possibilities

I just see my brain going “nope, nope, nope”, “oh I’ll feel bad if I don’t respond”, “is this chick serious? I just click like for all the profiles because I can’t be bothered looking at all of them I just want to see who I match with and now you’re messaging me because you think I like you. I mean, there’s literally nothing appealing going on here”. These are just internal muttering’s, and I don’t at all mean to be mean I’m just being bluntly honest to myself as that’s reality, that’s the way my brain has been genetically programmed, to select women in certain ways. I feel bad for a lot of these women, Mother Nature has programmed the male brain to be so superficial towards them. The lesson in this story: I pay much more attention to ugly women in my regular environment, secondly, I can draw better patterns in relation to how others will perceive other people in general because my brain has just subconsciously been learning how people make various visual assessments. They think they might be able to convince others to pay more attention to them through their personality and so on but it’s all bullshit, at least 90% of people will treat them as less and they’ll be evolutionarily ditched so to speak where they’re forced to procreate with lesser. There are exceptions to the rule of course just talking generally speaking. To me all women should be allowed to have free state of the art cosmetic surgery so they can increase their chances of finding love because it tends to be more important for them. The stigma for plastic surgery should be removed, evolutionary selection should be seen for the devil that it is and people should be encouraged to be their physical best as opposed to being told LIES by the media about how it’s “okay to be ugly and fat just ‘be you’, show your true personality and everything will be great!”. Either that or we reprogram our evolutionary responses, anyhow I imagine we’ll eventually be doing both. Evolution is ‘dumb’ for lack of a better word, one day things will be better there though. Women are superficial of course too but I’m just sticking up for women in this situation!

That's a little better, my only advice is to try and not create a personality out of me because the moment you do that you're either going to reject what I say and see me in some negative light or you're going to see me some misplaced positive light (sometimes somewhere in between but not with how I am generally). The alternative is try to see experience as an open playing field, that way you'll be able to look at things more objectively. You won't try and judge someones actions in the way Odysseus has above where he's inferred my suggestion to read my Quora entries as some kind of an insult coming from: Personality matrix A -------> believing themselves to be superior -----> To personality matrix B Now personality matrix B, if it perceives itself as such and person A as such as well and therefore an attack on B, all of a sudden proper learning ceases and good communication stalls. I have no desire to try and curb my way of helping others really, at least not in this setting, to me this is a self actualisation setting so I feel zero need to pull any punches its my expectation that such a forum invite others to look upon experience from that lens as opposed to being a static personality merely here to express opinions as opposed to delving deep and asking interesting questions. The difficulties I've mostly had with people on this forum is more their lack of critical thinking, pretending they know a lot about subjects when they really don't and then being deceptive about the process of curious investigation that followed up there. Other than this, with respect to passive aggression @Keyhole if I have any advice there, how I've noticed it surface in myself in the past (hasn't for many years - and typically towards parents) is because I felt uncomfortable sharing my real preferences with others. That might be something to introspect about in relation to why you yourself have done it or do it. Objectively, overall consistently there's an incompatibility on this forum that I don't have the time to really sort of cater to, again, its nothing personal of course its just goals are different. My goal is to dive deep into experience, it takes up so much more energy in my brain to always consistently think about how others will perceive the information I share, I'd rather use that energy in the relationships around me. For me I want to foster an online presence where it goes without saying that people can casually share their own resources, people don't take offense and so on and so fourth where everyone's just sincerely asking questions and advancing discussion. Peace out, and for those that want to continue to be stuck in judgemental as opposed to learning mode by all means I'm done now, I have no need to defend myself anymore.

^ Exactly one of the reasons why its not worth time in my opinion, many people here can't be straight to the point and honest. Instead they feel the need to be passive aggressive and deceptive. You look at me, I'm always direct and right to the point. It creates a toxic environment. Its not about me being 'better' its about having self respect, you don't want to be around people that are deceptive like that, you want to be around people that value truth, honesty and sincerity and put up boundaries like I do (though I'm learning to adjust the way I go about it) when people violate that because it goes no where constructive.

