Introduction: A series of unconventional Stoic-inspired reflections raises questions about whether sharing one’s feelings is wise, and how differences in male vs. female psychology or hormone levels (like testosterone) affect one’s emotional state and worldview. This deep-dive examines what ancient Stoic philosophers taught about expressing (or restraining) emotions, explores scientific findings on gender differences and testosterone’s impact on mood, and considers the value of returning to classical wisdom in modern life.
Stoicism on Sharing Feelings vs. Modern Psychology
Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic philosopher-emperor, advocated for emotional resilience and restraint. Ancient Stoic teachings often advise against complaining or lamenting one’s struggles openly, which contrasts with modern psychology’s encouragement to share and express feelings. In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius counseled himself: “Don’t allow yourself to be heard any longer griping about public life, not even with your own ears!” , emphasizing the Stoic ideal of maintaining composure and focusing on what can be controlled.
The Stoics believed that vocalizing grievances or intense emotions can reinforce those negative feelings and undermine one’s inner discipline. Seneca, advising his friend Lucilius, noted that hardships are the “taxes of life” – inevitable tolls not worth complaining about . By accepting difficulties without dramatic emotional display, the Stoics aimed to cultivate tranquility and strength of character. This classical stance holds that constant venting or “over-sharing” of personal turmoil can become a self-indulgent distraction, whereas quietly managing one’s emotions builds resilience.
Modern psychology, by contrast, often encourages healthy expression of feelings – under the premise that bottling up emotions might harm mental health. Numerous studies link chronic emotional suppression to poorer well-being. For example, a recent longitudinal study found that people who habitually inhibited their emotional expression felt less content with life and showed higher anxiety and depression after 14 weeks . From a therapeutic standpoint, sharing one’s inner thoughts (whether with a trusted friend or a professional) can relieve shame and prevent feelings of isolation . Expressing emotions through journaling or conversation often helps individuals process trauma and gain perspective .
However, modern research also offers a nuanced view: the impact of hiding vs. revealing feelings “depends” on context . If someone refrains from sharing emotions for authentic, personal reasons (in line with their values), they may not suffer negative effects . In other words, a person who genuinely believes in keeping their troubles private (much like a Stoic) and feels “authentic” doing so, might maintain emotional wellness. But those who stifle feelings out of fear or ambivalence often experience more anxiety and dissatisfaction . This suggests a middle ground: Stoic-like composure can be healthy if it comes from inner conviction, whereas forced silence can backfire.
In summary, the ancient Stoic position is that one should master emotions internally rather than constantly broadcasting them – an idea encapsulated by Epictetus’s advice to “blame only ourselves” (our judgments) for distress instead of complaining about externals . Modern psychology agrees that dwelling on grievances can be toxic, but it also warns that repressing everything can fuel internal stress unless one has a strong philosophical framework to support it. The key is to avoid indulgent “drama and complaint” while still acknowledging genuine feelings in a constructive way. As Maya Angelou – echoing Stoic-like wisdom – said, “If you can’t change it, change your attitude. Don’t complain.” .
Male vs. Female Emotional Experiences
“Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus,” goes the old saying – highlighting a popular belief that males and females fundamentally differ in their emotional makeup. Some of these differences stem from biology: men and women experience distinct hormonal cycles that influence mood and behavior. For instance:
- Hormonal Cycles: Women undergo a monthly menstrual cycle with shifting levels of estrogen and progesterone, which can cause mood fluctuations (e.g. premenstrual emotional changes). Men, on the other hand, have more stable daily levels of testosterone without a monthly swing, and thus do not experience an equivalent cyclical mood shift. A man can never literally feel what it’s like to have PMS or the postpartum hormonal rollercoaster; conversely, a woman doesn’t produce the high levels of testosterone that adult males do, and thus won’t directly feel the same surge of male hormonal adrenaline. Testosterone levels in men are an order of magnitude higher than in women – men produce substantially more of this hormone, which contributes to typically male traits and responses . These biological realities mean certain visceral experiences (like severe menstrual cramps or, say, the rush a man might get from a spike of testosterone during competition) are unique to one sex.
- Emotional Expression and Socialization: Beyond biology, cultural conditioning plays a role. Traditionally, women are encouraged to talk about feelings more openly, whereas men are often taught to appear stoic or “tough.” This can create a communication gap: each sex may have trouble fully understanding the other’s way of processing emotions. A woman might find a man too emotionally guarded, while a man might be perplexed by how freely a woman discusses feelings. These are broad generalizations – individual personalities vary widely – but they illustrate why cross-gender empathy can be challenging.
