in common areas.
First of all, thank you for going through those papers. That does indeed sound hard.
Secondly, some definition clarification so we can both be on the same page:
Vox's definitions:
Pseudo empathy = consciously going through the process of understanding someone's perspective rather than perceiving it
Pseudo empathetic sympathy = using that thought process to sympathize with others
Sympathy = mutual understanding
Unconscious empathy = real empathy that is perceived
My definitions:
Empathy (in this convo) = any kind of cognitive process that creates an empathetic insight (this would include Vox's pseudo empathy)
Empathetic imperative = the extrinsic or intrinsic motivation to make and use empathy
The point about chess is fascinating. The connection between the seemingly less empathetic style of tactical seems correct. A competitive game also on the surface seems like it should raise a woman's empathetic imperative, however, assuming that may be a lack of empathy on my part. Because chess is strategic and competitive, it is already really a male space in which the woman is somewhat out of place in. It is natural to assume that a man would want to really dial up his mental modelling while women feel no need to or do not realize they need to do for whatever reason. As a slight aside, there was an article published by a pretty self-aware female author whose opinion of solipsism was as follows:
"Women only need to dispense with solipsism when they enter into co-ed or primarily male social systems and/or work environments (which has to do with a woman's own temperament, interests and goals), but there is no need to dispense with it to maintain good standing within female social systems. Indeed, solipsism (but not narcissism) is critical to success within female social systems, and men's lack of respect for it is irrelevant." (https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/the-benefits-of-female-solipsism)
This author is of the opinion that women can if they need become less solipsistic particularly in co-ed spaces. You would think that would include chess. Without more information, its hard to say if these chess playing women actually are experiencing a heightened empathetic imperative and are therefore already trying to be more empathetic, even if it doesn't show, or if they just lack the self-awareness or skill to raise their empathy as the situation calls, or both. Your previous suggestion in our other convo about how women should be made to mentally model fictional characters seems apt here. It would get closer to the skills we are actually looking for. Most studies may simply be too general and every-day.
The case of foreign women suggests that women are less adaptable in a situation where you would also expect a higher empathetic imperative. This makes a good deal of sense considering women are meant to be contingent on men and would not usually be expected to adapt so quickly. That is not to say they were not being empathetic to some degree before, but it is to say they clearly take longer to update their mental models. They do eventually adapt with time.
These examples are interesting because they suggest whatever could activate more empathetic imperative in women may be very different than what we would expect as men. If my theory is correct and the study environments could raise their empathetic imperative and empathy skills to that of the average man, this presents an interesting puzzle.
You might need to add sympathy and pity before postulating a new paradigm on a specific aspect of female nature. Check out this guy, he explains quite well why women are generally less empathetic than men:
It is not a new paradigm, just adding onto the old paradigm. Actually, John Samson gave me the idea that solipsism was more of a spectrum than a binary absolute in the first place, and I absolutely concur with his observation that solipsism progressively distorts reality and information, rather than blocking it out entirely. As stated previously, if women had no empathy, they would not be able to socially function. This is an obvious fact of reality.
The way I would put it is: Women only have empathy to other women. Women's empathy can read the emotional states of those who have the same emotional state as themselves at that moment. So other women. And in some cases liberal mangina men. OR more accurately, they can't even do that. They can run a simulation that asks "How would I feel if I were in this situation?" and then they project the answer onto others. But for other women and mangina men, they may turn out to be right 70%+ of the time. That's all they can do. (And the fact that they can only run a simulation of how they would feel, and project that, is what makes it solipsism.)
I addressed the projection point in the article. Projection without the ability to read cues would lead to a coincidental relationship between the projected emotion and the emotional state of the subject. In other words, random to a level that is entirely implausible. Remember, Vox says that empathy is correct perception and identification but he also stated emphatically that solipsism is completely incompatible with any kind of empathy, and that female solipsism is always on. This is obviously against observed reality. Women have enough empathy to correctly recognize when someone is smiling and frowning. We already know the opposte of this is called, its not solipsism, its severe autism.
