something_else

You say that like it's a good thing, but it isn't Friendship requires mutual investment, both of you need to be getting the same amount of value from the relationship or it collapses. Usually that mutual value starts out super small, just small talk and basic communication which improves each others' days. Then things escalate over time. But it sounds like you want to skip this social lubrication stage. But that creates a lot of tension and awkwardness that people don't like You're kind of like the person going about literally saying "Let's be best friends." It comes across too needy. Friendships have to develop naturally, you can't force them. You start out super chill, then maybe something deeper develops, maybe it doesn't This strikes me as quite toxic. Almost all friendships start out as friendships of convenience, then they develop from there. Yea obv if a person is taking complete advantage of you that's bad, but I severely doubt that's every single person you have had as some kind of acquaintance.

Part of me emphasises with them. A lot of the advice given to incels comes from people who are not anywhere near as physically unappealing as some incels are. If I were bottom 5% of physical appearance as a guy, I would get really fucking annoyed if people who were average looking were telling me to just get my shit together, and that it's all in my head A lot of incels are not anywhere near as bad looking as they make themselves out to be. They're just brainwashed. And for them, the typical advice still applies

Spirituality isn’t a substitute for friendship and connection with others Work on building up your social life a bit. A great first step is to fill up your weeknights with hobbies. I do chess and jiu jitsu for example Next good step is to go out partying at weekends and try to find others to go with

If I remember correctly, the slot it did best on by far was T vs F. The problem in this case was also that most of the users in the dataset were introverted intuitive because it's from an online forum, so it didn't have as many examples of extroverts to learn from. Whereas thinking vs feeling was split close to 50/50. And I'd say online the difference between thinking vs feeling is gonna be way more noticeable than introversion vs extroversion. It wasn't a perfect study by any stretch, not even close. But IMO the fact not a single statistics expert could come up with a model that did very well is still worth noting. The conclusion was basically there is only very little statistical difference between the online speech patterns of different INXX types How do you know? We taught AI to play chess and Go better than humans have learnt to play those games in thousands of years by literally just 'letting it go at it.' Took the AI 4 hours to be at a level better than any human has ever been. It doesn't need to know anything about cognitive functions, it simply needs to find patterns that all Judging users in the dataset exhibit, or all Introverted users in the dataset exhibit. Then it can identify the other Introverted users or the other Judging users who have similar patterns. This is textbook text classification problem, but it only works if there is actually a correlation between how a person writes online and their MBTI type I think bias is also an issue for you. Totally ignoring something like the Big 5 simply because you think it's too difficult/different to use is a very culty thing to do. It's extremely similar to MBTI except you have slightly different categories and it's on a percentage scale instead of there only being binary options for each slot. Personality is complex and different models are better for doing different things. If you want to make the most accurate predictions about people's actions that are rigorously verifiable by others, Big 5 is the best model we have However, it's purely statistically derived, so it lacks some of the deeper ideas and qualitative analysis that came from Jung, which cognitive functions let you make. I totally get that. They're also more fun to use and ponder. I get why you like the model. It's well designed in a lot of ways and it's 'deeper' than something like Big 5 which is harshly cold and logical MBTI also has a habit of being a bit culty, though. I was obsessed with it for years, then eventually I realised I was pulling half of the analysis I was making out of my ass, I was making very grand deductions from very little data, viewing almost everything about a person through the lense of their MBTI type and function stack. You look at posts like this on the MBTI subreddit and it's just so fucking cringe, abstract, and divorced from reality, yet I distinctly remember when I used to think and talk like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/bemvod/8th_slot_ti_vs_7th_slot_ti/ Read that, and the comments. These people are just telling each other stories over and over until they all speak the same language and then pat each other on the back and call it an accurate analysis of personality. It's so culty

Because you have no ground truth. You don’t know if you’re correct You’re self judging yourself as being good at assigning people imaginary types that don’t actually exist concretely in reality, so there’s no way for you to know if you’re right or not

Because you have no ground truth. You don’t know if you’re correct You’re self judging yourself as being good at assigning people imaginary types that don’t actually exist concretely in reality, so there’s no way for you to know if you’re right or not

Machine learning is superior or near to human performance in the field of text classification. If it were possible for humans to do it, it would be possible for machines to do much better than chance Dude, you’re fucking steeped in MBTI to the point of not even being able to acknowledge it’s limitations. Like you’re not even willing to accept the idea that it isn’t the perfect model I’m not gonna argue with someone who isn’t even willing to entertain the idea that their model isn’t perfect I’m not saying MBTI is trash, I’m just saying it isn’t perfect

