Xonas Pitfall

I agree and disagree. For example, let's say we all know here to some extent what God is. Does that mean we would suddenly agree on how civilization should continue to progress? Should we even continue progressing civilization at all? Should our priority be curing world hunger, ending disease, and reducing suffering? Or should we instead focus on consciousness research and understanding the mind? How should we allocate resources between those goals? Who decides? How much funding should each receive? Should money even continue to exist? If not, what system replaces it? How would resources be distributed fairly? What kind of government should we have? Should there even be a government? If there is one, who should govern, and how do we decide who's qualified? Should decisions be made democratically, meritocratically, by AI, or through some entirely new system? How do we balance individual freedom with the collective good? What rights should be universal? How much inequality is acceptable, if any? Should people still compete, or should society become fully cooperative? What incentives drive innovation if traditional economic systems disappear? Do prisons still exist? How do we educate children? Should humanity continue exploring space, or should we focus inward on consciousness? Should we continue advancing AI, genetic engineering, and biotechnology, or are there limits we shouldn't cross? Knowing God doesn't automatically answer any of these questions. It may provide a deeper perspective or a better moral foundation, but we still have to reason through these practical problems, experiment with different systems, and discover what actually works in reality. All of this requires both an understanding of God and a practical, scientific approach. God-realization may provide the direction, but it doesn't replace the hard work of testing ideas, running experiments, analyzing data, and discovering what actually works. We still have to respect reality and figure things out through evidence and experimentation. And if you say, "Well, I don't care about pragmatism at all," you're kidding yourself. There's a very good reason you prefer living where you do instead of in the Stone Age, a war zone, or a country struggling under severe conflict or repression.

I completely agree. My point was that just because you cracked the nut of God doesn't mean you suddenly have answers to every other question. There are still countless things that we, as humans, will have to wonder about for years, centuries, or even forever. That's an unavoidable reality. Understanding God won't tell you how to discover molecular structures that are coherent enough to create silicon, how to refine that silicon into semiconductor-grade material, how to design transistors, how to manufacture chips at ever-smaller nanometer scales, how to build operating systems, how to create the internet, how to develop vaccines, how to cure diseases, or how to engineer new materials with properties we've never seen before. It may give you greater creativity, intuition, neuroplasticity, or a broader perspective, but you still have to do the hard work of experimentation, measurement, engineering, and testing. Reality is reality, and you have to respect it. There are no shortcuts around that. Most likely, you'd still rather live in a time where there are scientists, engineers, doctors, mathematicians, and researchers doing this work. They're the people building computers, creating the internet, developing medicine, investigating diseases, improving agriculture, designing aircraft, discovering new physics, and pushing civilization forward. That work is unavoidable if we want society to function. It's also necessary if you even want a realistic chance of reaching self-realization. You need a stable society, food, healthcare, education, and technology before most people even have the opportunity to ask deeper questions about consciousness or whether they are God. So I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm just saying that knowing God doesn't answer everything. There is still a very necessary niche for pragmatism, where people relentlessly crunch numbers, run experiments, test reality, falsify ideas, and search for patterns. As much as you might want to escape the "video game," you're still playing it for however many years you're alive. Ignoring its rules doesn't free you from them. If anything, that's how you end up with a Connor Murphy-type situation. I hope I'm making sense. I completely agree that realizing God would be an incredible guide and could usher in a higher-consciousness era for humanity. But I think it's very important to separate God-realization from practical, day-to-day living, because that remains hugely relevant. A scientist might not just want understanding. A scientist also wants to improve the current reality we're "stuck" in. Those goals don't disappear. Or at the very least, we need to ask what God-realization actually means specifically for us as humans. Do we continue advancing science and civilization? Do we lose interest in improving the world? Do we kill ourselves? Those are still important questions that God-realization alone doesn't automatically answer.

