Natasha Tori Maru

What did you eat?

To clarify - I am not objecting to the quality of your reasoning. You are correct that speculation isn't inherently illegitimate. I am objecting to the fact that you apparently presented an inference about OP's internal state with more certainty than the available evidence warrants. It remains that you speculated - "educated guess". This is unnecessary and weakens your argument because it's another speculation. There is zero evidence for this. ____ Obviously you don't have to take this on board, but attributing an internal psychological state to someone and then building a question around that inference sort of shoots you in the foot if you want to engage in charitable, good faith conversation. It is a failure to relate to the person and can polarise them against you (put them in the defensive). And if they reply with some charged emotional defence at being "psychoanalysed" (or state inference), it can be very easy to use the defensive posture as more evidence for your inference (closed loop, self sealing model). It is a huge caveat to approaching interactions without asking neutral, open ended questions prior to labelling someone as emotionally compromised/jealous/envious/feeling negative or what-have-you. I just wouldn't personally prematurely convert a psychological hypothesis into the premise of your interaction for the above reasons. I make this mistake very often myself, which might be why I saw it when you posted.

Do we have one? Rolling. Post that shit. Shorts, reels, tick-tock turds. Do your worst short format. Boomer cringe. I love the spittle on the guys mouth 🤮🤢 https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS45V1Enf/

Authenticity. I find it ill-defined. The word is tossed about flippantly. EVERYWHERE. It is spoken about on these forums frequently. What is Authenticity (in the romantic sense, and interpersonally)? Do you think it is overrated/underrated? Only appropriate at certain times or phases of connection? I find it paradoxical. Authenticity requires enough self-awareness to distinguish your genuine values from the forces acting on you (incentive structures). I think it is about congruence. Congruence between what is actually going on inside you, how you live, make choices and relate to the world. So for me it's being able to accurately know what I experience, owning it completely and acting in accordance with it as the situation deeps appropriate. I feel like it needs these clauses because it gets muddled up with just "expressing" without censure. Authenticity IS NOT just expressing the contents of your mind. "I say what I feel", "I refuse to change for anyone", "I do what feels natural", "I am brutally honest" or "I don't care what anyone thinks, this is who I am" - all of these are not it in my definition. Philosophy wise I don't think to be authentic we require a true fixed self. Values change. We change. What is authentic will change. Existentially I see it creeping toward "am I taking ownership of the fact I am choosing?" My closest definition: Authenticity is the constant, background practice of shrinking the space between what I experience and what I understand myself to currently value. What I claim to be, and how I actually behave... while remaining willing to amend my understanding of me. Would love everyone's thoughts around this loaded topic as it applies to dating, courtship, romance, relationships, attraction etc.

@LordFall you are speculating. You even gave evidence for your speculation. Do you know OP was triggered? No. Hence, speculation.

This is framed upon a purely speculation based psychoanalysis with very little basis of evidence based on what OP stated.

We were asked our opinion. Did you think I was giving dating advice? This was not the intention.

This is a broader topic that can also apply to many users issues with understanding women ❤️❤️❤️

@Eskilon I think your definition can be coherent because: So, if this is how you frame authenticity - it is sound to me. Metaphysical authenticity. My approach was more broad but definitely more psychological. If you use another definition of self - ie the small self - that arises chiefly within the social domain, one's definition may differ. Suddenly you operate from a set of values and incentive structures that you use to define yourself - these pieces act to shape authenticity, which can loop directly back into integrity (I might call this relational authenticity if I want to get really nuanced). I am hedging toward authenticity being domain specific. This feels like a stronger model than authenticity being a single global trait. The dyad @aurum and I engaged in elaborated on this. I think it is a larger and more complex idea than initial inspection might reveal.

