something_else

That seems a tad extreme, but you can just leave if this forum doesn’t resonate with you There are parts of it I don’t like too, but expecting perfection from an online forum is kind of unfair in my opinion. Same goes for expecting perfection from a teacher Wanting someone to be cancelled is just a desire for revenge and to cause pain and harm to another, which seems a bit much of a punishment for subtle misogyny

The majority of people the world, at least in the western world, have plenty of one night stands. The average body count of a male/female in the western world is 10, to give some perspective. There are plenty of women who enjoy casual sex, it’s just less socially acceptable for them to agree when directly asked because society (and you, apparently) judge them for it.

I agree.

There is likely subtle misogyny that goes unnoticed by men and me here. However that’s very hard to moderate or enforce I would imagine. Just saying “I always feel so unwelcome here because of all the subtle misogyny” is a valid complaint and expression of how you feel, but it’s not really easy to take any action on. If for no other reason than us guys don’t notice the things that make you upset as much because they don’t affect us. You need to point them out directly instead of saying that the entire section makes you feel unwelcome. What suggestions do you have to improve the dating section to make it more welcoming? Beyond getting Leo to actually stop with his stupidly unnecessary insulting language that he sometimes spurts out. It annoys me too because it’s the main thing I consistently see there that’s just totally unnecessary. Beyond that I rarely see anyone explicitly disrespect women or say anything that is plainly misogynistic. And a lot of it is just hopelessly misguided men who have not been properly socialised, so when you hear that subtle misogyny from them it is coming from a place of frustration and being essentially unloved by the world. Banning such guys is actually kind of detrimental because they’ll end up following people like Tate which are 100x more explicitly misogynistic

Says who? Plenty of men and women just want sex and who are you to shame them for that? Some people are more sexually driven than others and I can sense the judgement from you towards such people. I don’t think that is fair. A pretty good approach to life for lots of men and women is to explore around sexually and romantically when you are younger to learn what you like and what kind of person you would actually want to spend the rest of your life with, then settle down as you get a good sense of it

Most of the attraction advice here is literally just: ”go out, be sociable, and talk to lots of women” I don’t really see what’s so misogynistic about it. I definitely agree Leo has a really bad reputation for spitting out some nasty one liners like “club sluts” and “monsters from the black lagoon” which are needlessly insulting. But the core advice excluding that horseshit is not really anything that misogynistic It’s mostly just trying to get man-cave dwelling computer nerds to go outside for once Another problem is that it’s really hard to give dating advice that appeals to either men or women without offending the other. It’s because their dating agendas are so different. If we go and look at really female centric dating forums or subreddits as guys it also makes us feel like utter dogshit in the way they talk about and compare us. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but it is something that’s very tough to avoid when giving gendered dating advice. And the forum is mostly male so the dating advice is always gonna be biased.

Standing up for your beliefs or sharing your experience is not necessarily drama. I don’t happen to agree with @no_name but dismissing her experience as creating drama isn’t so fair either

I don't think most suffering is the kind that produces deep trauma. Generally anything valuable that isn't immediate gratification requires some amount of suffering or sacrifice in order to obtain, for example. And most of that isn't traumatic.

It does, to a point. Suffering that induces deep trauma is probably not going to build character. Unless overcoming that trauma is something you put a lot of effort into. But the kind of suffering that is not going to give you any trauma is very good for personal growth and character building.

The thing is that unless you have the social parts of your life down, the higher consciousness parts are a lot harder to focus on. Well, for a lot of people anyway. Look at the hierarchy of needs. Sex and social security comes before actualisation. If you can’t focus on work because you want to explore sex, that’s not a bad thing. It’s your body telling you its priorities and you should listen.

Did you already cheat? Lol

Ask your roommate to take you out to meet girls, he’d probably make a good wingman lol Turn the jealousy into a strategic advantage

Realistically facing your fears is the only way to fix this. Yea, maybe if you improve your diet and work out it will help a little, but ultimately social anxiety comes from deep rooted trauma/fear. And the only way to overcome it is to face it and realise that people aren't something you need to be scared of.

It probably had content from this forum included in its training dataset. And possibly even YT transcripts. The dataset was largely scraped from billions of websites on the internet if I remember correctly lol

Yea it’s not perfect, but it is impressive. I thought I’d continue that chat with your response to see what I thinks of it It feels like it gets very close to agreeing but can’t quite make the final leap. I guess it’s a good thing. It tries to cover every perspective without agreeing too strongly with one or the other. ———- I would say that incompleteness does imply that reality is mysterious. Incompleteness is the very reason for mystery. If reality was complete it would could be fully explicated and therefore lack any mystery. Incompleteness = infinity = mystery It is a perspective that incompleteness implies that reality is mysterious. From this perspective, the incompleteness of any formal system, including those used in science and philosophy, highlights the fact that there may be truths about reality that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks. The limitations of our understanding, the incompleteness of the formal systems, might imply that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension and that's why it is mysterious. It's also true that incompleteness is closely related to infinity, and infinity is often associated with mystery and the unknown. From this perspective, the incompleteness of a formal system implies that there is an infinite number of truths and possibilities that cannot be fully comprehended or explained within the current framework. It's important to note that this perspective doesn't imply that reality is unknowable or that we should give up trying to understand it, but rather that it highlights the limitations of our current understanding and the potential for further discovery. It also doesn't imply that reality is inherently mysterious, but that our understanding of it might be incomplete, and that there might be aspects of reality that are beyond our current comprehension

It actually has a pretty good understanding of this. I had a chat with it the other day that was very very impressive, but it’s quite long. I think it would interest you though, it's related to content from a lot of your videos. It is biased towards science, but it can discuss other perspectives with some prodding. I'm particularly impressed with how it related Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem to the discussion. It is a long chat but here it is anyway: -------------- What does the term 'God Realization' mean to you? "God realization" is a term that can have different meanings depending on the context and belief system it is used in. In general, it refers to the attainment of a state of understanding or awareness of God, or a higher spiritual power. In some belief systems, it is seen as the ultimate spiritual goal, and is often associated with enlightenment, self-realization, and union with the divine. Some people believe that God realization can be achieved through meditation, prayer, or other spiritual practices, while others may believe that it is an innate state of being that can be uncovered through self-discovery and personal growth. Some also believe that it is a state of consciousness that can be achieved through spiritual practices and that it allows one to experience the ultimate reality or the true nature of existence. It's important to note that the concept and meaning of God can vary greatly among different cultures, religions, and belief systems, therefore, the concept of God realization also can vary. What would a hardcore materialist think of that? A hardcore materialist would likely reject the idea of God realization, as they believe that the material world is all that exists and that there is no spiritual or supernatural realm. Materialists believe that the universe and everything in it can be explained by natural laws and physical processes, and that consciousness and mind are the result of physical brain activity. They would likely see the concept of God realization as a religious or spiritual belief that has no basis in reality. They would argue that the idea of God is a human invention and that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a higher spiritual power or ultimate reality. They would also say that the idea of God realization is unscientific and unprovable, and that it is not a concept that can be studied or understood through scientific methods. They would instead propose that the concept of God realization is an illusion, and that the ultimate goal of humans should be to understand the natural world and the laws that govern it. That's fair. What I don't understand is how something like consciousness could arise from atoms bouncing about. It seems impossible that something as unique and immaterial as consciousness could arise through the material world. The relationship between consciousness and the material world is a topic of ongoing debate in philosophy and science. Some scientists and philosophers argue that consciousness can be explained by physical processes in the brain, while others argue that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe that cannot be reduced to physical processes. Materialists, often called physicalists, propose that consciousness is a product of the brain's activity and can be explained by physical processes. They argue that the brain is a complex biological system that can generate experiences and thoughts, and that the mind is simply an emergent property of the brain. They also propose that the mind and brain are one and the same and that consciousness arises from the activity of neurons in the brain. On the other hand, there are theories that propose that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and cannot be reduced to physical processes. They propose that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and that it cannot be reduced to physical processes, that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality and that it cannot be explained by the material world alone. It's important to note that the question of how consciousness arises from the material world is still a topic of ongoing research and debate, and there is currently no consensus among scientists and philosophers. It's also important to note that many theories propose that consciousness is not just a byproduct of the brain, but it's an emergent property of the universe, that emerges from the complexity of the system, and the complexity of the brain is certainly a big part of it, but the question of how that complexity generates consciousness is still not fully understood. What would you say about the idea that consciousness is all that exists, and it is infinite in nature. As it is infinite in nature, it would contain all material reality including ourselves and our experiences. The idea that consciousness is all that exists, and it is infinite in nature, is a perspective known as idealism. Idealism is a philosophical perspective that suggests that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature, and that the material world is an illusion or a projection of consciousness. According to this perspective, consciousness is infinite in nature and contains all material reality, including ourselves and our experiences. This view holds that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe and that everything in the material world, including our bodies and physical objects, are simply manifestations or expressions of consciousness. This theory suggests that the material world is not independent of consciousness, but rather a product of it, and that everything that exists, exists only in the mind. It's important to note that idealism is a minority viewpoint in contemporary philosophy, and is not widely accepted by scientists and mainstream philosophers. The idea that consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe, and that everything in the material world is simply a projection of consciousness is not a scientifically testable theory and it is not widely accepted by scientists and mainstream philosophers. It's also important to note that idealism, as any other theory, has its own set of criticisms and counter-arguments, and it's important to consider them before accepting any perspective. I would argue that philosophers and scientists may be biased by the material world and logic. Scientists and philosophers rely only on logical arguments, however the nature of reality may be beyond logic and require a more holistic or spiritual approach to understand fully It's true that scientists and philosophers rely on logical arguments and empirical evidence to understand the nature of reality. However, it's also true that some philosophers and scientists have proposed that the material world and logic alone may not be able to fully explain the nature of reality. They suggest that there may be other ways of understanding reality, such as through spiritual or holistic approaches. There are philosophers and scientists who propose that the limitations of logic and the material world should be acknowledged and that other ways of understanding reality should be considered. They propose that the universe might be more complex and mysterious than can be explained by our current scientific and philosophical understanding and that there are limits to what can be known through logic and empirical evidence alone. It's important to note that while some scientists and philosophers may be open to considering other ways of understanding reality, they still rely on rigorous testing and evidence to support their claims. They may be open to different perspectives, but still maintain that the ultimate goal is to understand the nature of reality as accurately and objectively as possible. It's also important to note that, as with any claim, it's important to consider the evidence and arguments supporting it, and to critically evaluate the assumptions and limitations of any perspective. What if the only evidence can be obtained through one's own direct experience? It is true that some philosophical and spiritual traditions propose that direct personal experience is the ultimate source of knowledge and understanding. They argue that knowledge obtained through logical argument, observation or scientific study is limited, and that direct personal experience is necessary to truly understand the nature of reality. This perspective is often associated with the field of phenomenology, which emphasizes the importance of direct personal experience in understanding the nature of reality and consciousness. However, it's important to note that direct personal experience can also be subject to bias and interpretation, and it can be difficult to verify or replicate. Personal experiences are also unique and individual, and not all personal experiences can be generalized to others. Additionally, scientific and philosophical inquiry rely on methods of observation, testing, and replication to establish evidence and knowledge. While direct personal experience can provide insight and understanding, it alone may not be sufficient to establish objective, verifiable knowledge. Therefore, it is important to consider both personal experience and logical argument, observation, and scientific study, to have a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of reality. Different perspectives and methods can offer different insights and understanding, and it is important to consider them all when trying to understand the nature of reality. What are the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem on this topic of discussion? Gödel's incompleteness theorem, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, states that any formal system that is powerful enough to express the basic concepts of number theory, such as addition and multiplication, cannot be both consistent and complete. In other words, any such formal system will contain statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system. The incompleteness theorem has implications for many areas of study, including mathematics, logic, and computer science. In the context of our discussion about the nature of reality and the limitations of logical argument and empirical evidence, it highlights the fact that any formal system, including formal systems used in science and philosophy, has limitations and cannot encompass all knowledge and understanding. It suggests that there may be truths about reality that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks of science and philosophy, and that there may be limitations to what can be known through logical argument and empirical evidence alone. The theorem does not disprove the materialism or idealism but it shows that there might be limits to the ability of our formal systems to encompass all the truth and knowledge about the reality. It's important to note that Gödel's incompleteness theorem doesn't imply that the reality is inherently mysterious or that there's no way of understanding it, but it points out that any system of understanding has limitations and that there might be truths that are not provable or describable within the current frameworks.

There are bots if you live in the worlds biggest cities but I’ve never had an issue with it. I doubt dates are being faked. And I’ve seen lots of places online hint at lots of female profiles on Tinder being completely fake and just added by Tinder so men have something to swipe on and feel sad when they don’t get matched, but I’m almost certain that isn’t true and is just cope. You can tell when profiles are real, especially since it’s a local thing. I know that tinder isn’t generating fake profiles with shitty in-jokes relating to the Scottish city I live in but most bios here have stuff like that Same goes for matches when paying for premium, they’re almost all real girls The manipulation is more in the form of manipulating your exposure level to girls and how it drip feeds you matches based on your activity and how likely it thinks you are to give them money

So, in theory it can change things. If you pay for Platinum your swipes are much higher priority and so you will be seen by something like 10x more people. It doesn’t save you if you don’t have the looks for online or if your profile is terrible, and if you already have an exceptional profile and looks you’ll still do really well without it. But there’s a subsection of guys in the middle who have a good enough profile to get swiped right on, but not so good that the tinder algorithm shows them to tons of women for free. These guys are who benefit from paid exposure In a sense it can be worth it. As a guy you are pretty much always going to need to spend money to meet women. So it’s not directly a scam but there are likely very very shady tactics going on behind the scenes to extract as much money as possible from needy guys. They are there to make money, not find you a partner. And like you say, it’s an algorithm. You don’t want to leave your dating life up to an algorithm that is not prioritising your success at all. In terms of judging people for using dating apps, you really shouldn’t. Plenty of people do have happy and loving relationships from online. At least in western countries, almost every man under 40 who’s single has tried tinder and a decent chunk of women in that age range too.

This is not a good thing. I don't want my dating life determined by a mysterious algorithm that is there to make Tinder money, not to find me dates.

Maybe that's what I was doing wrong Everyone I show my profile to tells me my profile should be getting me lots of matches, even when I posted it on r/Tinder, but when I stopped using Tinder I was down to like a match every 3 days. I used to get like 4-5 a day maybe. I'm guessing that as more dudes are buying platinum it basically filters out the guys who aren't paying. Or maybe that's cope But tinder want £40 a month for me to get platinum, so they can shove that right up their ass. I did buy it once for a month when it was £20 and it boosted my matches a lot. But honestly it's shit like this that makes me not really bother using it much at all out of principle. And even still, the girls I've met off Tinder in the past have rarely been high quality. Pretty much the only decent ones (both personality and physically) were tall, because I'm tall, so I have an advantage with those girls I suppose.

Firstly I heavily agree with everything you said here. Especially the part about trying to mechanise the process. Like the actual mechanics of getting better with girls are so simple. Find places with lots of girls, keep talking to them consistently, push your comfort zone and try new stuff, try and make some good friends along the way. Understanding this comes from experience and not from frameworks or mechanical knowledge. But the only point I would make is that you are coming from a place of actually having basic functional social skills as a starting point which is absolutely not a given for many guys nowadays. Like, it’s hard to appreciate how seriously socially FUCKED a lot of guys can be and the steps to get out of that situation are not always clear or simple. Abundance or even feeling comfortable and chill in your own skin in social places is at the very least 4 or 5 painful steps away. Kind of like a morbidly obese person who wants to start working out to lose weight and become skinny. They’re so deeply fucked in terms of weight that the starting point + steps to fix the problem aren’t even that clear. There are a multitude of things going wrong that need fixing to make progress. That’s similar to where a lot of guys are in relation to social skills + girls I think most guys would benefit a lot from going out and partying and just trying to have fun on nights out rather than going out specifically to meet girls. Maybe once you have those basic partying and social skills down you can focus more intensely on talking to girls. But since I started actually going out (and my social skills were seriously seriously bad when I did start) I’ve always gone out with the intention of just having a blast and pushing my comfort zone and I’ve done pretty well with girls in that time

My experience with Tinder is that I've met like maybe 2 girls I'd consider high quality and compatible in 2.5 years. I've probably met maybe 25-30 girls total in that time? Hinge is way better, and in London Bumble was exceptionally good. I was getting like 20 matches a day on Bumble in London, but my matches dropped literally to zero on Tinder while I was there. I can't think of a reasonable explanation for that. And then in my home city Bumble is unusuable. It's very weird. If nothing else, this makes me dislike dating apps the most, they are really inconsistent and you're at the mercy of an algorithm that no one really understands. And it's almost certainly trying to extract money out of you rather than find you good dates. For example there is anecdotal evidence that once you pay for tinder and then stop paying, your exposure is artificially limited because the algorithm knows if you don't get lots of matches anymore, you're likely to pay again. It would not surprise me at all if Tinder pulls shit like that. Girls are also far more picky on Tinder. I've met 3 girls now on nights out who fully admit that they are like 10x more picky on dating apps than in real life. It also doesn't really grow you as a person that much to use dating apps. You can have them as something that runs in the background but I wouldn't use them as your main way to meet girls.

You get numbed to it after a while and stop caring about flaking. It's just something you gotta deal with. The less you give a fuck the less flaking happens anyway

Everyone is selfish to a degree. Western men are also selfish in that they chase women with little care for them as actual human beings with feelings and emotions. Honestly it's not even worth thinking about this kind of thing, just continue developing yourself into an attractive dude

The first two or three times I went out to clubs I felt very out of place. And one time I got kicked out by security after a girl reported me. I actually wrote about it here but it was like 1.5 years ago now. But since then I kept going out and now I haven't ever had any issues ever again. I've had issues getting into clubs with bouncers but that's about it. And also pretty normal. It takes some time to learn to calibrate yourself, but trust me you should keep doing it. Just start with more tame and friendly approaches until you get comfortable enough to flirt more directly. But right now you're also in a really bad state to be doing this kind of thing. You've just gone through a breakup. Give yourself some time to chill out and recover before you jump back into dating/game. When you're in a really shitty mental state the chance of you getting in trouble is much higher.