Still departing from this forum but I thought I'd just help others here: I recommend following my post on maturity, its poorly developed at present but I'll go in depth over the next few days: https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-know-that-you-have-become-an-adult/answer/Michael-L-Whild It's important to be weary of things like confirmation bias, bandwagon effect and many other forms of bias when we're attempting to form conclusions of things. Think of the absence of utilising intelligence, we're essentially just balls of emotions incapable of establishing any coherence about reality. But then think of the absence of emotions, we'd essentially just be robots incentivised by nothing and if anything at bare minimum, excitement in our reward centre from intellectual stimulation. I touch on this here: https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-more-valid-form-of-knowledge-pure-logic-and-reason-or-sensory-experience/answer/Michael-L-Whild In short, advancing ones intelligence, all forms emotional and otherwise beyond the status quo of what a humans usually used to is extremely important to ones own personal growth and the growth of civilisation itself. Growth is created via reflections on the past, so my own method is to look out at what I see, including myself, figure out the patterns of such to the best of my ability, then attempt to extract meanings that push me to the next level. I move extremely slowly, but its not about making giant leaps, its about making small steps one day at a time. Ockham's razor as for sharing emotions, of which I do that's just confirmation bias especially in the context of when I'm purposefully attempting to extract intellectual meaning from a subject given that's the purpose of the endeavour, I don't really do that much of it here simply because I don't really enjoy my experience much, so other than frustrations that I've shared I like helping people where I can but I feel even that's just wasted time as well because its not like I've noticed some people really trying to reflect on anything I've said. Subconsciously I guess I don't really perceive it as a safe environment to feel at ease emotionally expressing myself as well because I notice how dogmatic and unquestioning some people are. People don't ask as many questions about their experience that I think is necessary to truly have a healthy discussion, moreover I've noticed people frequently draw erroneous conclusions from weakly thought out ideas. Overall I've concluded this forum to be an unhealthy environment for stimulating the growth of neurogenesis in the brain and general neuroindividuality, its no offence to Leo of course I noticed this immediately upon posting here months ago and voiced myself accordingly, its just the nature of how things are: https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/the-neurobiology-of-individuality-39340 I hope this at least somewhat answers any questions on the subject. Peace out and good luck!

Relationships are so, so important, but no relationship is better than a bad one. In order to develop an effective feedback loop with the contents of consciousness a person needs to have a partner to relay ideas with as authentically and reciprocally as possible. This improves learning, love, understanding and overall growth all simultaneously without which, someone is left to their own devices, of which, usually goes wrong when you don't have the right information. In an ideal situation, two consciousnesses coming together could actually strategically improve one another's intelligence overtime in the way that they interact with one another, this is analogous to two scientists having a conversation but I'd argue that it is extremely far off from reflecting this idea at its potential but is nonetheless still a useful example, this is because information is processed and transformed continuously thus there is a continual upgrade of syntax. This is essentially the origins of all languages, in so saying as much, perhaps in the beginnings of language formation or just the ideational growth of anything that required a collective effort there was an intelligence and relationship explosion through those periods. Intelligence and socialisation have often gone hand in hand in our development as a species because we needed the insight of one another in order to grow and develop our perspectives of things further and further, the absence of which whether due to not being around the right people or due to a lack of social stimulation altogether increased the likelihood that there would be a de-stimulation of intelligence and overall external technological growth, the latter instead being replaced by external to internal dogma in the context of centralised as opposed to de-centralised intelligence. I wish you all the best and farewell this will be my last comment on this site . Much pleasure it has been learning from everyone.

For unattractive that don't want to bang unattractive people, probably.