I think one of the main issues with Actualized.org's teaching is that it aims for such an "ultimate answer" that tempts people to assume that if you crack the philosophy, it means you will also have the practical knowledge or power to bend reality, along with complete understanding. But really, it mainly grants just the broad understanding, which is still very practical, truthful, and "holy." Science tries to properly map reality and discover ways to bend, twist, or "alchemize" reality into what a self would want. With Actualized.org, you arrive at: "God/Reality/Truth is the absence of bias, pure unfiltered infinity." Even after you crack that nut, you still don't have answers to many other important questions. Do we care about saving humans? Do we care about saving humanity, Earth, animals, or insects? What are we okay with killing, utilizing, or molding to our will? What is "Good" Selfishness? Is there even any? Do we just fully give into Reality? Even if all reality is made of "infinities," what are the actual practical, relative structures and stable patterns of reality that we can use? If reality can become anything it can possibly be, moving ever closer to God, then what should we actually strive for? Should we try to make humanity as close to God as possible? Should we make room for alien species or entirely new forms of intelligence if they more closely resemble God? By what standard do we determine the most optimal direction for reality to evolve? Even if free will doesn't ultimately exist, we still have to make choices every day. So what should guide those choices? I agree that if people fully knew and understood God, we would probably have a much more advanced science, and it would answer many of these questions. But there are still so many problems that scientists, humanity, and governments would have to solve afterward. Leo seems to have carved out the niche of God and Truth, without caring much about utility or how to practically implement that understanding into science. Which, again, is completely fine, and it's a very necessary niche. But I can't say with confidence that Curt's, or scientists' in general, only purpose is to understand God. Many of them also want to understand the relative structures of reality and how that understanding can help us practically in this world. That is equally valuable. These are all distinct and much-needed niches. It's just important to understand the purpose of each.

RIP :'(

Yes, I think this is a much more grounded way of looking at it. It might just be semantics, I'm not sure. But the way I see it, someone at stage "red" simply has their own "stereotype", "aesthetic", or "idealized image" of what a respectable figure looks like. That image is more likely to be mobster-like, aggressive, dominant, or intimidating, etc. The same applies to the stages above red. The difference is that, as you move up the stages, you get more complexity and nuance in what that "respectable" figure can be. That said, even stages slightly above red can still have a very black-and-white flavor, like in the examples I gave earlier: "You have to be a certain level of nobility or godliness before you can have sex with me. Stage Blue." As you move higher through the stages, you also become more aware of your own biases. You're more likely to question what you're actually valuing and responding to, rather than reflexively respecting whatever your culture or ideology tells you is worthy of respect. Red tends to be a more conformist level in this sense, so its ideals are often more stereotypical and easier to point to as examples. However, this I do agree! Maybe a more accurate term would be something like "dominance hierarchy" or "power hierarchy." (the classic "masculine patriarchal intimidation scale") Who's the strongest? Who's the toughest? Who has the most power? Who can dominate everyone else? I say that because I think most people care about respect and being respected. Everyone respects some people more than others. But this particular style of thinking, where social interactions are framed as a "dog-eat-dog world" or a constant "cock-fest" competition, seems much more characteristic of stage Red environments. Those kinds of egos also tend to be more prone to stage Red and, to some extent, stage Orange ways of interpreting status and relationships.

Gotcha, I understand now. My question is: how would you differentiate this in the case of, say, a “blue” woman who wouldn’t want to have sex unless the man is a respectable Christian, or someone who values virginity and preserving purity? You have to be a certain level of “nobility” or “godliness” before you can have sex with me. Or, for example, a “hippie green” woman who wants an emotionally aware, conscientious man and avoids what she sees as “dirty” or “corrupt” red-pill Orange types before having sex. I’m giving random examples, but you get my point haha.

Hmm. But wouldn't you say that these "red" women simply have a particular standard? Whether they arrived at it through social conformity or their own values, they have a preference for a very "hood," gang-affiliated-like Black guy. In the same way, another woman might prefer a classy businessman who enjoys wine and golf, while someone else might only respect or be attracted to a man who loves reading literature and comes across as highly educated. How do you differentiate? Between someone's standards, tastes, values, and who they do or don't respect? I’d think that if you’re looking for a healthy relationship, ideally both people should fall into a kind of shared “bubble” where they respect each other’s standards, or at least align with each other’s standards.

