integral

You guys are right I changed my mind. If you look at Trump and how he uses emotional manipulation and empathy and all these emotional tactics to Rally up voters and sway the direction of the conversations through chaos, it is exactly what I've observed in most women I interact with. It's the same bullshit to build machine.

@Xonas Pitfall @Natasha Tori Maru it's true both men and women do this and it's definitely related to maturity or how conscious you are and self-aware. These are not equal at all, committing violence is not the same as creating an empathy social network to benefit yourself and women are more likely to do this than men. If a woman or a man commit some violence, they're ostracized, this is not at all what I'm talking about, it benefits no one Men are not creating empathy social network networks to the same degree women are, you guys gotta stop flattening this. The way men build social networks is by doing favours for other men, positioning themselves in a position of status and to be a trust worthy person for many things. They're climbing the ladder in a completely different way. Not the same thing because no one is coming to rush over to help a man. A man cannot cry for empathy, he gets punched in the face. Nothing I said, has anything to do with ideology and people ganging up on other people and cultures forming inside subcultures.

None of it is done consciously. Broadcast the problem in a likeable way to as many people as possible and that's the the survival strategy. The way women socialize with each other is this kind of rambling about all of their problems and other people's problems and they're trying to get their problems out there for everyone to know (unconsciously, it is just their desire), why? So that the network is always conscious of this data so that the network could come back and support her (they don't know they're doing it for this reason. It is what they were wired to enjoy doing.) And this feminized socializing has a little to do with facts or reason or problem-solving. It's about how likeable enjoyable and swayable the talking points are.

Girl power is when a girl gives up her survival strategy for a masculine one. Why would someone help you if they dont feel anything towards you? A woman solved this problem vai her entire survival strategy. Woman have power by emotional influence. They cultivate inside you empathy towards them. This creates a social network were agents act in favor of her best interests. When things dont go there way they double down on the chaos so more resources are pulled to her from every direction. The more she can rile up the emotions of everyone around her the better her survival chances will be. Whenever a woman has a problem there is always a man somewhere rushing over here to help her solve it. And if that man won't do it, another man will.

No one agreed with Einstein, they thought he was a crack pot. That slow, sluggish dragging of your feet to accept a new profound way to look at the same thing is the paradigm lock. They think right now they're model of the universe Is one of the highest models and they don't understand they're just sitting in a hole and can't see above it. More evidence and more rational thoughts does not get you there Measuring every banana in the tree will not get you to understanding reality, this is the materialism monkey bubble.

Epistemically Wrong: in chess the beginner tries to prove to himself his beliefs are true, and the master tries to prove to himself that his beliefs are wrong. The amateur asks "what does this move do for me?" and the master asks "what does this move allow?" The problem with the beginner isn't just that he gets attached, it's that finding a move feels like progress, so letting go of it feels like losing something. He's chasing the feeling of having an answer instead of the answer actually being correct. For those thirty seconds that move becomes part of his identity, and refuting it would mean admitting he wasted his time. The master does the opposite, he spends most of his calculation trying to refute his own ideas because that's where the real information is. A line that survives your best attempt to kill it actually tells you something. And chess punishes this immediately. One refutation you didn't look at loses you the game, while ten supporting reasons give you nothing you didn't already have. The game rewards falsification and punishes confirmation The master is building an accurate model of the position before he even thinks about the solution and the beginner is generating solutions from a model he never built, so he's finding answers to a question he doesn't understand or asked. Most people can't tolerate discomfort of not having an answer yet while the understanding builds.

??? whats the difference? Reality is magic therefore anything is possible therefore that's infinity.

Hes implying everything is magic, what is there to realize beyond that? Doesnt magic imply infinity?

Oh pretty good then! I had no idea, its a convincing voice thats why i thought it was edited lmao

what is this voice changer propaGANDA

HAHA i saw this video 15 years ago when it game out!

Everyone is already doing that. It is already cured by science, the research is there, all the studies are there, just doesn't reflect itself in the healthcare industry.

Crohn's disease is solved. It's 100% curable. How does the healthcare industry deal with it? They give you anti-inflammatories permanently for rest of your life and they tell you there's no cure. Is that what the science says? NO so why are they doing that?

MY PEAOPLLLLEEEEEE! OF COURSE, get on that dance floor and shake what was god given. 💃 YA OK, like id believe this propaganda. this is more like your latest crush. There he is the criminal underbelly of actualized surfaces

It used to be worse, but recently I saw a random small YouTube doctor who was debunking all the mainstream stuff and doing so by reciting long sequences of biology logic. And regurgitating long words that come together to paint a picture of a mechanism and how it works in the body and therefore you should make your recommendations based on these studies and so on. And then they would debunk everyone explaining how doctors harm people every day and so on while regurgitating this pharmaceutical healthcare paradigm without realizing they're doing so. It's one of the most difficult things that I can't accept about this world is watching people who put themselves in a standard of rigour and intellectual high ground to then debunked things they have no actual real world experience with. They recite scientific data like a computer would and confuse this for the actual world that all of this is being applied into. Every time I go into doctors office, I'm yelled out of their office or they're really pissed by the questions that I asked. I've gotten better, but it's still excruciating trying to get them to answer extremely simple questions where most of their responses are "of course it works. This is a treatment that's been used for the past 80 years" 🙄 oooooh k