Do you repeat outfits? Exact same several days in a row? Find one or two that work and repeat? Or do you have a style that has essential basics but you rotate accessories? Or do you find something that works and purchase multiple of that item in differing colours? TELL ME! I am a chronic outfit repeater; I find a couple of items that work as a basic template and alternate one or two small elements. I am completely unbothered repeating an outfit 3 days in a row, exactly the same (provided it is clean). I don't want to think too much. Just slap something on I know works and go. I dislike shopping for clothes. I wear a lot of black. Special occasions I deviate. But day to day I don't give a shit if it's the same all week INTJ if that factors in

@BlessedLion interesting points regarding sexual signalling and dress. When I'm looking for a long-term partner, I want to maximise the quality of information I get about a man's interest, not just maximise the amount of male attention I receive. And while dressing in a standard provocative manner risks attracting a man who might overly value me for my appearance, it isn't a guarantee he doesn't also value other aspects. This is where courtship becomes a second phase of filtering for me. I think presentation can be used as an initial screening strategy without treating it as a definitive character test. This is also why I am not totally averse to being cold approached. The interaction after is just another level of filter.

@Monster Energy cest la vie

I mean, applies to me as well ☺️ That's on you. You either choose to accept or not.

It's not about me, though. I am sorry if what I said caused offense. But you need to do better.

Dude. Stop making nasty character judgements.

@Monster Energy you sound paradigm locked. Enjoy

Hard agree. I would argue it's almost necessary prior to discovering the environmentally safe stuff. Usually the healthy fuel discovery is a serendipitous thing while engaging in toxic fuel consumption - tangential discussion though 🤐

@Joshe you sound like you aren't afflicted with the "should" syndrome in general, though. Most people love that toxic fuel ⛽

This is changing the category of the claim. Not what I was saying.

I think @Xonas Pitfall nailed it. Did you truly not know what a falsifiable model was? Or did you want someone's personal definition?

@Xonas Pitfall it is a self-sealing, unfalsifiable model. Whenever something feels off in the logic, the conclusion is usually embedded in the premise, or there is no way to falsify. Those types of arguements usually sound coherent on the surface.

If the typical laypersons definition/conception of authenticity is interpreted through some epistemic framework, is there actually a framework-independent authenticity (am I always smuggling in assumptions)? Is authenticity always a subjective concept between a person and whatever idea they have of themselves, or take themselves to be?

Absolutely. The term can be Frankenstein'd into whatever we may want to serve a frame. And it often is! Authenticity is framework-neutral at the abstract level (or I want my definition to be closest to it), but any ideology can sort of... Pollute or (maybe colonize it) in a way that serves its own assumptions. But authenticity has a legitimate distinct concept within each framework. I think it starts to reveal a philosophical issue; the disagreement is about what counts as the deeper self. I was thinking through how ideologies grab onto the concept. Red Pill could be "stop suppressing your biological/sexual nature to satisfy social expectations". Feminism could be "Stop suppressing yourself to satisfy patriarchal gender expectations". Individualism "Live according to your own chosen values rather than collective expectations". And even Spirituality "Stop identifying with constructed ego/personality and discover what you fundamentally are". I could go on... I could go into gender roles with it. I think in any case I will never be able to hear the word "authenticity" being used without asking "Authentic to what? And according to who's epistemology? "

@Rishabh R yes 🙏🏻 I think authenticity is a function of maturity and knowing thyself (but not limited to these things!). We can persue sex thinking it is our top value - and claim it is authentic. But when deconstructed we might realise we didn't want sex after all. It was a deception. And we acted out of authenticity as a result, unknowingly and unconsciously. This is where feeling and emotional intelligence come in. Sometimes we can intellectuallize a value, but the feeling tells us something isn't right.

I can see why you put so much emphasis on that topic. I see "authenticity", just be "authentic" etc thrown around commonly in dating and romance advice. But I feel like very little care has gone into explaining what is meant. And from my dialogues with others on this topic, overlap in definitions presents as a rarity. I didn't even really think about how the concept could be filtered through gender roles - which people would commonly load up the term with.