Xonas Pitfall

https://www.actualized.org/insights/a-capitalist-self-deception I appreciate the post! One thing, though, is that I often hear the following arguments from the "other side": "Yes, but not everyone can do their job. Yes, but they have unique skills and experience that are extremely difficult to acquire. There are only a handful of people in the world who can run a company of that size." "Yes, but they are taking on all the risk when they make these bold moves that no one else can, such as making huge investments, buying businesses, or projecting future market trends." "Yes, but they are taking on all the responsibility if the company fails. They are the ones who have to answer for it." "Not everyone can be a CEO, etc. Without their leadership, the company might not exist." "Yes, but if they succeed, everyone benefits. Employees get jobs, investors make money, and the economy grows." "Yes, but they could make more money elsewhere. Companies have to pay a premium to attract and retain top talent." "Yes, but their compensation often comes in the form of stock, so they only make enormous amounts of money if the company performs well." "Yes, but the value created by someone like Steve Jobs can be enormous. If one person's decisions can create hundreds of billions of dollars in market value, why shouldn't they receive a tiny fraction of that?" "Yes, but people like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, or Jeff Bezos have abilities that are so rare that comparing their compensation to that of an average employee doesn't make sense. There might be millions of competent managers, but only a handful of people capable of building companies of that scale." "Yes, but you can't simply replace Elon Musk with 100,000 ordinary employees and expect the same results. Leadership, vision, and the ability to make unconventional decisions are not easily substituted." I guess the main counterargument is that, yes, they should be compensated to some extent for their skills, risk, and responsibility. But does that really justify earning 100,000 times more? Or 200,000 times more? Where do we draw the line? How do you usually debate this point, or how do you think about it?

“But, but, but then all the rich people will leave for Dubai, Thailand, Moldova and the Cook Islands!!!”

Yes, I've definitely heard this argument. "Well, with investments, if they do well, you'd expect some kind of return. You risk X amount, and if things go well, you might get X amount back, or potentially many times more, or lose it all. They risked $100 million, made the right investments, recognized the market opportunity, positioned themselves well, and ultimately got a huge return. Yes, sure, it's an absurd amount of money, but it's an investment like any other. If you had that amount of money, you could theoretically do the same thing. But would you have? I don't know. I don't think so. That's why there are so few people like him in the first place." I'm not saying I agree with this viewpoint, but I definitely hear it argued.

Super interesting! Although I doubt the companies would actually want people who understand math to disappear. Most likely, they’ll just end up working more on correcting, evaluating, and guiding AI. I have a feeling that’s where a lot of jobs will be heading in some form. For example, with coding/software development, systems design and having good "taste" in UI/UX/design seem more important than ever as AI gets better at actually writing the code. I’d imagine something similar could happen with math. But I know very little about this subject, so it’s really interesting to hear about. Thanks for sharing! I’d love to hear more of your thoughts in future threads if you feel like sharing more

I don't think Green's issue is fundamentally lacking empathy. If anything, Green has a lot of empathy. What Green lacks is what Yellow and the stages above it gradually begin to develop: the ability to understand people who themselves may not be operating from empathy or inclusivity, and to figure out how those people can still be integrated into a harmonious, holistic system. The "meme" of Green, for example, is that it empathizes with LGBTQ+ people. It may also empathize with Muslims, or with conservative Christians, to some extent. But what it can fail to recognize is that these two communities cannot be able to coexist in the same social proximity without significant tension. As a result, Green can end up demonizing the "less open and accepting" perspective, typically the more orthodox, conservative, or traditional one, while being disproportionately accepting and empathetic toward the more progressive perspective. It's like going to your church-going grandmother's house on Sunday dressed as a goth, then blaming the culture around you for not accepting you. You might pride yourself on being modern, open-minded, and unlike the "brainwashed Blue," while failing to recognize that you are also being invasive of the context you're entering. Yellow slowly begins to understand this because it has a broader perspective on all the previous stages. As it develops, it starts to see not only the value and internal logic of each stage, but also how different value systems can interact with one another and where they can or cannot coexist. "Which side is more progressive and accepting? That one is mine, that one is the one I will support!" vs. "How can these different perspectives function together, where can they coexist, and where do they fundamentally conflict?" Note *** Obviously, this is a very constrained characterization of Green. Green can be much more advanced, intelligent, and nuanced than this example suggests. But I think the fundamental limitation of Green isn't really a lack of empathy. It's more a difficulty with integrating perspectives and understanding how fundamentally different value systems can be harmonized, accommodated, or appropriately separated within a functional system. Green wants to identify with being all-loving and accepting, which is a good direction, but can struggle to integrate the fact that sometimes you need to be aggressive, strategic, confrontational, or exclusionary. It may also underestimate how backwards or low-consciousness some people are, making it harder to figure out how to deal with them and still build a community that functions.

