RendHeaven

Yeah that's like the first thing he tried lol.

That's incredible. I love this community

Ah. Guess we're done here.

All perspectives have truths and blindspots. You are over inflating his blindspots and dismissing his truths, and then acting snarky about it. I am calling out your attitude, not any specific thing you said. Notice your defensiveness. You have a fair point. Good thing he's already owned up to it at the top of this page.

This is a totally insincere strawman. When you reduce his argument to this, it allows you to overlook everything he's saying without any real mental engagement. Your tone overall is sarcastic and hostile. If I recall, you identify vegan, yes? Try to see if you're able to psychologically, intellectually, and emotionally hold space for the fact that many people genuinely improve their health after emphasizing meat consumption. I know it feels better to ignore or deny this reality and to assume that meat eaters are stupid devils. But if you tread that path uncritically, you will have handicapped sensemaking and you will be at war with yourself & others which is not a fun place to be.

You do lean animal based. But your plant and carb recommendations make it more nuanced and well rounded. Such appeals don't mean much to Leo (or advanced minds in general) I agree with a lot of your recommendations. But how can we be sure we are not self-deceived on a subtle level? We read some books, saw some good results... and that's it? We've found the ultimate answer? Seems a little too convenient. Vegan shills make similar claims despite having mutually exclusive opposite advice from you. So figuring out optimal nutrition is not as simple as gathering a bunch of testimonials. Just cause you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it can't happen. He just said he has tried your recommendations already. It's not that he's demonizing, it's that he's rightfully calling you out for assuming your rhetoric is universal. I shouldn't speak too much on his behalf, but I'm pretty sure he's still mostly carnivore. Having blind confidence in your words and building an aura of authority is good for getting clients on instagram, but that whole game is anti-accuracy. A more accurate framing would be to acknowledge what has worked for you and other people you know, don't assume you know anything objective, recognize idiosyncratic variance, be capable of steelmanning the opposition, and overall have a more curious/exploratory stance with soft recommendations rather than "I know how to fix you, do as I say"

Man I literally used to live in Tucson until I moved to Japan 5 months ago. Are you kidding me?? Missed my chance to stalk Leo IRL

White rice has less arsenic and phytic acid relative to brown rice. This is true, but eating as he recommends will have benefits for a lot of people.

Thanks! I'm more like a freedom + anti-cultural indoctrination shill. That's my bias. The non-monogamy rhetoric is a downstream consequence of my deeper need for individuation and sovereign will

This one right here has been the story of my life. The instinct is to put myself down before others can - it's pure protection because for the longest time I couldn't handle the sting of oncoming judgement. But after much reflection it became clear that this self-cruelty was synonymous with self-love. I hold myself back out of love. Just like my parents did. I am my parents, they live through me. Thankfully I'm in a much better place now. The key for me was to face the sting head-on. I realized I'm getting judged and wounded no matter what, so the only thing I could do is surrender.

Good points!

I don't disagree. But whether repression is genuine or non-genuine is up for the individual to decide. I push back against this idea that all men should/would adopt monogamy if only they were more mature. That's clearly an arbitrary mental construct that the self-righteous ego is propagating, and if you think otherwise, I'd like to hear why. same🤝 This is a strawman. Non-monogamy is not like making food your top priority. Non-monogamy is like allowing yourself to eat more than one dish. It's really not a big deal. Monogamy is the one insisting that you can only have chicken for the rest of your life, and you are bad for having a milkshake even once. No milkshakes for the rest of your life. It's not even that I need the milkshake per se. It's moreso a true aversion to being told I can't follow my authenticity. Maybe once a year I will want a milkshake. Am I really such a bad boy for that? It's simply not authentic for me to say "I'm only gonna have chicken forever." The only reason I would ever agree to this is because culture told me that that is how I should behave. If you're gonna frame this as "chasing sex," then you're not being sincere with me.

You won my vote. Give this man some power.

@Clarence @Schizophonia I heard mipt can have aphrodisiac effects... thoughts?

I think you're onto something. Funny how that works.

@Cireeric Really impactful quote. Causing me to stop and think. Never heard of bukowski till now!

