aurum

But you just said nature knows how to evolve just fine. If humans are a part of evolution, how do you know that nature doesn't want us to replace nature? How do you know the next evolutionary move doesn't come through humans?

How do you know humans aren't part of evolution? You're not grasping the depth of the category problem.

Yes they must, because that's the only way you can finite things at all. If a finite thing never evolved, it would be eternal and therefore infinite. That'd still be evolution. Evolution = change.

Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. We don't know exactly how things are going to play out. Most likely somethings will be replaced and others will not. Ultimately though, everything must be replaced because everything must evolve. That's the essence of Infinity / God.

No, because you're not recognizing how arbitrary these categories you are creating are. That has to be solved first.

Who decides what is "nature" and what is "artificial"?

Both are potentially true.

Yes, you could say that.

Yup. It's a big fight.

@Wilhelm44 Try contemplating deeper. You're still making naturalistic and human-centric errors.

Well it depends who you ask. Conservatives want the US to be more homogeneously ethnocentric, usually white-Judeo Christian. They also fear that illegal immigrants might be criminals or taking up tax payer dollars. So in their ideal world, they'd deport every illegal immigrant. That's their end goal. They've been violating due process to accomplish this in some instances, like sending people to El-Salvador. They don't really care if what they are doing is "humane" for the immigrants or seemingly even follows the Constitution. They just want them out. Liberals mostly are okay with illegal immigrants staying. They think it's necessary for the economy and not-feasible / cruel to deport that many people. They also are more open to multi-culturalism, and therefore aren't threatened as much by illegals. They think their criminality is overstated. In their ideal world, they'd speed up the process for illegals that are already in the country to become citizens and work to eliminate global inequality that leads towards illegal immigration. Liberals do deport people as well, but they want it to be humane and follow due-process. So these two sides are battling it out. That's what you're seeing in LA.

No. That's just progressive stupidity.

Just study both. You are missing verticality if you just study MBTI. This is a huge gap in your predictive capabilities.

EDT is superior for individuals, especially for the work we do here:

You can integrate MBTI into your worldview if you'd like. I try not to reject any perspective. I focus on seeing limitations.

I feel the same. Use some ideas if you want, but I don't think MBTI should be taken too seriously. Anyone who uses it as their primary sense-making tool for people will become deluded.

I don't know, it still doesn't seem to match my experience. MBTI is weak. It's not built on a serious understanding of consciousness or God, so its explanations are going to be limiting.

My guess is that's only for "blackpill" guys who still have some hope left related to dating. If you have no hope, why looksmax at all?

I don't buy that. Cognition preferences must be able to change, because some cognition preferences are higher than others. Seeking more perspectives is higher than seeking less perspectives. Improvisation is higher than strict rule-based cognition. Seeing structure is higher than just seeing content. Holding paradox is higher than not being able to hold paradox. Construct-awareness is higher than lack of construct-awareness. I'm not an expert in Myers-Briggs, so maybe I'm wrong. But from what I can tell, it doesn't seriously account for that. Which means you will get stuck in a sense-making paradigm that flattens vertical development. My latest results, for what it's worth:

I dislike that there is no vertical component and consideration of cognitive development in Myers-Briggs. It's too essentialist. My results have fluctuated overtime as I've changed.

The original introduction of Vylana, for comparison:

All relationships contain power dynamics. Better to do them consciously than unconsciously.

I see your point. Very David Dedia-esque. It may run the risk of falling into what Emerald is saying, which is leaving the woman in a perpetual state of chasing / anxiety. Depends on how you go about it and what she values in a relationship. Emerald is obviously advocating for a certain kind of relationship here. Which maybe you're not interested in.

Good looks will only help so much if you're chronically online, busy with work and don't approach.

But you could fit that within her frame. In the situation you're describing, you would be doing the leading and handling most of her survival. All of that is investment. Which arguably makes her the "prize".