Hmm.. I feel like most people have a certain threshold or bias regarding who they will or won't let influence them. It's just that some people have more of a "kink" side to it, whether they're men or women who want to be the "tamer," the leader, or the one who "puts people in their place." Likewise, there are people who enjoy being "put in their place." That's why you'll have some women who find those same "hood" guys to be lazy, ghetto, distasteful, or not respectable, and instead prefer a classy, business-type man. The same applies to women. Some men will only respect or see someone as a respectable wife if she meets their standards for attractiveness, religiosity, intelligence, or other qualities. I feel like we all have that aspect of the "red" in us. Who do we choose to let lead us? Who do we respect? It's just expressed at completely different levels of consciousness and in very different ways.

Let's go!!!

Absolutely no reason not to. Alex Hormozi himself said he's putting out thousands of pieces of content every week, and he's a high-skill performer in business. Especially if you have the money to invest in a bulk, multi-platform reposting service, there's really no reason not to do it.

@LordFall I was arguing against the original post, so that above response isn’t really relevant. Nonetheless, I fully agree with the tip. I would even argue that, for both men and women, it can be useful to do this, either by setting up as many dates as you can, promoting yourself, or using social media. Essentially, you’re creating a kind of “brand” around who you are, so whatever you’re looking for is more likely to find you. This is very helpful advice to people. Although I think Andrea wouldn’t be that open to being in a harem, haha. If you want a specific type of girl, most want to be in a long-term monogamous relationship.

All of the examples you gave are people who are already attractive, no? Wouldn't many men do the exact same thing if it were a really attractive pop singer, actress, or model? "Bro, if I had a chance with Megan Fox..." I'm sure plenty of men would gladly fly across the world for that opportunity too. So I'm not sure those examples are all that relevant, given that they mostly involve attractive celebrities. I also think celebrities are a tricky example because they have a massive numbers advantage. When millions of people know who you are, you're naturally going to have a much larger pool of potential partners to filter through. Eventually, you're bound to find people who want to be with you simply because of the sheer volume of people you have access to. It's similar to that guy who made the "My Experience Being Ugly" video. He ended up finding a girlfriend. So I don't think celebrity examples are necessarily that informative when discussing general attraction dynamics. I think I also watched a video discussing dating app statistics, and the conclusion was similar to what I was saying. Women's standards for casual partners tend to be higher because they're evaluating based on physical attraction and personal preference. When it comes to long-term relationships, they're often willing to place less emphasis on looks and consider many other qualities as well. I doubt this is very different from how the average man operates. It's just that men tend to both want more and be more comfortable with casual sex than women.

I feel like the whole framing of this conversation is flawed. The discussion is framed as men vs. women, but I think it's really about short-term vs. long-term mating strategies, like I mentioned before. If you're looking purely at a "have sex and leave" scenario, I don't think most women care much about a man's status either. They would probably prioritize someone they find physically attractive, who seems fun, playful, hot, confident, and likely to make the experience enjoyable. It simply isn't incentive-compatible to weigh a bunch of other qualities if the interaction is only meant to be casual. However, once we're talking about long-term relationships or choosing a life partner, both men and women care about far more than just looks. Personality, competence, values, emotional compatibility, reliability, reputation, social perception, and many other factors all become relevant. People also care about what their partner says about them socially and how others perceive the relationship. So the only way I can really agree with the original claim is if it's reframed like this: men are, on average, more likely to engage in short-term mating, so they tend to consider fewer variables when selecting a partner in those situations. In that specific context, attraction may appear less relative simply because fewer factors are being evaluated. But I don't agree with the claim when we're talking about long-term relationships. I've seen plenty of men who are highly conformist and heavily influenced by social status, reputation, and how their partner reflects on them. In that sense, I don't think men's mate selection is any less "relative" than women's on average.

I think the next "Guys... I have a newfound level of awakening" for Leo will be deconstructing the biases surrounding femininity and masculinity. Leo's "Alien Mind" is really the "Feminine" mind (Joking, a little bit . . .)