Funny you say that, I published a dataset of MBTI types and a decent amount of text content written by members identifying with that type No one managed to write an algorithm that was able to get better than like 10-15% accuracy on type prediction from their written text It wasn’t a perfect dataset by any means, it was skewed towards INXX types and it was also them writing about (for the most part) MBTI topics. But it still showed that predicting type from a persons language is shaky at best, and machines are pretty fucking good at this kind of language processing task now An entire community of machine learning experts couldn’t produce a model that did much better than chance! I won a monetary prize for creating that dataset though, so it definitely wasn’t total trash either This correlates with general findings that people tend to change type when tested a lot. A person will test differently depending on a lot of randomish factors that change over time. I went through phases of thinking I was about 6 different types depending on my mood, for example Now I don’t think MBTI is useless, but I also don’t think you can deduce nearly as much as you think you can about a person from their 4 digit type

I also see people listing their star signs everywhere, should I take that seriously because it got mass adoption and is extremely easy to share and identify with? MBTI has its uses but it is also extremely similar in concept to star signs in that it preys heavily on our desire to identify with something, as well as categorise and label things Your logic seems to be that just because something is popular and easy to use then it’s useful and valid, but that’s absolutely not the case. In fact you could probably make the argument of the opposite

Discovered is a strong word. ‘Invented’ is more correct. It’s not like these cognitive functions actually exist in the brain to be discovered, that would be absurd. Sounds like a word play issue but I argue that in this case it is important. And I’m pretty sure MBTI does have cognitive functions. IIRC each type has a cognitive function stack. I.e INTP is (Ti Ne Si Fe), INFP is (Fi Ne Si Te)

Honestly you have some very controversial opinions and often express them confidently as though they are fact. That’s not necessarily bad but you can’t then complain when people fight back against you @thisintegrated I was a mod in a few gaming communities and there was usually a decent amount of drama with mods, it’s unavoidable. However I actually really enjoyed being a mod and it felt like it developed my personality/maturity quite a lot I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to enjoy the power. It made me feel good, I enjoyed getting to make decisions about other people. Ultimately you want people in these positions who enjoy their job and the power it gives them, but not to take it too seriously in the sense that they become obsessed with following every rule to the letter and being power hungry bastards A good description I’ve heard of who you want as mods are people who are Neutral Good in the D&D system

This take seems kind of silly. A better analogy is that MBTI is Nokia, better than nothing but far better alternatives have arisen as we’ve advanced. You sound like the people who were saying smartphones were just a fad in 2008 while they clung onto their Nokia brick phones because it was what they were used to The Big 5 is honestly pretty usable. It’s simpler than MBTI. With MBTI you’ve got 16 types, 8 cognitive functions and 16 different ways to order those cognitive functions to learn. With Big 5 you just have 5 spectrums which are very clearly labelled and descriptive. When someone says neuroticism or extroversion you know what that means much more implicitly than say ‘introverted sensing’ or ‘judging vs perceiving’ which are totally meaningless without additional information People just like MBTI because it exploits our desire to identify, label, and categorise, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best system

It's funny, me and a fair few people I know have gone through a phase like this after discovering cognitive functions

Ah. Now we've found the source of the problem. Dude first off you must be fucking good looking if you got 40 dates from Tinder in 6 months, I did alright on Tinder and I'm decent looking and tall, but I probably got about half that. Though I closed on about 90% of the Tinder dates I've gone on, and almost all of them were on the first date But the problem is that most girls on Tinder are gonna want to fuck on the first date, or at least feel some sexual energy/desire from you. It's not exclusively a hookup app anymore but the crowd of girls it typically attracts are def gonna want you to be sexual pretty quick, if you're not they'll get bored or weirded out It also sounds like you've been consuming a lot of theory. I would recommend you stop that and just try to follow your instincts a bit more for the time being. When you go on dates with girls, let yourself feel horny for them while you're sitting across the table from them. Literally look into her eyes and let her face and body turn you on. This brings you into the moment , and she'll feel the sexual energy from you without you even having to say anything to her. This puts you in the right frame of mind for a date, where you wanna be communicating man and woman I would also recommend that you rely less on Tinder though. Like I said, I did alright too, but the quality of women there can sometimes be questionable. And I started to enjoy meeting girls in real life way way more. It also grows you a lot. I used Tinder as a crutch because I was kinda socially anxious which isn't great, even if you can actually get dates from Tinder