+1 on this!

Exactly! +1000

Oh, and on another note, would any sort of meetup exist instead? I feel like a lot of people would just enjoy having some sort of meetup, discussion, retreat kind of thing, like what Ralston might have, where you’re discussing topics, asking questions, etc. It’s very rare to find retreats with topics like this, especially with the quality of ideas of Actualized.org haha. And I definitely myself wouldn’t be opposed to paying to go to a retreat like that, even if it’s not, quote-unquote, specifically centered around psychedelics. You can certainly have a ton of useful insights while sober that can later feed into your awakenings when doing psychedelics as well. Plus, it might actually be more profitable and involve less responsibility and fewer potential organizational problems for Leo, since he could invite more people with less risk as well.

Although, out of curiosity, have you @Leo Guraor anyone else been on a retreat that was similar to this? I’d love to go to something like this in the future, but I don’t know many places that do stuff like this. Thank you!

So cool and interesting! Thanks for the share! 🙏

It is truly fascinating to see just how primitive we all are, and how much even more primitive we were before, and how the conditions would even encourage it and make it even easier.

Didn’t he claim before that he had converted to Islam so he could gain support from Muslim people, claim his innocence, and somehow justify his promiscuity because Islam allows up to four wives? Or something like that, haha. Obviously, these people don’t care at all. They’ll flip back and forth and use as many tactics as possible to get themselves freedom and riches. And most fans aren’t that bright either, so as soon as they decided they were going to support him, they’ll ignore these inconsistencies as well. More self-deception! Also, should it even be legally allowed to have the lawyer be a carbon copy of the accused? 😂

Woot! Woot! ❤💗💗💗❤

Sorry if I came across as cynical, haha. I genuinely have 0 issues with people having FWB relationships if they enjoy them. I was really just responding to what the previous comment was getting at, so I probably made it sound more negative than I actually meant it.

We’re pointing out the unfalsifiable ideological tactics that allow more toxic ideologies to become self-propagating. Stuff like this: A lot of cults can do this too. For example, a cult leader claims that an apocalypse is going to happen on a specific date, and that's why everyone needs to give him their money, follow him, and make whatever sacrifices he demands. Then the date arrives and absolutely nothing happens. At that point, a falsifiable belief should take a serious hit. But instead, the ideology can simply generate a new rationalization: “Nothing happened because you all sacrificed so much and did such a good job. God saw your devotion and spared us for another day.” And just like that, the failed prediction becomes evidence that the ideology was right. The same basic pattern can keep repeating. If something happens, it proves the ideology. If the opposite happens, that also somehow proves the ideology. Every contradiction gets absorbed into the framework rather than forcing anyone to question the original premise.

Yes, I have zero issues with that claim. Again, I think a lot of people simply cope with this. Maybe they genuinely want a specific person around because that person gives them some "goodie", but at the same time they realize that they want different things, more investment, different responsibilities, or different expectations from the relationship. But because they don't want to accept the possibility of losing that “goodie” the person provides, they start doing all kinds of self-justification and ego framing, tactics to avoid confronting the incompatibility. The ego goes, “I want this goodie, so how can I frame reality in a way where I can keep getting it without having to admit that I'm being selfish, deceptive, or unfair?” Then you can end up rationalizing almost anything.