Yes! I think Leo's past blog posts, and comments suggest that he has bought into the traditional bias that masculinity is more objective, logical, etc. He seems to overlook just how much of both masculinity and femininity is shaped by relative, emotional, and social factors. And he seems to enjoy identifying with it, and often mocks the feminine as being more fear-based, emotional, or something along those lines, which is quite silly. If you're charismatic, that's a real skill you'll be recognized for in most social groups. If you're wealthy, your ability to make money doesn't disappear just because someone richer is in the room. If you have an attractive, masculine physique, that doesn't suddenly vanish either. They are, to an extent, "objective" traits.

I also think the logic behind this argument is flawed because you could just as easily argue that status itself is "objective" to some extent, as well. If someone is wealthy, competent, charismatic, physically strong, or influential, those qualities don't disappear because someone "better" enters the room. They may rank lower relatively, but they still possess those traits. I'd argue that both beauty and status are relative within a group, but they also have objective components. Neither is purely objective nor purely subjective. If a very attractive woman walks into a room of less attractive women, she'll likely have the highest status in terms of desirability, and most men would pursue her. But the same applies to men. If a very attractive, high-status, or physically dominant man walks into a room of less impressive men, he'll likely become the highest-status man in that group. Now imagine placing that same attractive woman in a room full of equally attractive women, or that same high-status man in a room full of equally successful and high-status men. Neither of them suddenly loses their qualities. Their objective traits haven't changed. What changes is their ranking relative to everyone else in the room. So I don't think the premise of this argument really works. Yes, a hot woman is still a hot woman, but if there are 50 even hotter women around her, she'll simply rank lower by comparison. Likewise, a rich or high-status man doesn't stop being rich or high-status just because he's surrounded by billionaires. His money, competence, and status don't disappear. They're simply less exceptional relative to the people around him. Both beauty and status are comparative. Ranking changes depending on who else is present, but the underlying qualities themselves don't suddenly vanish. The same principle applies to both men and women. Put the model in a room of average-looking people. She'll likely be perceived as exceptionally attractive. Put that identical woman in a room of supermodels. She'll probably still be attractive, but she won't stand out nearly as much. Put a millionaire in a middle-class town. He's extremely high status. Put that same millionaire in a room of billionaires. He's still a millionaire, but he no longer stands out.

How so? To clarify, I’m not saying they want the same type of status, that’s not what I’m arguing. I’m just saying both are highly susceptible to what society tells them a “high-status/value” woman or man is, and that both men and women can be extremely conformist and manipulated by society in terms of what they should seek and find attractive, which was the original point. That’s how you get incel men who get fed and influenced by red-pill ideology, conservative tradwife content, pick-me content, or ultra-filtered “baddie” looks Sydney Sweeney meme, and then genuinely believe they should keep chasing that type of girl and that they “failed as a man” if they don’t get something like that. Or they feel ashamed if their actual girlfriend has too “high of a body count,” or someone from their friend group might call it out, or she’s not really someone their friend group approves of or finds cool, attractive, even though the guy might actually like her, etc. The point is, men are also heavily socially influenced here and can be very conformist in that sense. Even if they might be attracted to a specific type of girl, style, or personality, if that doesn’t really conform to what their social group or society tells them is appropriate girlfriend or wife material, many won’t even introspect on it and will just follow it blindly too. I’m not saying women don’t do this either, but I just haven’t seen less or more conformity on either side. Plenty of men will keep chasing whatever social media idealized girl without even questioning if that’s what they actually want. So to say men have some sort of more or less objective radar or are less influenced by what social standards deem as "attractive", I don’t see that as true, but I might be wrong.