- Stress Responses: Emerging research suggests that puberty is a turning point where male and female stress responses diverge due to hormones. Before puberty, boys and girls respond to stress (such as social threats) similarly . After puberty, testosterone becomes a key differentiator in how stress is handled . A University of California, Davis study (2023) showed that adult female mice were far more likely than males to become anxious and avoidant after a social stress, whereas adult males remained unfazed – and the trigger for this difference was testosterone exposure during puberty . When researchers removed testosterone in male mice, the males started reacting to stress more like females, becoming cautious; but if females (or castrated males) were given testosterone, they showed almost no effects of stress, reacting much like normal males . In essence, testosterone buffered the stress response, reducing fear and anxiety signals in the brain’s amygdala . This mechanistic finding aligns with human patterns: adult women are almost twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with anxiety disorders (a disparity not seen in childhood) . The hormonal changes of puberty – especially the surge of testosterone in males – likely contribute to men’s generally higher risk-taking and lower social fear compared to women.
It’s important to note that these are average tendencies. There are certainly very courageous, risk-tolerant women and very anxious men; hormones influence behavior but do not rigidly determine it. Still, the “male psychology” often involves a baseline level of testosterone-driven confidence or aggression that can be hard for a female (with a different hormonal milieu) to intuitively grasp. Likewise, men may find it hard to comprehend the depth and variance of female emotional cycles that are influenced by monthly hormonal ebbs and flows. This can lead to mutual mystification – each gender might perceive the other as “irrational” or “overreacting” at times, simply because their internal experiences differ.
So, can a man and woman truly understand each other’s inner states? Perfectly and completely, perhaps not – just as one person can never fully know what it’s like to live in someone else’s body. But through empathy, communication, and education about these differences, we can bridge much of the gap. Ancient Stoics didn’t discuss hormones, but they did recognize that everyone’s mind is shaped by different impressions and circumstances. The key is applying reason and compassion: a Stoic man might remind himself that a woman’s emotional low point could be biologically amplified, tempering any judgment, and a Stoic woman might understand that a man’s outward stoicism isn’t indifference but perhaps an ingrained coping habit. In practice, acknowledging these physiological differences can improve mutual understanding. Modern science reinforces that neither gender’s emotional approach is “wrong” – they each face different internal chemistry.
High Testosterone vs. Low Testosterone: Myths and Reality
A bold claim in the “unorthodox” Stoic thought is that high-testosterone men are actually more joyful, calm, and resilient, whereas low-testosterone men are gloomy, irritable, or “office slaves” — and that society misunderstands the high-testosterone man as volatile or angry. Let’s evaluate this with science:
- Myth: “High Testosterone = Aggressive Hothead.” This is a common stereotype – the idea that a man brimming with testosterone will be easily angered, impulsive, or aggressive (think of the cliché of “roid rage” in steroid users). In reality, naturally high testosterone doesn’t automatically mean poor self-control or constant anger. Harvard Health experts state that testosterone’s role in causing “bad” behavior is largely a myth . Normal variations in testosterone among men are not strongly predictive of aggression in everyday life. In fact, having healthy T levels is linked to stable mood and confidence, not unchecked rage. Researchers have found that testosterone can increase prosocial behaviors in certain contexts – for example, by boosting confidence and reducing social fear, it might enable a man to be more generous or bold when he’s not threatened. The misconception likely arises from studies of anabolic steroid abuse: artificially pumping testosterone to extreme levels can cause irritability, mood swings and impulsivity . But among men with naturally high testosterone (within normal range), you do not typically see the uncontrolled aggression that steroid-abusing bodybuilders might exhibit. As one medical review puts it, having too much natural testosterone is not a common problem – most extreme behaviors come from unnatural supplementation, not the hormone levels most healthy men achieve .
- Mood and “Joyfulness”: There is some evidence that optimal or higher testosterone is associated with more positive mood. Testosterone contributes to maintaining normal levels of neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin , the chemicals of pleasure and well-being. Men with low testosterone often experience fatigue, low libido, and depression-like symptoms; in older or hypogonadal men, testosterone replacement therapy frequently lifts mood and reduces depression . Psychology research noted that men tend to score higher on traits like positive emotionality (joy), whereas women are often more focused on risk avoidance . One possible reason proposed is that testosterone elevates mood and confidence, making men on average report more positive affect . Indeed, when men win at competitions (say in sports), their testosterone spikes and they feel a euphoric “winner’s high”; conversely, losing causes testosterone to dip, and mood drops . This happens in women too to a degree (women’s testosterone also rises with victory ), but since men start with more T, the mood effect might be amplified for them. Moreover, clinical cases show that raising a low-T man’s levels (under medical supervision) often makes him happier and more energetic . As one psychologist quipped, testosterone often makes men “happier than they were” once deficiencies are corrected . So the “glee” and abundance of energy described in the high-testosterone man isn’t purely imaginary – it aligns with how testosterone can promote vitality and a positive, can-do mindset.
- Low Testosterone and Mood: On the flip side, a man with very low testosterone (whether due to genetics, aging, stress, or sedentary lifestyle) may indeed feel sluggish, pessimistic, and less driven. Low T is linked to symptoms like depressed mood, irritability, poor concentration, and lower motivation . Such a man might literally lack “sunlight in his life” – not just metaphorically, but biologically, since exposure to sunlight (via Vitamin D) supports healthy testosterone levels . If one imagines an “office slave” who is always indoors, physically inactive, and under chronic stress: that lifestyle can suppress testosterone. The result can be a vicious cycle of lethargy and gloom. Thus, there is a kernel of truth in the characterization of a chronically low-T individual as lacking zest and appearing world-weary. Of course, many factors affect personality beyond one hormone, but testosterone does play a role in energy, confidence, and mood regulation .
- Temperament and Self-Control: A “truly formidable man” with high natural testosterone, as described, might actually be less reactive to petty irritations. This counterintuitive idea finds support in the stress research mentioned earlier: testosterone can blunt fear and stress reactions . A confident man brimming with T might stroll through life’s challenges with a grin, where a more anxious person would frown or panic. High testosterone has been linked with greater tolerance for risk and pain, which could manifest as calm under pressure. For example, the UC Davis experiments showed that testosterone exposure made mice unperturbed by aggressive encounters, essentially keeping them chill where others became fearful . Translating that to humans: a high-T man might indeed be the guy “always smiling, fresh and happy”, not because of naïveté, but because his biology gives him a kind of emotional robustness. Meanwhile, someone with lower testosterone might overthink threats and slights, appearing more cautious or dour.
In sum, testosterone’s effects on personality are real but often misunderstood. A naturally high-testosterone man is not destined to be an angry brute – on the contrary, if his hormones are balanced, he may be cheerful, outgoing, and resilient, riding life’s ups and downs with equanimity. It’s often those with hormonal imbalances or other emotional issues who struggle with outbursts or depression (and hormones like cortisol, the stress hormone, play a big part in anxiety/anger as well). The modern evidence aligns partly with the “Stoic high-T ideal”: strength (physical and mental) can breed calm and confidence. However, it’s important to recognize that character also matters – a high-T man could still choose to behave poorly if he lacks virtue. Stoicism would argue that moral development and reason must guide one’s raw energy. But assuming a high-T individual also cultivates Stoic mindset, he might embody the jovial, magnanimous spirit described. Meanwhile, a low-T man might need to work harder at positivity – possibly requiring lifestyle changes (exercise, sunlight, stress reduction) to improve his biochemistry alongside training his mind in Stoic resilience.
Feeling Misunderstood: The Outsider Perspective
The reflections mention feeling like “the red swan” – a unique creature whom 99.9999% of society cannot understand, and vice versa. This speaks to the experience of being an outlier in some way: whether due to one’s philosophy, lifestyle, or personal attributes, one can feel profoundly different from most people. The author gives examples: being self-employed and not beholden to any boss or clients, not living by the usual email-and-meetings routine that traps others. Combined with the earlier point – perhaps having an unusually abundant positive mindset – this sets the individual apart from the crowd, almost like a different species observing the herd.
