Natasha Tori Maru

I think you would need telepathy for that! (in the context of knowing what you or I believe, as it applied to this dialogue) But I would add it to the brainstorm list, indeed. I can brainstorm some problematic methods of knowing... confabulating, hallucinating, overclaiming, rationalising, self-deception, projection... mind-reading. I often think about which version of 'knowing' a user might be invoking in their comments or arguments.

@AerisVahnEphelia Exactly. Are you: Inferring? Deducting? Inducting? Extrapolating? Estimating? Predicting? Maybe it is less rigorous. Guessing, speculating, assuming, presuming, intuiting, believing, expecting. Or maybe you are using a cognitive shortcut? A heuristic. Maybe pattern matching. Analogy reasoning. Or you could simply be confabulating. Regardless - you don't know. So I wouldn't make the claim, if I were you. But only because it stands on the spindly legs of a foal newly born

You think you are knowing?

@AerisVahnEphelia You don't know what I believe.

Men also carry the energy women seek

Deriving a substantial portion of your identity from anything outside yourself is a good recipe for low self esteem. And looksmaxxing can easily slide down this path. It can (and does, often) play into the powerlessness one can feel in a chaotic, uncertain, unpredictable external world (largely the state of society) - and attempts to find a mechanism of control to alleviate the anxiety (excessive preening and weird metrics for attractiveness). It can also be another form of obsessive status hierarchy one can try to master when they do not have any other value skillset. There is nuance in what users are saying here; no one is saying looks don't matter. The critique is toward looksmaxxing as a psychological framework, not the act of improving ones appearance.

I don't see a problem with it. Sometimes we need to realise we are, were, or can be, simply friends. I enjoy reconnecting with my exes to explore my own emotional responses through a previous connection. My own responses often surprise me - and are a good indicator for my own growth, and what I want going forward. The change in emotional response to a familiar situation can often be great feedback indicators for growth. Negative responses aren't bad. Bad feelings aren't bad. They pass. Fearing them or avoiding them IS bad. So even if there is some consternation, you learn something. Even if it is simply "I don't want that person in my life anymore, and I have no regrets". Most times I simply have warm feelings, well wishes, and no real incentive to maintain connection.

Yes - but my comment is more to do with the excessive and diverting emotionally charged language, intonation and tone. I find it difficult to receive the message.

@Butters The current expansion? I am pretty much retired from the game now. I get more pleasure & satisfaction from work, fitness and banal life tasks now. Funnily enough. I make it fun

@MarkKol Maybe I'm thinking of contraindications - and nothing I can quote or supply as to build a case. Just some literature I recall. I am naturally hesitant to use drugs for pleasure, or wantonly. Especially when they are not designed for what they are being used for.

I think Red Pill is negative in that it presents disempowerment through loss of agency - "It is what it is, I have no control" are some foregone conclusions many reach. If a worldview repeatedly attributes outcomes mostly to forces outside our control IE biology, female hypergamy, genetics, height, race, social media, feminism, modern culture... it can shift attention away from what you can influence. At the end of the say - what is one REALLY getting from the ideology? How useful is it to the individual? I think this is why some aspects of PUA are overall more empowering, in general (some parts are not so good though). 'Tis like NLP reframing that one HAS control to influence outcomes.

I confess I have not enjoyed, and even actively disliked, Leo's posts and video's regarding science (especially as of late). The repeated rhetoric, the absence of substantially new arguments, and the consistent way the subject punctuates his work, suggests an emotional core / motivation rather than any attempt at true education. I get the impression there is affront, slight and offence taken that science does not take Leo's work seriously, and I feel this is the true impulse behind statements like "I am not done with science". Well, science appears to be done with Leo - which may be the problem. The tone is sour. The passion reads as inciting emotional contagion in the listener, rather than appealing to logic. Just how it comes across to me. Emotions are fine. Great even. But they can corrupt logic and critical thinking if we are not truly connected to ourselves. Connected in understanding. And wisdom. Emotional connection / integration is a huge gap in the body of Leo's work - and I see this in his followers. Whether the above inference is correct or not, I find myself perceiving less a sustained, logically structured critique and more a series of emotionally charged rants . Even intonation and expression when Leo records himself on this subject act to steer me to my conclusion.

What I wrote has nothing to do with whether I understood your point or not.

Would it not make sense to address the health issue instead of take a drug? The drug has significant health risks and side effects. Cardiovascular issues are particularly nasty to combine with the drug. It is a lot of risk just to enjoy "dick all hard, yay". If you feel less of a masculine without it (less motivated, driven etc), there is some other issue needing to be addressed. I would hazard a guess and go straight to some physiological issue or emotional block. Blocking your emotions will give one ED.

Incentive systems and societal conditioning... through conformity, status, authority, and the desire to belong, are powerful forces that shape human behaviour, often overriding or redirecting our innate biological predispositions. Think of the guy who suppresses his sexual interest because acting on every attraction would damage his relationships, career, or reputation. The woman who works full-time because economic realities require two incomes, even if she would personally prefer to spend more time raising children. The man who avoids expressing vulnerability because workplace or cultural norms reward stoicism. Remaining single because modern dating markets, career priorities, or personal freedom outweigh the benefits of partnership. A woman who competes aggressively in a high-status career (promotions, income, and autonomy are valuable incentives) etc etc etc Biology provides us with predispositions that in turn give us motivations. Incentive structures are so powerful, their effect must also be accounted for - even enlightened or awakened masters are not immune (which is why we sometimes witness corruption from spiritual leaders). Red Pill definitely has some truth in it, but it is half the story, and neglects the critical thinking that would entice us to ask "What else could cause this effect?" I like to ask myself "what if...? when trying to understand information and systems - especially when it is a new idea I am presented with