All else being equal, a man will choose the high-status girl if he can get her. It’s just that women’s status isn’t the same as men’s, but to claim it isn’t heavily socially influenced, or that what is considered a high-status girl doesn’t change across location, religion, “social tribe,” and time, is definitely not true. And that men aren’t sensitive and don’t take it into consideration when picking a girl, and that it’s based on just "objective" attraction, is also not true; or that somehow women do it more or less objectively than men, I suppose. That’s also how you end up with a lot of incel men who cannot find anyone they think is "worthy" of a long-term relationship, or who even mess up basic hookup dates because they’ve deluded themselves into thinking about what kind of girl they “deserve” or are “supposed” to be with. Men also LOVE to chase girls far beyond their “league” or “status.” Of course, there are women and men who don’t care, are more grounded, or/and are non-conformist and will just date more "normally, within their range". But if we take your average guy and girl who are playing more of these dating “games,” then both are heavily influenced by social media, their environment, social groups, etc., and what they think their definition of attraction and success is. I’ve heard and seen a lot of conformist takes on both sides: men who pick attractive women but don’t care about being around them, they just keep them around to "flex" to society; and women who try to find and demand the most from “high-status” guys, "princess treatment," etc. The way people mostly date is just that they find people they’re comfortable around through hobbies, getting along, workplaces, or someone within their attractiveness range, maybe a bit less or more. All of these other takes like hypergamy, social games, overly filtered “baddie” looks standards, resource-sharing dynamics, "high-status, high-value" are a lot more red-pill, extreme terminology.

But men absolutely care about women’s status too, just in the way society and other “men” prescribe high-value status to a woman. So they might be put off if she seems too promiscuous or “high body count,” or if she doesn’t seem like someone the “boys” would find hot or attractive to show off or brag about, or just to be socially seen as a "high-status" guy who can and gets the hot girls. They can be very heavily sensitive to social perceptions of what kind of girl they choose says about them. So this idea that it’s less relevant for guys, even on a bell curve, doesn’t really hold up. I feel like you definitely see men being very sensitive here, too. What kind of women does society signal as indicating that a man has succeeded and is attractive? As we know, people are very conformist in general, so many will end up chasing that ideal, which again points to the relative and societal influence in what is considered attractive for both men and women.

Here it sounds more like... Cock 🐔 caring about cock 🐔 if you ask me Cock-fight 🐔 If men choose a partner based on what other men or society see as inherently valuable, but they don’t actually feel that attracted, and then they cheat, feel lonely, etc... well, then I’m not sure if that’s really about caring about pussy or about the opinions of other men / society.

There are so many men who pick women based on the social perception of what an attractive “baddie” is, yet they don’t really see her as their type at all. A lot of red pill spaces are essentially a circle jerk of men who flex on each other about how attractive of a woman they’re with and how it boosts their position in the social hierarchy, even though they themselves couldn’t care less about the woman. A “trophy girlfriend” or “trophy wife.” Or men who pick their wives based on the idea of the “good girl,” the “good wife” archetype because that’s what society tells them is ideal, even if they don’t feel any genuine attraction. Then, they end up cheating because of that mismatch. A classic trope. Cock also seems to care quite a lot

Hahaha, don't look at me, Chief - ask the furries, maybe...? I'd say there's definitely some merit to that. A lot of the traits we find attractive are probably influenced by the fact that they're also perceived as indicators of health. Not all of them, of course, but many are associated with sexual development and health. Things like facial symmetry, secondary sexual characteristics, clear skin, a healthy physique, and other cues can all signal underlying health or reproductive maturity.

I think women experience this as well, which is why I feel it's more about short-term versus long-term mating strategies than gender itself. Height, a symmetrical face, stereotypically masculine facial features, appearance of strength, thick hair, lean muscularity, a defined jawline, a deeper voice, confident body language, and overall physical attractiveness. Health indicators.

Yes, definitely! I was mainly trying to address the original question, which was about how much mate preferences are socially influenced or relative for men versus women. If you're pursuing something short term, then, as you said, immediate feelings tend to dominate. People rely more on instinct, physical attraction, chemistry, and personal preferences, so the decision is much more subjective, personal, and emotional. If you're looking for something long term, and you're being deliberate about it, then it makes sense to consider a lot more socially relative factors. Things like whether someone has a stable career (largely dictated by society), whether your values align, family background, religious beliefs, financial stability, lifestyle compatibility, and long-term goals all become much more important. Those are the kinds of preferences that tend to vary much more across cultures, time periods, and social expectations than immediate physical attraction. You can see both men and women sometimes choosing partners they might not even be the most attracted to because they believe that's what they should want, or because that choice better conforms to their social circle, family, or cultural expectations.