I'm intrigued by this topic and admit my ignorance as a female trying to understand the male (sigma, alpha, delta, etc.) types. One area of ignorance I'd love to understand better is the different female types, how these are perceived by the different male types. On the measure of empathy, is there a male empathy and a female empathy -- differently felt and expressed, but somewhat universal within male vs. female? Or is there simply empathy, with this being a male thing, and females experience something else which is perceived by males through the male perspective lens? These are just questions I ask, mainly because I am aware that I am not a typical female but certainly I am one (locked in my female perspective). I do experience female solipsism as different from male empathy, and I do certainly feel empathy (not just cognitive), but now I am curious if I express it in a one-size-fits-all female way, or if there are also different flavors/types of being female.
1. No one has yet identified specific female behavioral profiles like we have in the male SSH. The issue is women do not organize themselves into a strict hierarchy like men do. Women also do not base their social structures off of dominance. For more reading on this I highly suggest this article which is from a female author explaining the female hub and wheel model of social organization (https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/the-benefits-of-female-solipsism).
2. To what extent men do perceive different types of women, it is primarily based off of attractiveness. Men do however naturally feel more sympathy and protectiveness towards women than men, and that is less reliant on attractiveness. Homosexual men relate to women more as equals or friends, although there is an argument to be made that they use women to handle their own emotional problems.
3. Higher-status men are more empathetic than lower-status men. Its important to remember that empathy by itself does not translate to kindness or compassion. It simply means understanding the internal states of others. As for women, it is harder to say. Women naturally do not seem to understand other's perspectives because they usually subjectify things and have a hard time removing themselves from the equation. As for what do women feel, it is hard to say. Studies suggest women may have a higher affective (emotional) empathy but this debated. The mystery is why do women seem to be capable of empathy but not use it in the way men do.
As a side note, unless you are severely autistic you definitely do have cognitive empathy on some level. The recognition of other people's emotional states, such as seeing someone smile, is basically the first stage of cognitive.
I came across Rollo's observations about female solipsism that might help, and a quote:
https://therationalmale.com/2015/09/02/solipsism-i/
https://therationalmale.com/2015/09/09/solipsism-ii/
"Women can learn to sublimate their solipsism. In fact, cultures and progressive societies have been founded on sublimating female solipsism. Women can and do learn critical thinking quite regularly. Women can learn and function within a society that forces them to compromise their sexual strategies and mitigates the worst abuses that solipsism would visit on men (and themselves). Women can learn to be empathetic towards men as well as live within a social order that looks like mutual justice and fairness.
But the fact that these civil dynamics should need to be something a woman learns only reinforces the biological and evolved influences of female solipsism as women’s mental point of origin. The parallel to this is men’s learning to sublimate intrinsic parts of themselves – primarily their sexuality – to reinforce prosocial interaction in society."
The key here is "Women can learn to be empathetic towards men". The "towards" makes it sound more like he is talking about some kind of sympathy (general sympathy rather than specifically Vox's) however this is the whole point of the debacle. So, for one, it seems logically necessary that what we call solipsism can on some level co-exist with empathy even though Vox denied this just recently. He also emphatically denied that women ever turn off their solipsism by stressing that it is always on.
Just from what Rollo says though along with observation, living in society clearly serves to be some kind of empathetic imperative for women. My suspicion is that other male situations we associate with high empathy may not build upon this imperative at all. It may take a very bizzare set of circumstances for women to really try to become more empathetic. The studies may be one of these. A reverse example is someone like Vox trying to see the world solipsistically. Possible? Yes. Desireable? Not in any obvious way.
I propose that women have low to no cognitive dissonance.
They can simultaneously believe two contradictory narratives and be completely unbothered by it. This is obviously very common in the political realm.
Applied to empathy, a woman can simultaneously be aware that her husband is in physical pain and still struggling to get work done to support her; and also be disgusted at his weakness and want the work done faster. There is no critical analysis and reconciliation of these ideas. She might flip rapidly between both as she goes about various tasks. She'll go to the kitchen, prepare hot tea and medicine for him, take it to him, and then berate him as she hands him the mug.