A falsifiable model requires clear definitions and clear conditions under which the model could be proven wrong. Obviously, everything is fundamentally relative to some degree, including what we mean by “falsifiability.” But within a given framework, the basic idea is still straightforward: “All swans are white.” Now we know exactly what would challenge the claim. If you show me a genuine black swan, then the original claim has been falsified. What you can't do is keep changing the definition every time contradictory evidence appears: “Here is a black swan.” “That's not a real swan.” “Why not?” “Because real swans are white.” “Okay, but this animal is biologically classified as a swan.” “Yeah, but it's an abnormal exception, so it doesn't count.” “Okay, so what would count as evidence against your claim?” “Nothing. If it's white, it proves I'm right. If it's black, then it isn't a real swan.” At that point, you've constructed a model that cannot possibly be wrong. You're no longer testing the premise. A lot of human ideology can work this way. Someone starts with a premise they are emotionally invested in, and then every new piece of information is interpreted through that premise. If the information appears to contradict it, instead of allowing the evidence to update the model, they modify the definitions, introduce exceptions, reinterpret the evidence, or create new distinctions that preserve the original conclusion.

Exactly. Basically this. And not to just point fingers at men. Women can absolutely do the same thing themselves. A woman can string a guy along for sex, attention, favors, money, entertainment, validation, or simply because she’s bored and enjoys having him around here and there. It really isn't a gender thing. It's ego. If you want something, and you've convinced yourself that getting that thing is important, your ego can become incredibly sneaky in convincing you that what you're doing is morally acceptable or necessary. It will find ways to explain why it's “not that bad,” why you “had no choice,” why the other person “deserved it,” or why you're somehow justified in doing what you're doing. And sometimes it goes even further. The ego doesn't just convince you that what you're doing is okay. It can prevent you from fully seeing what you're actually doing in the first place. Ego Blindness. The core of self-deception, and it's a lot of what Leo talks about in his lessons more generally. The mind can become extremely creative when it wants something badly enough. It can construct an entire ideology around your behavior so that you can continue pursuing what you want without having to confront the fact that you're manipulating, deceiving, exploiting, or hurting someone.

No, of course not. I never said that. My main criticism is aimed at men who hyper-focus on telling women exactly how they should behave and what kind of women they should be, while developing all kinds of rationalizations for why they should pursue a very specific type of woman. Then, when they actually get that woman, they completely disrespect her position and perspective and don't acknowledge it in the slightest. Instead, they use evolutionary biology, gender-war rhetoric, and self-reinforcing red-pill ideology to justify their behavior. For example, you have men who specifically look for virgin women and talk about them as something precious, pure, and uniquely valuable. Yet those same men can be the ones who eventually cheat on her or leave her. The woman may have genuinely been ready to marry him, love him, and build a life with him, and yet after he betrays her, she can somehow be reclassified as “less valuable,” “used up,” or undesirable. Or you have men constantly complaining that “there are no good women left” and that women don't want commitment anymore, while they themselves don't even know what kind of relationship they want. They lie about wanting monogamy, get a woman emotionally attached to them, then push her toward an open relationship, cheat on her, or keep other women on the side. They say they want a traditional, loyal, feminine wife, but then cheat on that wife with the exact kind of women they claim they would never want as a partner. They want the status and social respectability of having a “pure,” respectable woman as their wife, while privately pursuing promiscuous women, strippers, mistresses, or whatever else they actually desire. Then they hurt the very woman they supposedly considered so precious, while still expecting absolute loyalty and devotion from her. And, of course, they would be completely disgusted if their wife treated them the same way. That's the contradiction I'm criticizing. Some men build an entire ideology around what women supposedly owe men, what women should be, how women should behave, and which women are supposedly worthy of commitment, while simultaneously giving themselves endless exceptions and rationalizations for violating standards themselves. That's the part I find deeply dishonest. If you find an honest, beautiful, sweet woman who is hopeful about love and genuinely wants to commit herself to an honest, noble man, then you should respect that. And if you're the type of guy who knows that you will abuse that trust, manipulate her, lie to her, or try to convince her into whatever lifestyle you can mold her into once you've gotten her attached to you, then you shouldn't go after her in the first place. You shouldn't deliberately seek out someone's innocence and trust because you know those qualities will make her easier to manipulate, only to use that trust against her once you've hooked her. But a lot of men don't acknowledge this aspect at all, because why would they? It's much more convenient to believe that you can do whatever you want, that you're entitled to pursue whoever you want however you want, and that whatever happens afterward can somehow be justified. “It's biological. It's human nature. Men are different from women. Women naturally like this. Women can be made to like this. We're just wired this way. So why are you blaming me for doing what I'm naturally programmed to do?” Ideally, of course, people should explore their options and find someone who genuinely fits their values and relationship paradigm. I'd never recommend that someone blindly marry young or stay with the first person they like unless they're genuinely very sure about the person. That would be foolish.

