mr_engineer

As I've said previously, if her goal is to end up alone and tell everyone who approaches her to 'fuck off', I have no issue with that. But, if we're assuming that she also wants to end up with someone, which we are, when we're dating, that's what our standards of behavior are going to be based on! I'm not saying that my standards should be superior to anyone else's. I'm saying that the standards of behavior that bring people together should be superior to the standards of behavior that separate people. That's all. I'm saying this again - note that her response had nothing to do with what he actually did and everything to do with the 'uncommunicated intent' she projected onto it. Meaning, she would've responded like that at some point, no matter who he was or what he did. So, the real solution, is to figure out whether she's going to do that or not to begin with by testing for her attachment-style.

Indeed, there is nothing wrong with being fearful. The problem starts when this fear distorts your worldview, it makes you suspicious of everyone who behaves a certain way. The problem with fear, is that it makes you come up with the wrong 'uncommunicated intent', which is why you then label other people as 'creepy', you blame them for your fear. That's demonization of a person right there. That is disrespectful and unacceptable. Men should not be putting up with this in their dating-lives. And men should be vetting women for this kind of avoidance before asking them out. Other people are not to blame for your fear. You're feeling fear because of your own trauma and conditioning. Why should a man put up with someone who makes him responsible for her feelings? In which 'he can make her feel fear, he can make her feel happy'? Why should a man put up with someone who doesn't take responsibility for her happiness in life?! Who blames external circumstances for how she feels?! This is why my advice to OP was to vet for attachment-style.

Here's the ground - you asked me to do the same thing, I didn't want to do it. But, instead of calling you 'creepy' and reporting you, I made a joke of it. Why didn't she do the same? What was stopping her? Her own fear. All of us really need to not have sticks up our asses. Everyone is not going to meet our standards of 'social appropriateness'.

My point is, you don't have to get scared when someone doesn't perfectly fit your standards of 'social appropriateness'. Whether you want to share the pictures or not is still upto you, but understand the actual intent at play. Don't project an 'uncommunicated intent' that wasn't communicated. I think it was not a valid reason to cut contact with the OP. The cutting of contact didn't happen because she was asked to do something she didn't want to do. It happened because she wasn't comfortable with getting approached in general, because she was avoidant.

This is me, This is my family, And this is my bedroom.

@Rishabh R About what she said to you - the reality of most Indians who are dating, is that they're dating with the mindset of arranged-marriage. What this means is that for Indian women dating Indian men, dating is equivalent to betting in a horse-race. You evaluate which horse is the fastest and you bet on that horse, so that when this horse wins, you benefit from it. (It's not as bad as 'standing at the finish-line and picking the winner' like redpillers say, but it's still pretty transactional.) Most people on this planet are not looking for love, because they don't value love. They do not even know what 'love' is! So, if you want to find loving, feminine women, you have to go where they are. Which means, you have to cultivate some sort of artistic hobby/artistic endeavor. There, you'll find them!

Alright. Now, who makes the rules of what's 'socially appropriate' vs 'socially inappropriate'? Are these rule-makers loving individuals, who wish the best for us, who want us to have good relationships?! Nope. These people are fearful individuals, who operate from a space of fear in relationships, who want to hold us back. Always notice that there is no textbook definition of 'social appropriateness' but there is always a contextual definition of 'social inappropriateness'. It's always 'don't do this, it'll make her feel X' or 'don't do that, it'll make her feel Y'. First of all, how do you know that? Are you able to read minds? Just because this is how it worked with one person, does it have to work the same with someone else? Secondly, these dumb standards of 'social appropriateness' vary from culture to culture. In some cultures, female sexuality is shamed to the degree that you can't ask women whether they want to have sex to their face. Whereas, in some other cultures, women are a lot more open with their sexuality. Ultimately, these bullshit standards go back to what the dominant religion of your culture believes. And, if you take on a more spiritual approach, a lot of it can be bypassed.

@sda If you're still worried about 'making her uncomfortable' or some BS like that, I've made a thread about 'creepiness' explaining what it really means. So, if you want to waste your time figuring out what it is that's making her uncomfortable, figure out what 'uncommunicated intent' they're projecting onto you when you do something that you know to be harmless. Figuring this out will not get you any closer to finding someone who loves you, it'll just help you make sense of what's making them act in weird/strange/crazy ways (aka, why they're running from you). In general, you shouldn't be wasting your time with women who are operating from a space of fear with you. Because fear is the opposite of love.

Now, here's the real question - why are you uncomfortable with it? Does it have anything to do with him?! Nope. It's because you are operating from a space of fear in relationships. A fear of your boundaries getting violated because 'he knows too much information'. That's textbook avoidant attachment-style. Look, if your goal is to break up with whoever comes to you and end up alone, that's on you. You can work on your break-up style all you want. But, those of us who want to end up in happy relationships, we're going to work on our attachment-styles. This is a typical justification for illogical behavior. Just make an enemy of logic itself.

The excuse she gave shows that she doesn't prioritize relationships and/or has an avoidant attachment-style. Don't take it personally. Have a way to evaluate someone's attachment-style before you ask them out/decide to date them. That way, you won't run into walls like this.

Oh, buddy, the distinctions between 'real' and 'virtual' are going to get murkier and murkier as time passes. You cannot ignore the fact that people are getting sucked into the virtual world more and more. In fact, what I think you can do for the 'real world', is to help people break out of the virtual world! For that, you have to understand how the virtual world works. Then, you can help people break out of it. I don't know that much about finance or pharma. What I do know, though, is that if you want something that's logic-based and creative, programming is the way to go. Once you learn to program, you will be invincible in our technocratic world. You can apply those skills anywhere, for anyone. That's what you need to succeed in Computer Science. It's the right personality-type for a programmer. College is the time where you have lots of opportunities and lots of time to follow your passion. So, that's when you tackle the material that would require you to have a high learning-curve! If you want to learn anything that's hard and technical, college is when you do it. Don't slack in college, don't screw around in college. I had friends who screwed around for 3 1/2 years in college and then in the last 1/2 year, they were struggling to get jobs in placements. The world is more competitive than ever. You, being a conscious individual, are already on the leading-edge of thought. All you have to do is to take opportunities to be productive when you have them and to not waste your time. This will take you from being on the leading-edge mentally (but being laid-back and relaxed in practical reality), to being on the leading-edge of your field in practical reality. I'm not saying that you should change the world or anything, but I will tell you that it is an insane feeling to be on the leading-edge of your field.

It's the biggest, highest-demand application of mathematics in today's world. Your future is secure if you go in this direction. If you're interested in learning about hard sciences with the intention of applying it to solve problems, this tells me that you have the personality of a researcher/expert. So, if I were in your position, I'd look to get into industrial R&D in big tech companies first, then if I see a problem that nobody is solving, I'd look for business-ideas of new and creative products. AI is going to be a very big deal in the future, there are going to be a lot of opportunities for developers to develop the virtual world. Be it virtual money, virtual navigation, virtual characters, etc. Now, if you also know about epistemology, you can use that knowledge to not get lost in it yourself and to help those people lost in the matrix to break out of it! I'd suggest ML and data science. The reason is that it will give you a deep technical foundation and it will help you face your fear of technical complexity. Just work your ass off in college, build a diverse skill-set right now. Now is the time to do that so that you get a good job 4-5 years in the future! This will also land you good summer internships. It's the bold option, for sure. Focus on being a formidable competitor in the marketplace. Take the option with the higher learning-curve right now so that you have the confidence to do what you want to in the future.

I got into simulation software-development, where I was working on an earthquake-simulator. The lifestyle didn't really go with me, though, it was very lonely. Then, I got more interested in philosophy/epistemology and I saw a whole bunch of problems in the education-system. The fundamental problem being that the 'epistemology' or the 'definition of knowledge' of the current education-system is that 'knowledge=words'. This leads to a high emphasis on memorization and regurgitation in the exams. Which is why the exams grade you on your ability to regurgitate the system's narrative (which is disgusting, if you ask me). When I saw this, I saw a big gap in the test-prep industry in India. The test-prep industry here is huge, it is worth $70 billion. And, most of them are wrong about the right way to prepare for the toughest engineering entrance-exam in the world, IIT-JEE. So, I applied my superior knowledge of epistemology, metaphysics and Spiral-Dynamics ('superior' compared to the existing institutes) and devised a new prep-strategy for students for this entrance-exam! Now, I'm launching a new portal. You sound like you have potential as an engineer. Here's my definition of an 'engineer' - someone who solves technically complex problems using technological innovation. Therefore, I'd suggest that you go into engineering. More specifically, Computer Science/AI/Machine-Learning. Even if you don't plan on working in a big tech company long-term, even if you'd like to start your own business, my diagnosis is that you're the type of entrepreneur who would be very good at the R&D of the product. So, I'd highly recommend becoming technically proficient before thinking of entrepreneurship. If your interest in philosophy is application-oriented, you absolutely must get into engineering. Because, science is also 'philosophy' So, if you apply that 'philosophy' to do technological innovation, you're an engineer! No, any kind of math is not 'much needed'. There are some branches of math that are purely in the philosophical domain right now. Especially pure math research is purely philosophical right now. I'll give the branches of math that are in descending order of importance in the marketplace right now: Statistical analysis, data science Numerical Methods, Numerical Analysis Analytical Calculus, Real/Complex Analysis Number Theory Don't think you can just wing it with your course-choices in your undergrad and then magically land a job in the future, don't take your job-prospects for granted. I suspected that the B-Math degree, as enticing as it was at the time, would have put me in a precarious position in the job-market because of the high emphasis on analytical math. I was right. You college kids need to really get in touch with real-world marketplace demands as soon as possible. Your career is on the line here, this is no joke. The competition is stiff.