At a Christmas party with family, I heard a boyfriend and a girlfriend recounting some story from last year. The guy was talking about how his gf was laughing at him after he had a really bad allergic reaction. The woman was like "oh no I was really concerned, I just thought it was really funny" and then proceded to laugh about her reaction to the guy's allergy.
This is a fascinating idea. Intact empathetic capacity and insights but no or little cognitive dissonance to pressure her to choose a narrative. This could partially explain why they appear oblivious to the states of others. Applied to my term, low cognitive dissonance may be one of many female-specific reasons for lower or more selective empathetic imperative. Will be looking out for this particular trait in the future.
Here, the Chinese say that it cannot be conclusively shown that women are more empathetic than men: https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/18/1/nsad008/7046083
These guys say that women only score higher in studies that are based on (subjective) questionnaires, but when you add (objective) measures like EEG (brain scans), those results are rendered void. They're basically telling you that women lie on those questionnaires because they want to be received as more social, loving, and caring. That's the eternal problem with women: Their behavior changes significantly depending on the audience and their own goals.
Here is an example: My brother's wife and my female cousin hate each other, and each of them will tell you in private. But, when we have family events they behave as if they're best friends: "Hey, how do you do? We haven't seen each other for too long!" This would be extremely tiresome for men to do, but for women it's practically natural.
By giving women control over the studies' results, like letting them answer questionnaires that don't have objectively correct answers, you change the whole aim of the study. You're not measuring empathy anymore, you're measuring the individual woman's tendency to please her outward view of herself, i.e. being received as extremely empathetic.
The Bible teaches every man about woman in their first encounter in Eden. Any man who does not understand or accept that lesson is as doomed as Adam.
This is true and is a well known bias in the science. What I am saying though is that even without any studies at all, women still clearly have a capacity for empathy even if functionally it appears underdeveloped or absent. The issue with the studies is that women don't score significantly lower than men which is what we would expect if solipsism was unchangeable and women had no empathy. That would essentially be severe autism. As well, some studies are simply about being able to recognize other people's emotions and mental states. You can say women are bad at empathy, you cannot say they do not have it. Hence the proposal of empathetic imperative. I think they can selectively use it when they feel like they have a good enough motivation to like in certain studies.
Thank you for your replies. Some additional data points I think that are useful, purely inferential because going through psychology papers is unusually bullshit.
•The ultimate form of cognitive empathy, or sympathy, is probably games that are completely dependent on predicting what your opponent will do. The player who can model the opponent's mind will beat the one who cannot. Men are known to blow women out of the water in chess. And more interesting is this description:
"Is there any difference between game strategies played in women's chess vs. open chess? Which are better?
[...]
When you go over the games of Hou Yifan, Alexandra Kosteniuk, Ju Wenjun or Valentina Gunina, you will more often think you have stumbled upon a Tal game. Their games are full of tactics, dashing attacks, ‘burning their bridges’ and going for the kill.
They aren’t interested in winning on points - they go for the knock-out from the moment you enter a chess arena.
This tendency is not solely characteristic of top female players. Most female players in Croatia have a strong inclination toward tactical positions. From the top of my head I can’t name one female players that likes to play positionally and grind down their opponents in Magnus style.
And I know I am not the only one. My friend Leon Livaic, a 2500 player, once semi-jokingly said that:
In order to beat a female, you only need to exchange queens.
The only exception are games in which a female is lower rated. In a couple of my own games where I was 200–300 points above in rating, my opponents played very defensively and always seeked to create some sort of a fortress - a position with ‘locked’ pawn structure where it is very difficult to break through.
But such games are just an exception that prove the rule. In my experience, female players are first and foremost - strong tacticians."
https://shorturl.at/7Ixmd
Tactical play, which women can do well, focuses on immediate victories and forcing responses and favorable piece trades. The queen is central to tactical play btw. Positional requires you understand what your opponent is doing as you try to predict and influence as many important squares as possible, and men can do both to a high level. Naturally the question comes up, is the sympathy/solipsism split similar to tactical/positional play? "I'd hate to lose my queen, I'm sure they'll hate it too" vs "My opponent has more space to move his pieces than I do, better fix that". Who knows, but it's useful to know.