Yup, exactly. The whole reason this can get so protracted is that the ego is a tricky thing. It can rationalize and justify almost anything by adopting whatever framing, including biological or gender-based framing, makes the conclusion work. And it becomes especially effective when that framing allows someone to collectively convince themselves that they are right. Basically, according to the men/red-pill/pickup worldview, you have a girl whose highest “market value” is supposedly between 18 and 25. Put yourself in her shoes for a second. Think about how young, dumb, and inexperienced we all are at that age. This is the period when you are only just beginning to develop a real sense of identity, independent thought, and some understanding of who you actually are. You’re going to college, maybe getting your first real taste of adulthood, and even by 22-25, you’re still figuring a lot of things out. She is considered more desirable if she isn’t too analytical or “heavy-thinking,” because being too rational, independent, or challenging can supposedly make her too masculine. She might become too cold, too logical, too emotionally detached, or otherwise insufficiently feminine. On top of that, she is expected to focus heavily on beauty and femininity. A lot of her time is supposed to go toward her appearance, makeup, dancing, traditionally feminine activities, and cultivating an innocent, sweet, feminine image. She should be highly agreeable, innocent, naive, and soft-hearted. She shouldn’t have too many strong interests or ambitions of her own, because the ideal is apparently for her to be molded and led by the man once he gets her. She is also supposed to genuinely believe in love, want a deep romantic connection, and be willing to love, serve, submit, and devote herself to her man. Do you see the profile of the girl we’re actually talking about here? You’re describing a very young girl who has very little experience. She has no real concept of strategy or manipulation. Now ask yourself: if that girl encounters a manipulative man who knows how to present himself, promises her love, tells her everything she wants to hear, how likely is she really to avoid getting attached to him? How likely is she to immediately recognize what is happening, see through the deception, and avoid potentially screwing up her life? How likely do you think she is to actually have the tools, experience, and wisdom necessary to avoid any of this? Would it even be realistic to expect her to? How realistic is it to expect her to somehow have enough worldly experience and psychological insight to immediately recognize manipulation, see through deception, and make all the right decisions? And now consider that the red-pill/pickup world specifically targets exactly these types of women. It teaches men to look for women who are young, innocent, inexperienced, trusting, agreeable, and emotionally open. It doesn’t just teach them how to pursue these women, either. It also gives them a framework for rationalizing what they’re doing, so that they can convince themselves that what they are fundamentally doing is perfectly okay. And more importantly, how realistic is it to expect her to somehow figure all of this out quickly enough to conduct extremely heavy screening and “mate selection” during the very narrow period that these men claim is her most valuable? You’re describing a girl who is supposed to be maximally innocent, trusting, inexperienced, agreeable, feminine, and emotionally open, while simultaneously expecting her to possess enough psychological sophistication and worldly experience to immediately identify manipulation, carefully screen men, understand male incentives, and make optimal decisions about lifelong partners. And then if those girls say, “Hey, I don’t want to have sex. I’m saving myself for the guy I eventually marry,” the guy might get frustrated, resent her, or even cheat on her with another girl who is more promiscuous. So either way, she can’t win. If those girls instead say, “We don’t want to date men. We’re going to stay single because all of this has made us confused, distrustful, and resentful,” then you have men complaining about male loneliness, saying women are selfish and ungrateful, arguing that women shouldn’t have been given rights in the first place because “look how they turned out.” Feminism, grrrh! If the girl is somehow smart enough to see through his bullshit, he can get annoyed by that too. Suddenly she’s “too masculine,” “too intelligent,” “too argumentative,” “too suspicious,” or “attacking him” simply because she questions what he says instead of blindly trusting him. If she has her own career and doesn’t need a man financially, she’s “too independent” and supposedly incapable of submitting to a man. Not girly enough. If she wants to take things slowly and actually get to know him, she’s “playing games” or making him “wait.” Shit testing. If she has sexual boundaries, she’s boring. If she is sexually open, she’s apparently “used up” or no longer worthy of commitment. If she doesn’t ask enough questions and trusts him, then she’s supposedly responsible for choosing a bad man. If she stays and tries to work through the problems, then her staying can simply be interpreted as proof that the man's behavior wasn't really that bad. If she wants a relationship but also wants to maintain her own identity, she’s selfish. If she completely devotes herself to the relationship, then that devotion can be taken for granted. That is just what women should do; they are "naturally" submissive. If she chooses to commit to a man when she’s young, say at 18-25, and he eventually cheats on her or leaves her when she’s 40, then apparently she “chose wrong” when she was young, so it’s her fault. If she goes through that experience and becomes more guarded or less trusting afterward, while she is older, then apparently she’s “used up,” undesirable, old, ugly. If the man leaves her and she becomes a single mother, then that’s also her fault. She chose wrong. Now she’s supposedly an “old hag” or a “used-up single mother” who no longer has the same value or desirability. That's what makes the whole framework feel so fundamentally rigged. Almost any response the woman has can be interpreted in a way that confirms the ideology. If she trusts him, she's naive. If she questions him, she's too masculine or combative. If she stays, she's accepting his behavior. If she leaves, she's selfish or incapable of commitment. If she dates men, she's choosing badly. If she stops dating men, she's selfish for contributing to male loneliness. The whole framework basically ends up teaching women to be the perfect victims while teaching men how to become the perfect predators and exploiters. You can rationalize anything in this world. Life is life, and people will do whatever they want to get whatever they want. But this ideology is especially poisonous because it actually convinces you that what you’re doing is fundamentally good or justified, when it absolutely isn’t.

