Sex

Sex is a word of convenience that conflates many different concepts into one word. What we need is to define precise terms that are harder to argue about - as vague language makes everyone fight with each other. "Sex" can be divided into several, separate ideas:

• Chromosomal sex (e.g. "I have XY chromosomes")
• Gonadal sex (physical sex) (e.g. "I have testes")
• Self-identification (e.g. "I am a man")
• Sexual orientation (e.g. "I am attracted to women")
• Sexual intercourse (e.g. "I want to do sexy things with women")

To discuss sex, "male" and "female" need to be defined as well; here, we define "female" as the sex that generates the egg, and "male" as the sex that generates the sperm.

Chromosomal sex: This is sex according to genetics. The sex chromosomes of most mammals is XX (female) and XY (male), as defined by the above (for birds, it is ZZ (male) and ZY (female) - so if we had decided that same-pair sex chromosomes = female, then we would have to call hens male and roosters female). Roughly 99.8% of humans are either XX or XY, but many other combinations exist as well, often with varying levels of disability. In some disorders, XX or XY sex chromosomes may not result in the expected phenotype as well. Chromosomal sex is, of course, fixed.

Physical (Gonadal) sex: This is sex according to natural physical features; in adults, the differences are functional, i.e. to enable sexual reproduction (see below). In (most) mammals' case, gonadal inspection would suffice; for animals without visible sexual organs, other physical features can be used for differentiation. As mentioned above, occasionally chromosomal and gonadal sex can be different. The Guevedoces of the Dominican Republic are an interesting example of chromosomally male (XY) children who are physically female as children, but who sprout penises and become physically (and functionally) male after puberty. (Many animals, such as some fish, are able to actually change their physical sex to change their sex, and potentially become both mothers and fathers.)

Sexual self-identification (Gender): This is sex according to one's view of oneself, influenced by society. Not limited by biology (the two aspects above), self-identification need not be limited to human phenotypes only - for example, one could identify as the emperor of the world, or as a unicorn, or as a dog, and expect to be treated as such. (In ancient India there were some ascetics who lived and identified as animals such as cows or dogs.) Perhaps a more spiritual way of looking at this aspect could be to call it the "sex of the soul" - but we don't know if souls have sexes.

Sexual orientation: This refers to the target of one's sexual attraction (see below). Generally, humans are attracted toward other humans, sometimes only specifically (e.g. "redhead or brunette women of a certain size and shape"). Also not limited by biology, sexual orientation is also not limited to human phenotypes - not only could one be attracted to men and/or women, but also dogs, horses, trees, grapefruits, and so forth. Similarly, animals sometimes are reported to seemingly be sexually attracted to humans (from dolphins to horses to ostriches - this can be a frightening experience), but of course we cannot know for sure as we cannot reliably communicate with such animals.

Sexual intercourse: This refers to those sexual acts of pleasure and reproduction that biology (generally) gives us a powerful desire to engage in. These acts are related to one's sexual organs and targeted at one's sexual orientation(s) (see above). This desire often powerfully controls us (and other animals), whether at any time (e.g. humans, cats) or only during certain periods (e.g. estrus or musth) when many animals seem to "go nuts." Many religions and philosophies pointed out desire as something that needed to be controlled in order to exceed the lower animal state and rise to a higher level. Some animals have apparently no sexual desire (asexuality).

Thus, as per the above, we have 5 separate "sex" ideas. Although many combinations are possible, the most common combinations are:

• "Men:" Chromosomally male, gonadally male, identify as male, are attracted to females, and desire to have male-female sexual intercourse.
• "Women:" Chromosomally female, gonadally female, identify as female, are attracted to males, and desire to have female-male sexual intercourse.

Although "sex" is not binary, we can say that human sex is "mostly" binary. Binary sexual systems are most common in the animal kingdom, probably due to simple function. Even one-celled ciliates seem to have a binary sex of some sort - which we call E (even) and O (odd), since we cannot reconcile them to our own ideas of male and female.

What does this all mean?

Considering "sex" via clearer and more differentiated terms can be useful in considering different issues.

• In athletics, physical sex is the issue that affects results. (Chromosomal sex is influential only in as how it exhibits physically; self-identification (gender), and sexual orientation have no physical effect at all.) If, despite doing what felt like the right thing results in clearly unfair results - it is time to rethink what the right thing is.
• In corporations, physical sex or sexual orientation should of course not be a factor in hiring or evaluations. On the other hand, corporations were never fair systems in the first place, with bias being the top factor in making staff decisions. For example, it's well known that male CEOs tend to be tall, muscular, and have deep voices. The obvious way to get rid of discrimination in staff decisions is to create systems where aspects discriminated against become invisible.
• Sex is not a virtue. Chromosomal and gonadal sex are just aspects of our physical bodies that we should accept. Self-identity (gender) is a kind of "me" belief of how we want to consider ourselves that is highly influenced by groupthink; this is something that we should observe but not let go out of control. Sexual orientation and sexual intercourse is related to one of animals' most basal desires, which, again, we should observe and understand, but not allow to control or lead our lives. As humans, we have the ability to reason, which is our nature; while we still retain the impulsive nature of animals as well, losing our reason to let our desires run wild is not ideal or something to praise.

Religion

Religion is another catch-all "word of convenience" that confusingly combines different things into one name. As a result, most people assume that other religions (as in, not their own religion) are similar to their own religion (but different enough to be heretical).

Much confusion lies below the surface - for example, is Confucianism a religion? (Indonesian law deems it so.) Is Buddhism a religion if it does not worship gods? Is Stoicism is a philosophy, not a religion, when the ancient Greeks believed in gods? Daoism is often differentiated into two types: philosophical Daoism ("Daojia") and religious Daosim ("Daojiao") - is it a philosophy or a religion?

By creating the word, "religion," people sought to label what others believed and practiced into a same "category" of what they themselves believed and practiced. In this way, people try to make sense of the world, for better or for worse.

Generally, we can divide the world religions into two main categories:

• Theism: worshipping god(s)
• Cultivation: training the spirit

Theism

Theism is any kind of worship of a god or gods. "Gods" refer to any kind of metaphysical beings, usually of the more powerful sort - but can range from minor spirits, to local nature deities, to major powers. The key word in theism is following - people follow their god's commands, without thought, hoping to gain rewards.

Monotheism
Due to the influence of Abrahamic religions, the West tends to divide theism into monotheism (one god) and polytheism (many gods), but this is more an issue of nomenclature and self-supporting-bias (due to the perception that monotheism is superior); after all, Abrahamic religions like Christianity in fact have entire pantheons of metaphysical beings, both good and evil, and even half-breed mixes with humans - they just choose to not call these "gods." A theism with only one metaphysical being in the whole cosmology - a true monotheism - is exceedingly rare.

That said, self-designated monotheism is quite common today, including many Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam foremost), but also Dharmic religions like Sikhism and some branches of Hinduism (which can be interpreted in a monotheistic way). Even in Japan, as the native Shinto religion became largely ritualistic and devoid of substance, new sects called Sect Shinto emerged in the 19th century, which are for the most part pseudo-monotheistic (as in, they mainly worship one supreme god) versions of Shinto.

Strict monotheism is generally characterized by intolerance - after all, its default belief is that only their god is correct, and all others are heretical. Many wars and conquests were waged with monotheism as a trigger (before) or as a justification (after). Some wars were between slightly different sects of the same monotheistic religion.

Polytheism
Many gods was the default religion in ancient times; even the Abrahamic religions started out as polytheism (e.g. God had a wife named Asherah), until 2nd Temple Judaism changed that, removing all their other gods, and persecuting Jews who still worshipped them.

Generally in polytheism, whether Greek, Norse, Egyptian, etc., gods represented various aspects like war, love, the sea, the hearth, death, and so forth. In that sense, polytheism was not generally intolerant, as worshippers of one goddess of love often considered another people's goddess of love as another incarnation or avatar of the same; for example, the Greek Aphrodite was considered the same as Egypt's Isis when the two cultures interacted with each other (and people often took up worship of the exotic version as well).

Cultivation

Other religions often do not worship gods at all; instead, they engage in training of the self. Cultivation refers to various systems designed to train an adept's abilities, in order to elevate themselves spiritually. The key word in cultivation is growth - people train the body, breath, and mind in order to evolve, so naturally those who have trained longer and harder have attained greater skill. We could call these adepts "artisans of the metaphysical."

This sort of "religion" is represented by some sects of Buddhism, Daoism, and others; some religions like Hinduism often combine theism with cultivation (e.g. the Shaivist sects); esoteric sects of Abrahamic faiths can involve some cultivation as well, e.g. Jewish Kabbalah and Muslim Sufism and even Quakerism.

Although called "religion," the training aspects often do not involve gods at all, and thus these parts are often extracted for non-religious public consumption: from Hinduism we get yoga, from Daoism we get taijiquan ("tai-chi"), and from Buddhism we get mindfulness meditation; all these have been scientifically researched and shown to have various benefits toward physical and mental health.

Because cultivative religions often do not involve worship of gods, some prefer to call these philosophies instead.

In general, cultivation can be divided into various levels:

• Physical
• Emotional
• Mental
• Spiritual

This division is generally cross-cultural, and can be seen in similar form in China, India, Greece, etc.