•Maybe solipsism is good enough for most social situations to come off as non-autistic. The next two bits are about women in foreign cultures:
"Autistic traits mistaken for "foreigness:
[...] What I'm getting to is I both got treated differently in ways I thought was solely on the base of being perceived as Asian ( and sometimes it was Autism) and sometimes people would perceive my lack of communication skills and not understanding social norms as simply being Asian"
https://shorturl.at/aBXrz
"Finding shows that the negative moderation role of gender existed in the relationship between cultural distance and academic performance. Particularly, female students showed lower cultural adaptation after cross-border migration, which then influenced their academic performance in universities."
https://shorturl.at/8yBnZ
Do women in foreign countries or situations come off as autistic? Who knows, probably yes when you look at how obnoxious they can be in a tiktok of a tourist visiting China or a vegan woman visiting a traditional meat turkey Thanksgiving dinner. I think the reddit link about women's "empathy" collapsing when they themselves cannot relate to it is true. So that means the solipsism lets them function as normal non-autists as long as your circumstances are similar to theirs. Of course this would also mean actual autists have no home territory they fit into and look normal in, unless you count Train set conventions and DeviantArt which may actually be true and lets autists function normally in that context.
So solipsism and lack of sympathy may not be as restricting in a social situation as expected, as long as most of your assumptions match the circumstances. After all even if you're a solipsist if the thermostat is set to 90 degrees you will still be absolutely correct in assuming the other guy is also feeling hot and sweaty because of the shared space. But if the other guy comes from the Gobi Desert and truly doesn't care then the solipsism creates social failure. Similarly women do always assume men are women and prioritize the same things they do, which I'm sure we're both familiar with since we post in common areas.
First of all, thank you for going through those papers. That does indeed sound hard.
Secondly, some definition clarification so we can both be on the same page:
Vox's definitions:
Pseudo empathy = consciously going through the process of understanding someone's perspective rather than perceiving it
Pseudo empathetic sympathy = using that thought process to sympathize with others
Sympathy = mutual understanding
Unconscious empathy = real empathy that is perceived
My definitions:
Empathy (in this convo) = any kind of cognitive process that creates an empathetic insight (this would include Vox's pseudo empathy)
Empathetic imperative = the extrinsic or intrinsic motivation to make and use empathy
The point about chess is fascinating. The connection between the seemingly less empathetic style of tactical seems correct. A competitive game also on the surface seems like it should raise a woman's empathetic imperative, however, assuming that may be a lack of empathy on my part. Because chess is strategic and competitive, it is already really a male space in which the woman is somewhat out of place in. It is natural to assume that a man would want to really dial up his mental modelling while women feel no need to or do not realize they need to do for whatever reason. As a slight aside, there was an article published by a pretty self-aware female author whose opinion of solipsism was as follows:
"Women only need to dispense with solipsism when they enter into co-ed or primarily male social systems and/or work environments (which has to do with a woman's own temperament, interests and goals), but there is no need to dispense with it to maintain good standing within female social systems. Indeed, solipsism (but not narcissism) is critical to success within female social systems, and men's lack of respect for it is irrelevant." (https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/the-benefits-of-female-solipsism)
This author is of the opinion that women can if they need become less solipsistic particularly in co-ed spaces. You would think that would include chess. Without more information, its hard to say if these chess playing women actually are experiencing a heightened empathetic imperative and are therefore already trying to be more empathetic, even if it doesn't show, or if they just lack the self-awareness or skill to raise their empathy as the situation calls, or both. Your previous suggestion in our other convo about how women should be made to mentally model fictional characters seems apt here. It would get closer to the skills we are actually looking for. Most studies may simply be too general and every-day.