@Keyhole "but that doesn't equate to finding the right match" Yes, as I've already stipulated in previous comments. Otherwise good valid points, there is a biological tradeoff associated with attractiveness here, perhaps socially with respect to either ostracism versus acceptance we can see something like an inverted u-shaped curve towards women relative to the average of the population being analysed, for example if there's 20 10's grouped together they're much more likely to be friends than 1 ten is going to be amongst 19 5's, especially if there's a male interest in the environment with limited supply. Group dynamics completely change based on: (1) sexual preferences (2) ratio between attractiveness versus less attractiveness in a group or environment (3) availability of sexual preferences (and unique features within that context from attractiveness right down to hair colour preference, age and intelligence) (4) level of competition of those sexual preferences In order to analyse these subjects well, we need to: (1) analyse the patterns (2) de-contextualise and re-contextualise through a hypothetical scenario - as opposed to re-analysing the group plainly in the context of the environment. (3) discover general underlying rules as a result of simulating the hypothetical scenario and comparing it with the real scenario (4) apply those rules as a formula as a means of testing the understanding achieved Most merely stay at step one, and so they find themselves in a continual biased loop in the context of the scenes they're presented with. This is why unless they train their capacity for abstraction, they won't ever find themselves beyond the present moment with respect to really understanding a situation and being able to cross-contextualise it. This isn't something I've read in some book either, this is something I've abstracted in the moment right now in the last 10 minutes. It just shows you the value of learning how to abstract data, something that I recommend to others .

Please just go away @DrewNows , you have no idea how deeply I think about subjects. I'm at least 5 steps ahead of you here you're just taking up my time with little appreciation. Move along please. As I predicted you're just repeating step 3, you can't expect me to take you seriously if that's what you're just going to do over, and over, and over again.

This is going round and round in circles @DrewNows Here's how the pattern goes: 1. you make claim 2. I refute claim 3. you make original claim without addressing my refutation 4. I say I've already refuted it 5. you go back to number 3 continuously. " Just realize that your perspective isn’t any better than another’s unless it’s perceived through your very own view. " Here we go again, alright, would you be willing to volunteer photographs or put yourself through tinder compared to a model to see if its "just my worldview"? Like I've stated time and time again here, I'm not stating my worldview I'm trying to understand the worldview of Mother Nature. "The question is, why do you choose to hold the perspective you believe to be true? Do you even exist without your perspective? How do you know what you know and why? How can you see what you do not see or know that which you do not know? " This would would be number 3. My prediction is you'll likely just repeat number three in different ways. Well, looks I've hacked your strategy here, I wonder if you'll shift strategies now.

DrewNow let me just copy and paste what you've stated from my own position and I'll show your own deception at play: "@DrewNows sorry dude most people here, like myself, aren’t interested in debating as the limitations are understood. Have you studied self deception and spiral dynamics? What you seem to be looking for is someone else to change your world view and that’s not possible if you cannot yet see how it’s been created. I agree this needs to be a collaboration but for that to be so you must let go of your beliefs and consider trying to understand other perspectives Take your poker hand example, the cards are our subconscious minds and we are the players, the initial level of attraction might be the expression on our faces as we perceive the cards we’ve been dealt (pretend it’s online but nobody is aware others can see their faces). To some this expression may be a huge tell but to others, they are more interested in reflecting and evaluating the many other factors in play to decide where they stand." Like I've told you Drew, my arguments stand from the perspective I've illustrated, if you don't want to agree with them that's your prerogative. It's the other way around pal, you're not respecting my views because you're trying to argue with me, well if you want me to accept your 'arguments' provide arguments with reason and evidence otherwise move along. You've come on to a thread created by me trying to weasel your way through my mind trying to change my opinion with thin air as opposed to trying to evaluate my perspective objectively. Your side swiping isn't going to get anywhere here, you haven't even bothered reading my linked post and if you have you've made zero effort to refute it. You made a claim, "you don't understand meaning", I refuted that claim with my linked post and yet you still go on with your original premise with no refutation as to the points made. Move along or provide reason and evidence. I'm not going to go onto someone else's thread and try and change their perspective if they have reason and evidence, if they do then either I provide better reason and evidence or I'll just move along, I suggest you do the latter.