The boys are starvin' out here man

I mean, his audience is red pill lonely guys. I don't fault him serving his niche

The men who are most successful at attracting women are highly manipulative. This shouldn't come as a surprise. You wouldn't want to become these people though. It's best to cherry-pick useful lessons from them and discard the rest.

50k is barely a city, more like a town lol. Definitely aim bigger. Cannot stress the importance of location when it comes to dating as a man.

YBC is my buddy from an old online community imagine my shock when he blew up one day, pretty damn inspiring

@Leo Gura Sweet, is there an empty seat at the roundtable of mods now? When's the next audition 😈

Your voice is capped in some sense, a tenor will never be a bass (choir analogy). Instead of focusing on lowering the pitch of your voice (which causes unnecessary strain and limits your projection), focus on relaxing and opening up your belly. Obviously in a man, a lower voice is preferable to a higher voice, all else being equal, but the effect on results is marginal. The relaxed and open resonance is significantly more results-generating in commanding respect and attraction. Think of someone like Owen Cook who has the vocal pitch of an imp, but the resonance of an emperor.

That defeats the whole point lol. the catharsis and upshot of 5meodmt is to plunge through your fear onto the other side. If you neutralize fear with a crutch and dodge it completely, you expose yourself as a state chasing bliss seeker rather than an earnest lover of truth.

If I seem strangely passionate about all of this, it's not because I am an anti-monogomous polyamory shill. Although I have admitted my own bias, that I am "pretty sold on (certain models of) non-monogamy," I hold that rather loosely because as @aurum has pointed out, more testing is necessary. And if this thread had a more non-monogamous overton window, I would be steelmanning monogamy as a counterweight. That being said, there's something deeper happening here for me. After extensive contemplation and a heck of a lot of deconstruction and shedding fantasies, in true Actualized.org fashion, I am beginning to see an asymmetry in mental constructions between monogamy and non-monogamy. More specifically, monogamy involves more mental constructs, labels, rules, expectations, fantasies, self-justifications, and limitations than non-monogamy. I don't think this is merely my bias. Certain worldviews simply hold more rigid fantasies despite the relativity of it all. This does not mean that monogamy is bad or wrong. It means something very technical. For example, monogamy is more fragile. Fragile in the sense that it has something to defend. The worldview of monogamy is prone to falling apart if it encounters cold hard reality too much. Non-monogamy threatens it in the way that a needle threatens the integrity of a balloon. Whereas non-monogamy has no "fail condition," and doesn't mind contact with cold hard reality. Non-monogamy has no constructed membrane that is afraid of being popped. Non-monogamy simply asks: "I am a sexual being. Why limit this?" and then monogamy has to spin a web of stories to justify sexual limitation. One way that monogamy seemingly takes the upper hand is that it can genuinely argue that limiting sexual partners leads to a more stable society and healthier interpersonal relationships. This should not be overlooked. Monogamy may even try to threaten non-monogamy by saying something like, "why are you afraid of limiting yourself? why are you clinging to your freedom?" But then, non-monogamy has no problem responding by saying: "what builds social stability is not necessarily what is true. In fact in many ways, lies and deceptions are the foundation of social stability. I'm not afraid of limiting myself - I just find it distasteful to promote a self-serving construct as truth or duty" The critical fault in monogamy is that it conflates positive survival outcomes with truth. "Being loyal to my wife helped me raise my kids in a healthy environment, and helped us have impossibly deep personal intimacy, therefore monogamy is the best system, a TRUE system." But no, you can't say that. There's so much interpretive baggage here, because you're not merely reporting the facts of your marriage, you have a deeper implicit fantasy about how your wife actually belongs with you and only you, and that if she found another man, that would be a betrayal of the highest degree. You credit monogamy for your deep intimacy without opening your mind to the possibility that monogamy is actually completely non-causal and uncorrelated to depth of connection. Why would it be? You just assumed that without testing! This doesn't mean that we should all become non-monogamists. There really is no prescriptive action here. Do whatever fits your own biases and values. I'm more interested here in the constructive structures behind these competing relationship models. What would it look like to relate to women with minimal artificial mental constructs and fantasies?