The case of foreign women suggests that women are less adaptable in a situation where you would also expect a higher empathetic imperative. This makes a good deal of sense considering women are meant to be contingent on men and would not usually be expected to adapt so quickly. That is not to say they were not being empathetic to some degree before, but it is to say they clearly take longer to update their mental models. They do eventually adapt with time.
These examples are interesting because they suggest whatever could activate more empathetic imperative in women may be very different than what we would expect as men. If my theory is correct and the study environments could raise their empathetic imperative and empathy skills to that of the average man, this presents an interesting puzzle.
You might need to add sympathy and pity before postulating a new paradigm on a specific aspect of female nature. Check out this guy, he explains quite well why women are generally less empathetic than men:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/17g94ix/women_are_bad_at_empathy/
The whole thread is quite intriguing.
It is not a new paradigm, just adding onto the old paradigm. Actually, John Samson gave me the idea that solipsism was more of a spectrum than a binary absolute in the first place, and I absolutely concur with his observation that solipsism progressively distorts reality and information, rather than blocking it out entirely. As stated previously, if women had no empathy, they would not be able to socially function. This is an obvious fact of reality.
The way I would put it is: Women only have empathy to other women. Women's empathy can read the emotional states of those who have the same emotional state as themselves at that moment. So other women. And in some cases liberal mangina men. OR more accurately, they can't even do that. They can run a simulation that asks "How would I feel if I were in this situation?" and then they project the answer onto others. But for other women and mangina men, they may turn out to be right 70%+ of the time. That's all they can do. (And the fact that they can only run a simulation of how they would feel, and project that, is what makes it solipsism.)
I addressed the projection point in the article. Projection without the ability to read cues would lead to a coincidental relationship between the projected emotion and the emotional state of the subject. In other words, random to a level that is entirely implausible. Remember, Vox says that empathy is correct perception and identification but he also stated emphatically that solipsism is completely incompatible with any kind of empathy, and that female solipsism is always on. This is obviously against observed reality. Women have enough empathy to correctly recognize when someone is smiling and frowning. We already know the opposte of this is called, its not solipsism, its severe autism.
I'm intrigued by this topic and admit my ignorance as a female trying to understand the male (sigma, alpha, delta, etc.) types. One area of ignorance I'd love to understand better is the different female types, how these are perceived by the different male types. On the measure of empathy, is there a male empathy and a female empathy -- differently felt and expressed, but somewhat universal within male vs. female? Or is there simply empathy, with this being a male thing, and females experience something else which is perceived by males through the male perspective lens? These are just questions I ask, mainly because I am aware that I am not a typical female but certainly I am one (locked in my female perspective). I do experience female solipsism as different from male empathy, and I do certainly feel empathy (not just cognitive), but now I am curious if I express it in a one-size-fits-all female way, or if there are also different flavors/types of being female.
1. No one has yet identified specific female behavioral profiles like we have in the male SSH. The issue is women do not organize themselves into a strict hierarchy like men do. Women also do not base their social structures off of dominance. For more reading on this I highly suggest this article which is from a female author explaining the female hub and wheel model of social organization (https://sigmagame.substack.com/p/the-benefits-of-female-solipsism).
2. To what extent men do perceive different types of women, it is primarily based off of attractiveness. Men do however naturally feel more sympathy and protectiveness towards women than men, and that is less reliant on attractiveness. Homosexual men relate to women more as equals or friends, although there is an argument to be made that they use women to handle their own emotional problems.
3. Higher-status men are more empathetic than lower-status men. Its important to remember that empathy by itself does not translate to kindness or compassion. It simply means understanding the internal states of others. As for women, it is harder to say. Women naturally do not seem to understand other's perspectives because they usually subjectify things and have a hard time removing themselves from the equation. As for what do women feel, it is hard to say. Studies suggest women may have a higher affective (emotional) empathy but this debated. The mystery is why do women seem to be capable of empathy but not use it in the way men do.
As a side note, unless you are severely autistic you definitely do have cognitive empathy on some level. The recognition of other people's emotional states, such as seeing someone smile, is basically the first stage of cognitive.