Feeling misunderstood can indeed breed a sense of alienation. Stoic philosophy historically was a bit of an outsider’s creed as well. Stoics often reminded themselves that the path of virtue is lonely. Seneca, for instance, advised avoiding the masses (“a mass crowd…you cannot entrust yourself to it” he warned ) because the crowd’s values could corrupt one’s own. He noted that if you think for yourself, the majority won’t understand you, and that is okay – wisdom is not a popularity contest. This aligns with the notion that true freedom (financial, intellectual, or emotional) is rare and thus not easily understood by the masses, who live conventionally. The Stoic sage or the truly self-reliant man will naturally stand out.
The 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (though not a Stoic, he is cited as a “classic” to return to) captured this feeling of being beyond others’ comprehension. “The higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly,” Nietzsche wrote . This powerful image conveys that when one elevates oneself – by extraordinary achievement or independence – ordinary observers may belittle or distrust what they don’t understand. In other words, if you have taken a path that lets you soar above life’s trivialities, people still on the ground might see you as insignificant or strange (“small”) simply because they lack your perspective. They might project their own doubts: a person stuck in a humdrum job might look at a free, cheerful soul and suspect “It must be an act; nobody can be that happy without scheming something”. This is exactly what the author describes: the low-spirited onlooker suspects the high-spirited man of “ulterior motives” or conniving, when in fact the joyful man is just naturally flourishing.
Nietzsche’s philosophy often extolled the individual who goes against the herd, forging his own values. He spoke of the “Übermensch” (overman) who creates meaning for himself and rises above common conventions – such a person will inevitably be misunderstood or even resented by the “last men” who prefer comfort and safety. Likewise, Stoicism teaches that one should know one’s own mind and not be swayed by public opinion. Marcus Aurelius reminded himself not to be surprised by the ignorance or unkindness of others, but to remain just and true to himself regardless of others’ praise or blame. Both perspectives acknowledge a price of greatness or uncommon freedom: isolation.
If 99% of society has never experienced the sunlit uplands of true freedom and self-mastery, they will have trouble relating to the man who has. From their vantage, his constant smile might seem naive or suspicious. Here the Stoic advice would be: do not mind it. Epictetus said, “If you wish to improve, you must be content to be thought foolish and stupid.” The person on a different wavelength shouldn’t expect validation from the crowd. Instead, they can take solace in the inner knowledge that they live in accordance with their principles.
Importantly, being unable to understand others in turn can be a challenge. The author notes “I cannot understand other people either.” When one’s life is highly individual, one might lose patience for the common concerns of others (deadlines, office gossip, petty emotions, etc.). A Stoic would caution against disdain: even if you walk your own path, practicing sympatheia – a kind of universal empathy – is virtuous. Marcus Aurelius viewed all people as part of a cosmic city; while he often felt the gulf between the philosophic mind and the mundane mob, he also strove to love mankind and work for others’ benefit. Thus, the Stoic approach for an outlier would be to pity or educate those who don’t understand him, rather than simply dismiss them. Nietzsche, on the other hand, was more elitist – he’d likely say the higher man cannot be understood by the masses and shouldn’t waste time on them. Both agree though that the “red swan” must embrace being different. If you truly are a rare breed, you must derive validation internally (or from fellow rare individuals), not from the mainstream.
Embracing Classical Wisdom Over Modern Trends
The overarching takeaway in the provided reflection is a call to “go back to the classics.” Instead of modern self-help or pop psychology, one should read Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Nietzsche, and their like. The sentiment is that ancient wisdom and timeless philosophy offer more substantial guidance for life than do contemporary ideas, which are dismissed wholesale as “all bad.”
Why might someone feel this way? One reason is disillusionment with modern trends in psychology or self-improvement. The author calls some modern psychology advice “nonsense.” Indeed, much pop-psychology in media can be shallow or overly permissive (e.g. encouraging people to wallow in feelings or avoid personal responsibility). In contrast, works like Seneca’s Letters, Epictetus’s Discourses, or Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations are brutally honest about personal responsibility, virtue, and the shortness of life. They don’t coddle the reader with quick fixes or validation of every emotion. Instead, they urge us to rise above our passions and focus on higher principles. For someone seeking a no-nonsense guide to life, that directness is refreshing. As Seneca wrote, “Avoid the new and flee to the old” (a paraphrase) – the idea that truth is more often found in enduring old books than in novel fads. Even Nietzsche, despite being a modern in his time, was classically educated and built on ideas from the past (Greek tragedy, philosophy, etc.), forging them into new insights. He would likely scoff at today’s therapeutic culture of “talking it out” in favor of a more self-reliant, strength-based approach to overcoming hardship.
Another factor is that classical texts have stood the test of time. Marcus Aurelius’s private journal of Stoic exercises (the Meditations) has guided statesmen, generals, and ordinary people for nearly two millennia. It’s hard to argue with success: if those ideas helped shape great individuals and survive through ages, there must be something profound there. Modern theories come and go; one decade therapy fashion says one thing, the next decade it says the opposite. (For instance, early 20th-century Freudians encouraged emotional catharsis; mid-20th-century behaviorists ignored inner feelings altogether; 21st-century mindfulness asks one to observe feelings non-judgmentally, etc. – trends shift.) Stoicism’s core tenets, however, remain relevant: focus on what you can control, don’t be ruled by anger or fear, live with integrity, remember that life is finite. These are eternal truths, arguably immune to “progress” because human nature hasn’t fundamentally changed.
It’s worth noting that not all modern knowledge is “bad.” Psychology as a science has uncovered valuable insights into brain chemistry, trauma, development, and so on. The Stoics, for all their wisdom, did not know about clinical depression or cognitive biases in the way we do now. Thus, a synthesized approach can be beneficial: one can read Seneca and see a therapist; one can practice Marcus’s journaling and use modern stress-management techniques. The classics don’t have to be an outright replacement for the new, but rather a foundation upon which to critically evaluate new ideas. When the author says “avoid the modern, it is all bad,” it comes from frustration with modern culture’s excesses (perhaps coddling, consumerism, victim mentality – all things the Stoics would critique). In spirit, this admonition echoes something Nietzsche wrote about staying true to oneself in the face of modernity’s mediocrity. He praised looking back to pre-modern virtues (strength, courage, excellence) instead of succumbing to what he saw as a soft, herd-like modern ethos.
Ultimately, the call to return to classical wisdom is about seeking depth and clarity in a confusing world. When one reads Marcus Aurelius meditating on how short life is and how we shouldn’t waste time on trivialities, or Seneca urging us to confront our fears and not complain, or Epictetus teaching that freedom comes from within – one gains a sturdy perspective that modern chatter often lacks. These classic works encourage personal accountability, resilience, and perspective on the grand scheme of things (fate, nature, virtue). They can fortify a person’s mind against the whirlwind of transient modern advice. In a sense, returning to the classics is a Stoic exercise in itself: it means filtering out noise and focusing on proven principles.
Conclusion: The unorthodox Stoic thoughts presented celebrate a life of inner strength, where feelings are kept in check and one’s unique nature is unabashedly embraced. We examined how this aligns with ancient Stoic counsel (which largely advises restraint and self-control) and how modern research both challenges and complements these ideas. There is truth in the notion that sharing every feeling can weaken resolve – Marcus Aurelius would nod in agreement – just as there is truth that men and women, or high-T and low-T individuals, may inhabit different emotional worlds due to biology. Yet across all these differences, the Stoic approach provides a unifying guide: cultivate joy and resilience from within, do not seek validation from the crowd, and study the wisdom of those who came before us. As Nietzsche reminded, soaring high will make others perplexed or even critical, but that should not deter the ascent. In the end, timeless authors like Seneca, Nietzsche, and Marcus Aurelius encourage us to become our best selves – immune to petty sorrows, energized by our own purpose, and indifferent to the misunderstanding of the masses. In a world full of fleeting modern counsel, sometimes the wisest roadmap forward is indeed found by looking back to these enduring classic insights.
Sources:
- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations – counsel on not complaining
- Seneca, Moral Letters – on avoiding complaints and accepting life’s hardships
- Holly Parker, PhD – Psychology Today (2025) on effects of hiding vs. expressing emotions
- Jill Suttie, Psy.D. – Greater Good Science Center – on secret-keeping and emotional well-being
- UC Davis research (PNAS 2023) on testosterone, puberty, and stress responses
- Harvard Health – “Testosterone: What it is and how it affects your health” – myth of testosterone and behavior ; role in mood maintenance
- Nigel Barber, PhD – Psychology Today (2024) “The Link Between Testosterone and Happiness” – on testosterone’s effect on mood, confidence, and gender differences in emotionality
- Nietzsche, The Dawn of Day (1881) – quote on soaring high and being misunderstood (also attributed in Thus Spoke Zarathustra).
- Seneca, “On Crowds” (Letter 7) – caution about following the masses .