Natasha Tori Maru

Clav reading faces like blueprints I know people like the above Domain expertise is so weird

Okay. That's a different claim to the original one - but thanks for clarifying!

@LordFall That doesn't respond to anything I raised. You added more to support your claim without addressing the shakey claims that the original statement is based on. Divorce has existed historically for thousands of years in various forms. You can verify this. Also you are confusing correlation with causation. Even if societies historically enforced monogamy, that doesn't prove monogamy is inherently unstable.

This rests on the claim that one person should fulfill 100% of your needs - can you tell me a time in history when this was the case? I do not think this is historically the norm - and you can find evidence for this. Humans have always been more community based. This description of monogamy would apply to the more atomized version of society we have only faced in recent time. Not sure about it also resting on the claim that we would be supressing natural biological variance? Could you rap a bit more on that as the meaning isn't clear? As in novelty in sexual partners? We regulate many biological impulses (anger, aggression, selfishness), so the existence of a biological tendency alone doesn't determine what people ought to do.

@LordFall I'm not discussing the concept of hypergamy or what it is. Merely that who uses the term, how it is used, and under what context, act as my own heuristic for determining the likelyhood someone has been consuming a lot of online content from algorithms that can encourage cognitive bias.

Young men talking about it on forums aren't acedemics. Did you miss where I said context matters? These are the nuances that apply to my filter. No, thanks. I don't require advice on learning hypergamy as a concept. I am not calling hypergamy as a concept up for debate. I am critiquing who is using it, and how it is being used as indicators. You might need to re-read what I wrote because you have made some foreign meaning from my words - or I was not clear.

@LordFall it's my personal red flag along with a while bunch of other terms. You're free to disagree with it as a heuristic. I don't care where the term came from because language is descriptive, and not as often prescriptive. Context always matters - that's the other tell I use.

All good 💪 cheers for the rap

@integral how are you defining "above" ? You could be interpreting some foreign meaning from Starax's comment. I am talking about higher consciousness women or mature woman. Hypergamy word use is almost a heuristic for me to tell that one has encountered toxic red pill shit in their social media. @StaraX how are you defining "above" ?

https://youtu.be/RuinHdlpXvE?si=VrOAKccmz1ysFhM4

So you base the original claim on the fact woman want a guy who's above them and leads them? How did you come to this thought? Based on what exactly? I don't want to know how Leo thinks, what he says. I want you know how YOU got to this statement. The logical chain. Where this "women want men who are above them" is derived from. What mechanisms? Sorry but you went straight to a fallacy in logic - appeal to authority. I'm asking YOU 😁

I do shit (shit#1) - then shit (shit#2) occurs afterwards. Shit#1 and Shit#2 appear to be associated. But in reality, all I can say is one shit is happening then another. I am making a connection between the two shits - via inference - up in my head? I got to this based on determinism / free will and reviewing this thread: Confused with free will I don't think I can say anything else other than "I observe some pattern of shit, some regularities of said shit, and some sequences of shit" Correct me if I am wrong - but I am making this connection up?

Explain to us your logic here and how you came to this conclusion?

https://isaiprofitable.com/ We are the product. Our data. Our words. Our art. Stolen.

"Produces" is the inference portion to me.

@LordFall Gotcha, cheers for the elaboration

Agree. It signals to me the person is underdeveloped and immature.

@LordFall Do you really think women's standards are why communism doesn't work? How are you accounting for other factors? Wouldn't it be more true to claim "if humans had much weaker status competition, communism would have a better chance at working?" I do not understand what it has to do with women. It is a human issue.

Sorry? I don't understand this

AI cannot answer this.

I think the surface appearance of the conversation is almost a red herring - as you get down to it, it is more a comment and reflection on each persons life stages and psychology / philosophy.

Actually try to understand each other with questions instead of strawmaning (well not strawmaning as I think it is unintentional, so more misunderstanding than anything)

Did he state the bolded, or is that your assumption? I just see a lot of assumptions in how you address others points that questioning would reveal could be wrong. I think you tried to understand his perspective from your frame, but didn't openly enquire and seriously consider there may be other valid perspectives. Again, this is just how it looks to me. If you say it is not so, then for you, it is not so.

@Leo Gura That is also a solid possibility. Not enough data to avoid simple speculation - could be both explanations.

I mean, this comes off as really condescending. You genuinely come across to me as insisting on your worldview while not truly exploring the experience of others to understand them. I could be wrong. Just how it appears.