These are still cold approaches. I agree that it feels far more natural because they are in social environments but you're still approaching out of nowhere which makes it cold. Typically I agree with you that I think cold approaching in public during the day is nuisance behaviour unless you are really good at it You have to be good enough that your cold approaches out in public feel like a warm approach, you have to be able build trust very quickly and so on. Ironically this is not most of the people who start out doing pickup. I think if you are not a particularly social person and not very calibrated when you start out, then you should absolutely be starting at clubs/bars/parties because you get so much more leeway for mistakes there Or if you have balls of steel and live in a big place then by all means take the trial by fire approach and do spam approaches during the day, there's def value to it I don't know what you're trying to prove tbh, frankly if you have to say how great your game is compared to someone else and try to diminish their results then I'm going to assume you're insecure as fuck and trying to prove something.

Making proper in-field girls talking to girls is probably a fucking nightmare in terms of PR risk so I wouldn't expect much more than that. It's pretty clear in one of them he goes home with the girl so I'm not sure what more you want anyway

If you got 40 dates in half a year you're doing something right and you have zero reason to be hopeless. However you're also doing something catastrophically wrong if you've gone on 40 dates and they've gone nowhere. Frankly I have no idea how you could manage to go on 40 dates and not get laid on even 1 of them.... It seems like you'd actually have to actively try not to get laid in 1 out of 40 dates... If a girl goes on a date with you it means she'd be willing to fuck you. Have you ever even tried to lead a girl to have sex on any of your dates? Women want to have sex. Women enjoy sex too. Women enjoy playful sexual conversation and flirting. Women enjoy it when you escalate. You shouldn't be scared of these things. But frankly the only reason I can think of that you haven't got laid out of 40 dates is that you're not even trying to have sex with the girl I'm being aggressive here, but frankly I think the way I'm wording this should convey that there is probably a very small change you could make that would start to get you results because you already have the exposure to girls and that's 90% of the difficulty done. The next date you go on just try and escalate no matter what

You can, there's vids of him out in Vegas on his blog

I've told people the same thing before 'just go outside and talk to girls', but it's usually to the guys who are asking a fuck ton of questions and also taking zero action what so ever. A lot of guys also have a good amount of trauma/fear/anxiety in that area and just reading discussion about what you practically need to do, where you need to go, a rough outline of what to expect, even just some encouragement, can be helpful to those guys. As long as they are also taking action at the same time It's only a problem when they're sitting at home doing nothing and asking a fuck ton of questions on here, which is not the case with OP of this thread

"No one here can help you except me, all the advice you see on this forum is wrong. But now I'm going to say all the same things Leo and other guys on this forum have been saying for ages and you should listen to me instead" – basically what you're saying Like your advice is good but why add all the extra toxic garbage in there lol

Yea that’s exactly how guys are gonna feel when you tell them approaching girls is easy Especially as a girl who’s never had to do it

You prob made the right decision. Any doubts you have would have compounded over time, and eventually you would have begun to feel like you were trapped in the relationship. Or that there are experiences you’re missing out on Doesn’t make it any easier, though

I remember watching a Charisma on Command video about this, where his advice was essentially to ask extremely high quality questions to people who are 'above' you for lack of a better term. He used the 'Hot Ones' interview channel on YT as an example of this. The presenter is known for asking particularly high quality questions of guests. The gist of it IIRC is that by asking high quality questions you give the person you perceive as above you a chance to express themselves deeply in ways that they usually can't I don't know how well that would translate into day to day life outside of an interview situation but I thought it was an interesting perspective nonetheless. I might be entirely misremembering the video but feel free to go looking for it lol

I went the lowest age range possible, <=24. I remember someone else mentioning somewhere that they did some testing and older women (on photofeeler) were even more likely to respond better to smiles and nice guy pics than the lower age range girls which responded more to player type pics, also kinda interesting. But also anecdotal I went with usually 5-6 pics, with one or two smiling/nice guy pics and the rest either action pics or highly rated 'more intense' pics. Too many intense pics is bad I think but I found I got good results with an intense pic first and then softening that up with some more fun/playful pics in the rest of the profile Perhaps on photofeeler you don't get an opportunity to soften up the intense pic with some more playful ones and so that gets you lower ratings on intense pics. That would make sense Nah you just have to be careful to not let tinder make your profile pics look like ass. I prefer Bumble in a lot of ways since it doesn't do that. Anyway, take my word for it and don't go through all this horrible Tinder optimisation I went through and just go outside

I agree with everything you said, I just found it funny because you don't know how hard it is or isn't because you've never done it It would be like me telling you that putting on makeup is easy