@DrewNowsThe pattern I see here is you're doing your darnedest to try and shoot the messenger in whatever way you can fathom. My guess is that I have a better handle over how I come to understand reality than yourself, however please feel free to show evidence to the contrary. Have you composed something to a similar or greater degree of comprehension (in this subject of how you come to understand what you come to understand) here? Please see the following post I've made: Your words so far have little meaning because you're just making tacit statements of refusal with no justified argumentation against the claims whatsoever other than to say, "you don't understand meaning", well I've proven that I do, now once again the ball is in your court. My prediction is you're not going to be able to get it over the net but I hope you do so that you can contribute more to the discussion rather than simply trying to criticise with no critique.

@universe believe what you want. Show me evidence that I’m wrong. I bet you can’t. Request evidence from me and I’ll give you truck loads. Thats the difference between our ‘subjectivity’ here, I’d rather be on my side of the fence. You’ve provided zero evidence to show that attractiveness is merely subjective.

Think about it this way @DrewNows, let’s say hypothetically you’re a 5 in attractiveness or a 3. There’s millions upon millions of people you could still date and get to know that are a 3 or below (if you weren’t a 5 otherwise they’d be a 5 or below). So you wouldn’t ever need to lack confidence in the looks department because (1) you’d know you’d be physically compatible with them (2) there’s millions to sort other characteristics through (from personality to intelligence). Now that’s a dating hack for people! It’s so obvious as well, people are just pumped with media nonsense though so they lose their self esteem and confidence on this subject. Its literally like poker except everyone can see what hand one another have but many are in denial about how good that hand is. The more accurate you can be the better poker player you can be here, inaccuracy is inversely proportional to winning here because we can clearly see who’s bluffing (unless there’s favourable lighting).

@DrewNowsSo because I mention one word, “science” suddenly I cling to it? Obviously I’m learning from myself when I’m performing my own independent experiments. Its far more reliable than just imagining stuff, how do you think you’d go imagining how the world looked if you were blind? No we need to look at what is actually happening in reality if we want to have a chance at deciphering it. I am likely just Mother Nature. Lol, I would appreciate it if you brought objectivity to the table as opposed to your own biases. People don’t realise, that if they worked out how good looking they were and could come to grips with it, there dating prospects would increase significantly if they decided to focus on those with a similar or lower level of attractiveness. Going beyond what you are too much in these areas will only lead to suffering, by working out how compatible we are with various aspects of reality we can establish a bridge of communication, from dating to skill acquisition (people mentally handicapped should stay away from trying to become a chess champion or a medical doctor, ugly people should avoid trying to become models, people with poor dexterity should avoid trying to become surgeons because that’s when plastic surgery goes bad). This isn’t a “who do you think you re bro from saying such a thing!”, I’m simply stating things as they seem to best be, if you have a better hypothesis, experiment and corresponding findings then state it. The more in alignment with reality we can be the happier we will be. In the future plastic surgery and generalised augmentation (I.e. including brain implants from improving intelligence to improving empathy) will become the norm because our skills there will continually improve, it’s just a matter of coming to terms with it, though there will always be demographics that can’t handle the truth.

@DrewNows If you want to rationalise it away, be my guest. I don't care.

Whatever works for you @DrewNows , experiments are experiments, results are results. The latter speaks for itself, I have no desire to prove anything only searching for what's real there. Regardless, if you're the ugliest guy in the world it wouldn't matter how good you were at applying robert's knowledge there's absolutely no way you're gettin a woman who's a 10 (in attractiveness - based on the science of what we've discovered so far about the subject of attractiveness)! Its nothing personal though, its just the math of mother nature.

Hitler was ahead of his time in this regard and overall was on the right track there, just completely went about it the wrong way including the final summary of what otherwise was a good deduction, that is, that genetics matter. People bring up the Hitler thing and try to refute these kinds of arguments with the fact "oh it must be wrong and bad because Hitler caused a lot of harm and evil" no that doesn't take away from the argument one single bit. If person x solved cancer but they killed millions of people, the fact that they killed millions of people doesn't take away from the cure they've created.

@Yog yeah pretty amazing transformations, genetic engineering will inevitably become an unstoppable force regardless as to how much some demographics cry. Id hospital. This woman's entire world would have changed now, even more so if she works on other areas of personal development of course.