@Abe27 When I was to enter college, I had a similar dilemma. I was very interested in math, I was getting admission into one of the top math-universities of my country. It would've been a B-Math degree. (No tuition, they would've paid me a stipend). The other option was to go into Mechanical Engineering and get a B.E. in it. (High tuition, no stipend). I chose the B.E. The reason was very simple - I didn't see how I would apply math-knowledge in a competitive job-marketplace. Engineering felt more secure, financially. And, it felt more grounded in reality, I didn't want to lose myself in the weeds of philosophy. Later on, when I saw the application of math in applied science research, I went for an M.S. in Applied Math and I got into those kinds of research-projects. If you're taking a student-loan, please take accounting. You need to in order to find a job in the future. If you're not taking a loan, even then, you need to be thinking about what you're going to do for a living. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't get into philosophy, by all means, study it. But, college costs serious money these days and you need to have something to show for it in the future.

I mean, I was hoping to help you cut short the time you'd take to decide whether you wanted monogamy or polygamy. This is how you'd figure it out, by determining your top value in relationships.

@Consept What is your biggest relationship-value? Is it attachment-relationship? Is it sexual compatibility? Is it sexual abundance? On what metric are you evaluating women at this point? Another way to put it is - what would be the 'KPI' of your sex-life?

@Consept Out of curiosity, what kind of sex-life do you want to end up with? Monogamous or polygamous? Because a monogamous individual would not see the future potential of them wanting to be the only one in the future as a 'problem'. If you're fundamentally polygamous, nothing wrong with it. I just don't relate and my advice becomes irrelevant for you if that's you. The ethical dilemma for a monogamous individual would be 'how do I make her feel secure when I'm single and considering multiple options?'. That's what I was answering.

In that case, I don't think it's ethical to date multiple women. Even if you're able to smoothly manage it, you don't want to be in a mindset where the women you're seeing are 'replaceable'. If you're seeing them as replaceable, they will feel objectified. This will repel higher-quality women. So, if you don't think that sex is the end-all-be-all, you should act like it. Women should see you walking your talk and that includes not seeing other women and focusing on one woman at a time. Also, when you don't have multiple women clouding your radar, you're able to make quicker decisions with each woman.

Is it a good habit or bad habit, socially? Is it appropriate or inappropriate? I used to think of it as a bad habit, because I hated it when others did it. Yes, there were those people who kept talking on and on and on. I had two strategies to deal with such people. Either be a good listener and listen to what they're saying, if it's interesting. Or, if they're boring, avoid them. But then, in a recent situation where they wouldn't stop talking, I realized the reason for it. It's that they're not a curious person. And, I realized that not only are they boring right now, they're never going to stop being boring, because they're not learning anything new! Nothing new is entering their mind, because they're not learning. So, my new rule - if they're being boring, it's okay to interrupt them. If they're interesting, they can keep talking! Thoughts?

It's because most dating-coaches see women as a replaceable commodity. The mindset of 'approach thousands of women' means that a specific woman is just a number to you and if things don't work out with her, there's 'plenty of fish in the sea'. I'm not saying that incels aren't responsible for solving this, they are. I'm attempting to explain why they're not going for dating-coaching. Because the OP sounds more like a problem for the dating-coach than the incel.

Oh no, by 'petty conflict', I don't mean, them personally attacking me. (By the way, those who personally attack me don't deserve to talk to me at all.) I mean, a conflict over what would be the right way to do something together as a team. In the conflict I was talking about, the point of disagreement was a fact. I knew a fact she didn't and she kept arguing for it. This was a red-flag, because it signaled closed-mindedness, which would cause much bigger problems in the future. The conflict itself was petty, the stakes weren't that high. But, argumentativeness is a hell no for me. We can be friends but we can't date.

There are a whole bunch of people saying a whole bunch of nasty things about nice guys. That 'they're weak, they're inauthentic, they're manipulative, they're controlling, they're not really nice', blah blah blah. I have finally figured out why that is. It's because dating-coaches really profit from telling you 'you're being too nice, don't be too nice, do this instead'. If they told you the truth, which is that women want a man to be nice and loving towards them, and you should be nice (in smart and pragmatic ways, meaning, if someone asks you for an unreasonable favor, you help them not by doing the favor, you help them by suggesting a better, more convenient alternative), that would not be original. This is a problem. Because we are killing true masculinity by doing this. True masculinity is not about achievement and conquest, it is about giving. It is about sharing your gift with the world. Honestly, I am not proud of the fact that I live in times when 'being nice' is considered a bad thing and selfishness is glorified.

Kay.

Petty conflicts are not 'work in progress'. The one starting them is just being dumb. Either they're being dumb or they don't want a loving relationship. Both of which are dealbreakers for me. 'Work in progress' means that you're doing the work, you're not wasting time and energy on pointless bullshit. I gotta see the work to believe a 'work in progress'! Having issues is not enough to be a 'work in progress', you gotta show that you're doing something about the issues.