I’ll try my best to explain this. But this is more about “bargaining power,” and depending on the society we live in, men and women will have different types of bargaining power. Or you can just say “power.” Basically, if you let ego run loose, both genders, humans in general, would love the scenario of: “I want one partner who will work for me and give me money; I want one partner who is the most hot and attractive and really gets my orgasms going; I want someone who has the same hobbies as me and whom I can talk to. I want one for this hobby. I want one for this activity. I want one to make me laugh. I want one to do my housework, etc. Gosh, if I could just flip and switch around and never get bored, that’d be ideal! Infinite love for me, infinite entertainment, and infinite resources for me!” Ego itself with no self-reflection or "empathy" will be very much like an idealistic child: “Me, me, me. I want this and this and this.” You want as many goodies for yourself as possible while avoiding as much responsibility toward others as possible, whether that means commitment, doing hard work, or having others do the work for you, etc. Human condition and Ego 101. So when you add gender, it is really just what society conditions you toward + your actual bargaining power, expectations, survival needs, and perhaps some biological factors. But I’d be careful not to over-map it onto biology, because a lot of people use biology as an excuse to avoid seeing the generic ego mechanisms that are present in all humans and somehow turn them into a much larger gender issue. Since, societally, women were more largely removed from resource-gathering and resource-controlling power, on both sides you would have: Men using women for labor, status, or resources: This can take many forms, such as relying on women for domestic labor, household management, social positioning, caregiving, or other forms of unpaid work. Men might benefit from women’s beauty and labour (through pimping, modelling, sex work, service businesses under this wing, etc), social connections, or labor while receiving most of the recognition or resources themselves. In some cases, women’s work was credited to men, or women had to operate through a man’s name or authority to gain access to opportunities. In more personal relationships, a man might rely on a woman to maintain his home and family while he focuses on his career, or ends up having a second family, mistresses, etc. Women using men for labor, status, or resources: Relying on men for financial support, education, housing, protection, social connections, or other resources. Women were restricted from working, owning property, or accessing education independently, making dependence on men necessary for survival. In other cases, women may intentionally seek out men primarily for their wealth, status, security, or connections, while contributing less to the relationship themselves. This can range from ordinary dependence within a relationship to more exploitative behaviors, such as gold-digging or using relationships primarily for financial gain. So you can see that both genders can follow the same pattern, because again, this isn’t fundamentally a gendered issue. It is ego. Ego will try to use whatever it can to get access to power, resources, sex, survival, and safety. That is the common rule. Gender is really just another overlay through which ego operates. The gender position you are born into is simply one of the cards you are dealt. The same goes for fun, lust and sex. A woman can also have preferences and have some “fuckboys” or boy toys who make her hornier than her “provider.” She might enjoy the sexual side more with one person, while choosing to stay with another person because that person is more reputable, stable, noble, useful, or beneficial to her in some other way. In the same way, a man might cheat with a mistress because he enjoys the sexual side more, while not wanting to actually be with the mistress because his