@DrewNows There's still misunderstanding on your part, this has nothing to do with me. All I am simply doing is running an experiment and trying to understand the results of that experiment. As I've mentioned to Emerald, if you have your own experiments to share please do. Can you provide me an example of where someone extremely good looking has been with someone extremely ugly? Just one single example? Just one, not two, not even 10, just one. How many examples can you find of the opposite? @Emerald Yes I agree that this happens and is possible. I'm strictly speaking from the position of understanding the abstract underlying patterns from the experimental results, so I'm deliberately looking crudely at the results of attractiveness as opposed to looking at how a person altogether would be marked combined with other characteristics, so there's some confusion on your part here by assuming that I was saying that attractiveness was all that mattered or anything to that end. The ranking system I noted before speaks of a general pattern that can be extrapolated to a holistic ranking number that someone would have and thus would be their perceived rank (judged by their partner) divided by their real rank (if you were less attractive you'd hope your partner rated you higher, if you were more attractive you'd hope that you got what you deserved or higher). Attractiveness among many other characteristics from personality to preferences to ego development would be other things which would be subconsciously weighed in the relationship. Intelligence is just as superficial as attractiveness. You will likely never find an incredibly intelligent person with an incredibly dumb person (although you will find large discrepancies, I'm just talking about extreme ends). The same with ego development, you will generally never find someone who is extremely developed here with someone who is extremely poorly developed. The same with all other valued characteristics. This is math at work. "So, I'm not saying that pretty privilege doesn't exist. It's just that you're implying that looks is the only factor" So obviously this is flat out false, quote me if I'm wrong otherwise avoid assuming that this is the case.

@Emerald There's still misunderstanding. Please avoid saying you understand when you don't, its kind of rude: I'm talking specifically on the subject of attractiveness, I never even brought up cultural issues. - someone who is better looking compared to someone who is the same on every other indicator objectively has a better chance I'm also interested in discovering what underlying patterns exist in the context of this overarching pattern as implicated by my comment pertaining to rank To have a proper discussion on this we have to put aside our beliefs about the world and objectively look at what is actually there and the likelihood of particular probabilities, this has nothing to do with being a "reflection of me". I'm doing experiments, the opposite of just focusing on me. If you have experiments to share, please share them and we can compare results then advance our findings from there but in the meantime, if you're unable to facilitate objective discussion I think it would be respectful to move on, thank you.

Please read my comments before trying to explain what my perspective must be, thanks. I’ve clearly stated it, you just might need to introspect on the comments more. Which woman would you choose? Perhaps once you’ve introspected enough over this question you’ll understand the underlying masculine/feminine (weakness vs strength and to that end followed by symmetry) dynamic for why you’re straight (if you are) in the first place. You need to think properly about this stuff, beauty isn’t relative. Partly yes, but there’s a reason why I’m not attracted to cows or frogs. Youll judge me because it feels good to judge, but it only hurts your capacity to see reality. I actually perform experiments, you’re just speaking from whatever is in your head. @Ibn Abbas many woman’s prospects are affected by their looks, from dating to employment to medical tests.

I'll see what happens when I compare an ugly guy who's job title is "medical doctor" (or maybe business investor) and he's got his own private jet and mansion with these two other guys who I didn't even give job titles/related to. With Tinder I think the materialistic things matter less, on a mail order bride site though I'm sure the rich MD would stand more of a chance, but who knows maybe I'm wrong because again, experiments over assumptions.

For the record I created two profiles of two male model like guys (not officially models): 1. super buff (pretty much looks like a bear without the fur plus more toned) 2. lean and creative (has guitar, film camera) Super buff guy is killing it at the moment, women are going completely nuts. Just goes to show. Profile (super buff) hasn't even been up for more than 10 minutes and it has 21 likes. Once again, experiments reveal truth not what goes on in our heads. We have to observe what reality is, come to terms with and accept what we're seeing then adapt from there as opposed to going on with some nonsense in our brains about what the opposite sex does and doesn't like - no, experiments reveal that, not thoughts. I'll create a profile with a relatively average guy, then get uglier from there. It only takes a few moments as well so its not like it takes much out of you, and you get reality checks in the process (the sole purpose of the activity, that is, to learn about what reality is not what we think reality is).