Religion is a very interesting subject, and there is much that can be learned from it, but humankind needs to take care to avoid its destructive tendencies borne from intolerance.

Love

Love is another word of convenience that uses one word to encompass many distinct concepts. Generally, "love" refers to any sort of powerful, generally positive emotion. Various cultures, however, have created more specific words that distinguish different kinds of "love."

For example, Christians are often familiar with Greek terms for love that are differentiated by their target and nature.

• Eros is sexual love (e.g. the sexual desire you feel when seeing someone you are attracted to)
• Storge is familiar love (e.g. the bonds you feel with your family members)
• Philia is friendly love (e.g. the fondness you feel for your friends)
• Agape is unconditional love (a love that requires nothing in return; usually used in Christianity to describe God's love - despite clear conditions being given, and horrific punishments dealt at a whim)

(Various vices can also be considered types of love: e.g. greed (love of money) or gluttony (love of food); in Greek, philautia is a word for self-love. Here, however, we focus on types of love towards other people.)

Buddhism has different terms for love that are differentiated by mode of action.

• Karuna is compassion or "passive" love (e.g. the feeling of sympathy when seeing another person in pain)
• Metta is loving-kindness or "active" love (e.g. a kind of love that emanates from persons, not as a response to something)

The ancient Chinese also defined different contrasting types of love.

• Ren or "love within society" from Confucianism is a kind of proper compassion within social interactions.
• Ci or "emanating love" from Daoism is similar to Metta and like the emanating love of a mother to her child.

We are often taught that love is a virtue to cultivate - but what kind of love?

When seeking a life partner, it is ideal to find a partner for whom you mutually feel the full range of love types (eros, storgi, philia, and agape). It is also good to cultivate both passive and active love (karuna and metta) with that partner. That love should be both within interaction and without (ren and ci).

When Jesus Christ spoke of love, which love did he mean? "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Today we often call this compassion - a type of love where we empathize, aid, and do not harm. If only we have this type of love, humankind could avoid wars and killing each other.

We can learn a lot about love from the wisdom of the ancients from the many cultures of the world.

Confidence

Confidence is an oft-considered "virtue" that is unique in that its effect (positive or negative) depends on its direction and magnitude. This contrasts with actual virtues which follow "the more, the better." Specifically, confidence and unconfidence are borne from lack of knowledge - this lack of certainty creates a gap, which is then mentally filled; its direction (bias) is based on temperament. The direction and magnitude create various forms of confidence and unconfidence, which directly influence action or non-action.

Despite confidence being a type of bias (toward self or others), and normally biases are seen negatively, confidence is a strange exception that exhibits cognitive dissonance.

It is also confusing in that there are many kinds of confidence - and so the term causes much confusion when saying things like "confidence is the most important attribute for a leader!" What does that even mean?

Actually, "confidence" is a confusing word, because it is a "word of convenience" that uses one word to encompass many different meanings, both positive and negative.

For example, we can use different names for different kinds of "confidence" by degree, e.g.:

• Self-Doubt (very low)
• Diffidence (low)
• Equanimity (neither low nor high)
• Confidence (high)
• Arrogance (very high)
• Narcissism (pathologically high)
• Hubris (extremely pathologically high)

Certainly we would not want a leader who has self-doubt, but on the other hand would we want a leader with narcissism, either?

We can name different types of confidence by aspect, e.g.:

• Vanity (confidence in one's physical appearance)
• Snobbery (confidence in one's economic class)
• Elitism (confidence in one's social group identity)

We can also name different kinds of confidence by target, e.g.:

• Self confidence (confidence in one's own abilities)
• Self esteem (confidence in one's own integrity)
• Belief in others (confidence in another's abilities)
• Trust in others (confidence in another's integrity)

For example, we may see a leader who appears confident in his own abilities, but looks down on others' abilities. What sort of effects might this have on his team?

We can also name types of confidence by the internal mechanisms, e.g.:

• Belief in self (appearance of confidence reflecting true self-belief, such as due to experience)
• Bluster (appearance of confidence hiding deep self-doubt, such as due to sensitivity to expectations)

Generally, confidence is antagonistic to humility (another term that can have multiple meanings). As a bias, confidence obstructs objectivity. Equanimity, or the lack of confidence and unconfidence, allows one to be free of this bias, and thus listen to new information and to appraise situations objectively. Confidence biases one towards oneself; lack of confidence biases one against oneself. Neither confidence nor lack of confidence aid us; both are hindrances that restrict our objectivity.

The other effect of confidence or lack of confidence is to affect performance or the perception thereof. This is of course what most people are interested in, but we need to keep in mind the potential negatives as well, and adjust to reap the benefits and not the traps.