aurum

Trump and Musk will die before that happens. 99.9% of people do not awaken, no matter how much material success they have.

That's certainly one interpretation. I say nothing is being over-intellectualized. I have no interest in holding myself to the intellectual standard of the average person or what they find acceptable.

The people in Vegas selling mushrooms are probably going to get shut down. We had people try that where I lived. They survived I think a few months before the Feds raided their place.

Perhaps, but then that would still only be relatively true for you. There is no getting around the fact that survival requires a self and a specific agenda, which makes it inherently subjective. Even if you can find some general trends that seem objective, we could break them.

Yes, survival is inherently amorphous and relative. That just comes with the territory. It doesn't invalidate it as a concept. That's fine, just acknowledge that the point I made was still correct. That's all I'm asking for. That's exactly right. You cannot value a need that is already met. The engine of survival is unlimited, unmet needs. You can never do enough survival. Survival is like a black hole you pour into that is never satisfied. Survival is about form maintaining itself, whatever that form is. I'm not saying you can't value your wife or your car. Just recognize that it's survival and subjective / relative, not because of some innate value. Market value is a subset of survival value. Yes, you can have value that transcends formal market dynamics. But market value can be a good way to quantify survival value.

I've already answered it in this thread. I argue masculinity is typically superior for creating survival value in the workplace. That's literally its function, to secure survival for the feminine. Enlightenment is not about survival. We are talking about survival. Yes, awakening is beyond survival. But almost no one cares about that. And even if you do, most of your time will still be spent doing survival. No they literally do not. To have a function first requires an agenda, which in turn requires a self. If they are simply good in of themselves, that is equivalent to saying that it provides no value to you.

There is only subjective survival value. Survival is completely amorphous because ego is inherently amorphous. That would be wrong. You only think that because you are imagining what would happen if you suddenly didn't have water. If you drank enough water, it would literally kill you. That's the relatively of survival.

We are not debating men versus women per se. We are debating the relative pros and cons of energetic polarities, which can be inhabited by any gender. And of course all people will have some of both.

What is the point of such a question?

Survival value = whatever helps you survive. Simple.

But that's just literally how survival value works. Value is ALWAYS about a need. And a need is always something unfulfilled, something you don't currently have. If I asked you to pay $100 for your heart to pump blood, you would not pay it because your heart is already pumping blood. It doesn't matter that if your heart stopped pumping you would die. It doesn't matter that you might be willing to pay millions if you had a heart condition. It doesn't matter that it's invisible to you and that you take it for granted. Right now, it's pumping. And so it's not a need for you. Therefore you won't even pay $100. If I invent a cure for cancer that no one else has access to, I will potentially make millions of dollars. But if in 50 years everyone has access to the same cure, it will be financially worth almost nothing. Money / value is based on scarcity, period. You could argue garbage workers should be paid more due to corporate corruption, but the reality is there is very little that is scarce about their ability to take out the garbage. Almost any man with basic physical skills and health could do it. So of course they get paid very little. Making money is COMPETITIVE. You are competing to add the most asymetric value to the marketplace to then get the most in return. Garbage workers are losing the competition.

Yeah I could see it being useful for poker. If you do, defintiely report back your results. We need to crowdsource more data.

Yeah it's probably cognitive overload. Your brain is dumping what it feels it can't handle. Quad N-Back for someone with ADHD definitely sounds like a bad idea. Dual-N-Back is going to be far superior I think for most people's goals in general. Most people doing intellectual work don't need that level of cognitive flexibility.

@Jacob Morres The left is partially responsible, but it's also exaggerated at times. You can't blame leftists for every stupid thing conservatives believe. This would be leftists over-functioning. That being said, leftists are blind to the errors in their own worldview. And it does create unnecessary backlash at times.

I've not been consistent enough with it to say anything too conclusive. Here's a couple things I've learned though: 1) I think the InfiniteIQ on YouTube is wrong about Quad-N-Back. Quad-N-Back is NOT just a "harder" version of Dual-N-Back that forces your brain to work overtime. Quad-N-Back is fundamentally a different skill, requiring you to split your focus and training your ability to handle multiple cognitive streams at once. Dual-N-Back is forcing you hold a single cognitive stream for a longer period of time, improving long-term focus. Which one you want to do depends on your goals. Do you want cognitive flexibility? Train Quad-N-Back. Do you want to be able to do deeper, slower contemplative work? Train Dual-N-Back. 2) Audio is your bottleneck for Dual-N-Back training. Remembering where the shapes are on the board is the easy part. Much, much harder is remembering the audio sequence of letters. So you will automatically tend to lean your visual memory and just forfeiting the audio section. Don't do this. Spend time training audio only so that you keep improving in that area. Otherwise, your audio recall will lag so far behind your visual recall you won't be able to make further progress. 3) Progress is definitely possible. I've been able to consistently level up my average scores, beyond simply just getting used to playing the game itself. Which says to me training is possible. What results that exactly leads to in the real world, I don't know.

Anything feminine gets paid less because it provides less survival value in most scenarios. Do you acknowledge this?

@fabger works extremely well when done right, far better than cold approach. It has its own challenges though. You have to be more mindful of reputational damage or setting the wrong frame.

Keep in mind my point about asymmetrical value was specifically about the workplace. Femininity has unique advantages for dealing with children, which mostly still takes place at home or at school. It's not a coincidence that the division of labor has been what it has been for so long. Which is not to say women can't succeed in male-dominated fields. They obvious can and they do. But the point is they typically succeed by leaning into their masculinity, not their femininity.

Perhaps when he is older. But certainly not now. We've debated this before. Trump's victory should not be used by progressives as evidence that they must be popular. Progressives will not have the same success he had. Trump appeals to the lowest aspects of human nature and is completely willing to play into the corruption of the system. Progressives appeal to higher aspects of human nature and want to clean up corruption. The latter is much harder. That's the difference.

Brother, you're not grasping how ego psychology affects this whole issue. You mostly cannot listen to people when they tell you they want higher consciousness reform. People do not want real change. They are not even informed enough to understand what real change entails. Real change is extremely rare and is mostly forced upon people by the universe against their conscious will. What people want is the fantasy of change. That's the perfect ego self-deception. Tell yourself you are changing, when you're not.

I doubt Mamdani would get 10% of republicans as a presidential candidate. Obama only got around 9%.

It does not debunk it. He is still very far behind Sliwa. He is beating Cuomo and Adams, but that's more about how unpopular they are.

@Jannes a huge percentage of women interested in casual sex are already in a romantic relationship. Either the spark has gone out, or it was never really that strong to begin with. But they don't want to leave their relationship either, since it fulfills other needs.

Your former self trying to understand reality: