something_else

I’m surprised you weren’t kicked out Maybe from your POV you weren’t being creepy but it seems like you were interpreted that way. It’s good you can not give a fuck but you’ll prob find that consistently getting reported to bouncers becomes a problem Often one girl reporting you is enough to get you kicked out, let alone three

He might be dead

The thing that balances it out is that men have more control over their status than girls do

It’s like a barrier to entry. It’s hard to build a LTR if there isn’t attraction. It would be like building on quicksand. Of course there are other aspects to an LTR, but pure attraction is the aspect that most guys struggle with so it is what requires the most attention. You can’t get any practice at the deeper parts of an LTR if you can’t even build attraction reliably first.

I’m sorry, but you do sound quite immature here

How do you know what is or isn’t a limiting belief when it comes to matters of dating? There are a lot of assumptions about my position here. You don’t even really understand what my position is. I am not pro-redpill. I think redpill is a toxic mindset that has some minor aspects of truth to it around how women get attracted. Most of what you say about masculinity I agree with. It doesn’t contradict anything I have said. You assume because I think it is valuable to explore sexuality and relationship dynamics with a reasonable amount of girls before settling down, that I am anti-love and toxic. I am pro-experience, not pro-redpill. I think it is valuable to gain experience with a reasonable amount of different girls before you decide you know who you want to settle down with or who is most compatible with you. Some people will be more lucky in this regard, but on average most people are going to need more than one attempt at the very least because compatibility is extremely complex and most people aren’t compatible. Incel shootings happen because guys feel hopeless about their ability to attract girls. Maybe we should help them lose their virginity instead of telling everyone else to stay virgins. Raising them up, instead of bringing everyone else down to their level, is a better solution

I’m sorry, but I feel this post reads very rambely. I think you need to constrain your points a bit more if you want them to be understood. I think you make good points that are valuable for others to hear but this was originally a thread about gaslighting and you are referencing 4 or 5 other areas of life in this response that I don’t have the energy to try and understand.

You've kind of got it backwards. If you have an interesting life then you will have lots of opportunities for great photos to make up a good instagram. As a guy it's hard, near impossible, to build up a good instagram from the comfort of your living room. You need to be doing lots of cool shit and know how to take good pics

Books or meditation are not the right tools for the job here. Unfortunately you're probably going to need to leave the house for this one Try sports, hiking, or anything active and outdoors that requires some navigation.

Yes, but it's a tad annoying when you try to have a discussion and someone keeps moving to the absolute POV because you can literally always take the absolute POV and be correct, but it's usually not valuable to the discussion. Notice that Leo generally doesn't take an absolute POV in threads in the dating section or the politics section because it isn't called for and it's annoying when people do that. I know we are technically in the spirituality section but the topic isn't really spiritual so it still isn't called for. People have to learn to see the absolute POV of their own accord, continually switching to that POV in the middle of relatively non-spiritual discussions isn't going to help them. If anything you will drive people away because it comes across as very arrogant and uncalibrated. You're also far more likely to instil it as just a belief in someone when you berate them with absolute POV rather than helping them to obtain that experience themselves.

@Razard86 It's possible to discuss things from a relative material perspective without the need to constantly move to an absolute perspective like you always seem to want to do. We get that material reality doesn't really exist and everything is perception, but that point is really just not relevant when discussing more material concepts like basic psychology. You might be right, but it isn't really relevant to the discussion. Nahm got kicked out of here for doing essentially the same thing on every single thread.

I agree that the way we use it in the modern world is usually quite victim-y and often wrong. But psychologically the term means something real. If you are intentionally trying to overwrite someone else's experience of reality with your own ideas and manipulations then that is gaslighting. The problem is that someone can easily call a simple disagreement gaslighting because you are often trying to impose your view on someone else. And they can just decide that you're gaslighting them when they start to realise they are wrong, but don't want to admit it.

I mean, that sounds like pretty much what you said here: His argument is based on latent spaces, so meaningful mappings from high dimension to low dimension. Which is a reasonable argument. But your brain also has a latent space. It's just absurdly, unimaginably gigantically complex, and always changing, so we call it something different. AI art models already have absurdly large latent spaces, even if they're not anywhere near the complexity of something like our brains yet. His arguments kind of make sense for smaller latent spaces in like one, two or maybe even a few hundred dimensions. But once you have a latent space with billions or even trillions of dimensions, his argument loses meaning because the model is so flexible and multi-dimensional. And the complexity of AI art models is only going to get greater and greater. I know he claims that 5 billion parameters is not enough to be sufficiently flexible but if you look at a lot of AI art you can see that he is kind of just wrong on that point. Much of it is extremely unique and not just pulling from a few data points, unless you prompt it with extremely specific things. When you have something as complex as an AI art model, it is pulling from so many different sources when generating an image that it can create stuff that is for all intents and purposes new. it just doesn't have the capability to create something quite as new as a human because a human is exponentially more multi-dimensional. But the fundamental process both the AI and the human go through is getting very similar as time goes on. And my original argument was simply that humans and AI drawing on past art/experience to generate new things is quite a comparable process, yet we don't impose especially strict copyright requirements on human artist's sources of experience and inspiration when they produce new art. He also makes the point that AI art models don't change once they're trained and suggests that this is important distinction between AI and humans, which is true. But there are many AI models that continue to learn once trained, for example reinforcement learning based models. Or even just periodically training fixed models on new data. Although I'm not aware of reinforcement learning really being used for AI art yet, it likely will at some point. He makes good points about models overfitting and essentially storing near perfect representations of training data. That's absolutely an issue that developers of AI art models will need to be very careful with. But even a well trained model that isn't overfitted will be capable of spitting out nearly identical images from training data with the correct input, in quite a similar way to how a skilled artist could probably approximately paint many famous paintings from memory if asked. His second argument is kind of silly. It's very reminds me of a factory worker complaining about how automation is taking over his job. Well yea, technological innovation and automation will remove the need for certain jobs. But it will also open up many more opportunities at higher levels of creativity and abstraction too if you take advantage of it instead of sticking your heels in the mud.

Ironically this is pretty close to gaslighting

Nope, Scotland. I go down to London for work 4ish times a year. I really do like London, it's very lively. Whereabouts are you from?

If I remember correctly you can actually see books that have been removed if you use inspect element in your browser on the list. They've had their HTML commented out but it's still there.

It's really harmful as well. You're better off thinking that you're way less developed than you actually are, instead of overestimating. My default assumption is that most people are going to be some mix of blue, orange and green here, with some people having sprinklings of yellow thrown in there. Most people on here are probably sitting with a centre of gravity around the midpoint between green/orange. In order for your centre of gravity to be yellow or tier 2, you basically need to have spent years mastering each previous stage of the spiral. I remember it being something like 5 years of dedication to each of the higher level tier 1 stages roughly. Just 'thinking' like a stage yellow person is not really enough. You also need to have taken the various important actions and achieved the important results of previous stages. Like the fearlessness/courage of red, discipline/order/stability of blue, material success of orange, and ethics, philosophy and empathy of green. Leo is a good example. I remember him saying he'd put his centre of gravity around yellow about a year or two ago, I think. He's exceptionally dedicated and put enormous effort into each of the tier 1 stages and has the results to show for it. So I kind of accept him self-classifying as tier 2 because he's clearly put in a lot of work. Unless you've put in that kind of effort, or you were born into a society and healthy family that has given you a massive head start on the later tier 1 stages (which is very rare) then it feels quite cheap to refer to yourself as tier 2.

Oh shame, I'm heading down to London on Thursday but I'd have met up with you if the times overlapped. I'm going out to Fabric on Friday night, should be fun.

This might be a good thing for you. Get some experience working in various places, earn some money, build up some independence. I regret not taking a gap year. Don't try to rush your life too much, you have plenty of time.

You can use this thought process to justify almost any behaviour which seems ungrounded and unhinged. Fair point. Anyway, it makes me feel weird and gossipy to judge someone else's life decisions this much whom I don't really know, so I don't really wanna continue this discussion. It seems slightly ungrounded to me, is all.

You're exceptionally narcissistic. It's not even an insult because I expect you would agree with that statement, lol.

Generally, @Loba's posts are some of the only long posts I actually dedicate time to read properly on here. They are usually pretty insightful and balanced.

That's all well and good, but he said he was looking for a camera that could capture the transformation and that none he had tried so far could capture it. Does that not cause alarm bells to start ringing in your head?

Are you a software engineer by any chance?

It's a model that's really meant for classifying entire cultures or groups rather than individuals. But people often treat it like a personality test. I'm pretty sure Leo in one of his SD videos warned about the dangers of treating SD like a personality test or metric.