It seems that there's probably a misunderstanding regarding the underlying nature of nature itself, hidden within Tinder's patterns is an underlying feature within reality that you'd be smart to become familiar with. There is an ordering system embedded within nature, Tinder although a simple app is a reflection of this ordering feature in the context of attraction. We are nature, so this ordering feature is embedded within us. Our selections on apps like this reflect genetic pairing at work, my hypothesis, although experience limited, what my research is finding to date is that people tend to get matched with those that fall on a similar level of attractiveness. Meaning an extremely attractive person will never, literally never get paired with a very unattractive person. This isn't superficial that's just media expressing itself through your biases, its just the nature of things and its something you have to come to terms with. This ordering feature occurs in comparisons of intelligence, competence in various skills, trustworthiness, abilities and all other types of things. In a sense, they're all competencies, we are mother nature and in its creation of life its created everything that inordinately develops into a ranking system and you get ranked based on your compatibility with reality, socially this is especially the case (Mother Nature creates the genes in you and then the fellow human offspring of mother nature’s creations are programmed to rank you based on the ordering system that Mother Nature wrote into their brains), externally this ranking is a byproduct of how you naturally stack up independent of social inquiry against the forces of life; if a rock falls on you and you die there is an inherent abstract ranking going on there, the same if you go out to the sea and survive a great white shark attack, the conditions upon which you survived describe from a snapshot perspective your ranking. Thus your ranking is a matter of comparative quality, how you compare with the rest of reality defines your level of quality as a being. There's no need to develop an ego about ones qualities however, because at the end of the day we're all nature just expressing itself. @Emerald you haven't understood the depths of my post but I hope others have taken something away from what you've stated. There's a nuanced nature going on here that I don't think your comments have captured. With respect to women, it would be to their benefit if they were all extremely good looking that's all I'm saying, I'm not going off on a rant or entertaining discussion regarding the potential downfalls of plastic surgery. They should be obvious. If anything I encourage others to experiment more with their perceptions of things, life is not what you've been made to believe it is. Experiments reveal truth not just whatever gets produced by our consciousness at the time. I get it, there's sad truths to deal with when coming to terms with the implications of these things, but those sad terms once you've learned to handle them, if that is what you need to do perhaps you don't, you'll realise that its not a big deal and that you're happier that you understand how things are more likely to be beyond your own biases about relationships. We've gotta encourage ourselves to look at things how they are, how they've shown to be overtime and how they could be (via experimentation). And @Leo Gura, no. Its about experimentation, you're projecting that about me. My goal is understanding, I can't do that by just sitting on a couch thinking about it, I have to test what is actually there not what I think is there.

Just opening up discussion based on Leo's latest video on self bias, to me it would be great to hear of other peoples ideas. I've come up with a few but would be interested to hear other peoples, I recommend composing a list. For example: 1. No more subjectivity (at least from one perspective): I work to see myself from the perspective of just viewing myself as another person as opposed to my own self bias and then making evaluations and decisions from there based on what I know about this person (myself). - How I handle any potential feelings of dissonance is just a simple raising of awareness - This means there's no room for me anymore to rationalise positions, I do what I see I have to more than I do what I'm feeling in the moment * its a new habit I'll exercise more overtime 2. Nothing about myself is off limits in terms of being questioned - if I have no subjectivity, then I cannot allow any aspect of own actions and results to go unscritinised in terms of how they can say be better The pattern I notice with respect to subjectivity is that it does an awfully good job at trying to hide evaluation of its various standards and processes, striving for the highest objectivity (something I'll get better at overtime) forces me to evaluate the positive just as well as I do the negative. In the positive, subjectivity will work to give greater praise than what is there, in the negative, subjectivity will work to be more negative than necessary, avoid the negative or have that be a reason for why x is not valuable. What are your ideas? I've just started composing my list and hope to improve it overtime. Do you think some of my ideas need work? Do you have any suggestions if that's the case? Thank you.