wife is more reputable, stable, “pure,” noble, or useful to him in other ways. Again, the same pattern can exist on both sides. Both men and women love to have sex and have fun. Then, depending on the society, women might be more or less sexually shamed or repressed compared with men. That is why you might see higher divorce rates or more promiscuity as societies become more sexually free, because you are removing some of the blocks and restrictions placed on ego. And the same, of course, applies to this topic. If you let women’s egos roam completely free, you can end up with millions of simps who want to pay for her on the off chance that she might get with them. She can then find a non-attached friends-with-benefits partner whenever she finds someone attractive, or she can have one guy take care of her survival, money, and resources while she chooses to play around and fuck whoever she wants on the side. If you let men’s egos roam completely free, he can keep a wife who functions as his secure, safe-space home while having second families and mistresses on the side. Or he can have a harem. Or you might have women desperately trying to do favors for him, work for him, provide domestic labor, or perform other kinds of labor in exchange for access to him, all the while he doesn't commit to a single one of them because he simply can. Again, this is all ego. If you let ego roam completely free, then yes, ego will want people to do labor for it, get money for it, provide resources for it, and give it as much sex, fun, good times as possible with the people it finds the hottest or most desirable. "I want everything with the least commitment and responsibility on my end, but ideally, all of you are so obsessed with me and committed to me that you keep giving me goodies permanently!" And some egos will use restrictive laws, force, financial isolation, social isolation, or anything else they can to make this happen. The whole point of love is to experience actual depth and see the other person as an equal, as someone you do not simply want to control, use, abuse, swing around, or extract value from. But people often mistake ego-driven forms of attachment, desire, dependency, or “love” for actual forms of deeper, more genuine love. People need to first have an awakening to ego and survival, and how much they control 99% of people’s behavior. Gender is much more secondary to all relationship issues. If you’re still attached to some sort of fantasy where you want to be a harem king, being served by everyone, then you’ve dropped all notions of genuine love. Your best bet at making that fantasy a reality is to simply own what you’re doing and find vulnerable, desperate, needy people to fulfill your fantasy.

All of this stuff is way too generic. This isn’t a gender issue in the slightest. What happened in your last relationship? Be honest with yourself and their side too. It is always easy to have a failed relationship and blame the whole thing on the other gender.

Exclusive commitment to men is also like exclusive commitment to women. You don’t see many men happily having their girl fuck and fall in love with other men either. In fact, they might be even stingier about it, with their obsession over “virginity” and “cucking.” There really is no difference here, but a lot of men want there to be so they can justify their lust: “Oh, she’s a girl, she’s different from me. She likes it. Girls can be made to enjoy this. I can make her love it. They kind of do already.” Then they come up with a bunch of “biological” and other cope arguments as to why.

I wouldn’t trust Leo much when it comes to his views on women, tbh. His positions on this subject have been biased and rather shallow many times.

Haha Nothing screams ego like: “I want as many people as possible to want to fuck me, obsess over me, love me, and want a long-term committed relationship with me, while I don’t stay committed or responsible to any of them. Infinite love for me, but not for thee!”