mr_engineer

Actually, I'm asking you to disprove the positive. Just give a counter-example to the positive, that'll suffice. Which things?

Okay, then. Please enlighten me. What is the practical reality? What is the practical reason being a loving and compassionate individual would NOT work to raise the level of consciousness of the world?

So, I'm being 'theoretical' when I say that being a loving and compassionate individual will raise the level of consciousness of the world?

We're talking about a 'cruel world' here. Meaning, all kinds of shit happening in it. There are abusers and there are victims. There are oppressors and there are the oppressed. That's the practical meaning of 'cruel world'. If you say that 'you can't reason with the evil people in this world', I would agree. What you can do, though, is stand up to them for their victims. A nice guy will be helpful and kind in general. But, if you want to look at it relative to the 'asshole' or the 'cruel world', your role could be to fix the cruel world. That's how you be constructive in it! And, when it comes to other people's paradigms not accounting for the possibility of being helped by you, this is where marketing comes in. You know what they need, but they don't know what's possible. So, through marketing, you advertise a better possibility of how things could work. This is how you outcompete the unconscious assholes in the marketplace and this is how you change the world for the better, this is how you make it less cruel. This is what all conscious business boils down to. Being a kind and nice person. This is what conscious marketing boils down to! We're being very practical, goal-oriented and achievement-oriented here, we're not just being theoretical and talking about a moral debate.

So, all guys are assholes, some are straightforward, others are putting a fake 'nice' front? Do you have to be an asshole to be successful? Or, does it take work-ethic and discipline? And, about the 'cruel world' - how do you fix that? Does it get fixed by stopping to be nice and being an asshole? Or, is the way to fix it, to recognize the difference between people who act out of love, i.e. 'nice' people, and people who act out of ego, i.e. 'assholes' and to protect the nice people against the assholes? Keep in mind that in order to protect anyone, you need a morality of who's good vs who's bad.

Sounds very blackpilling. Do you happen to agree with the blackpill?

Because the current education-system is so theoretical, it favors those professionals who have the professional personality of an 'expert'. Meaning, the individuals who know all of the theory and who can laser-focus on one specialization. The hierarchy this creates in the economic-system is that the bosses know more than the employees. That is the point of the exam-system and the grading-system - to establish this hierarchy in the workplace. (The fact that you are graded for 'being right' is a give-away for what the system wants you to become.) Is this a good thing or bad thing? I'd argue it's a good thing, because employees can do whatever little they can do, while bosses can use their superior knowledge to make sense of how the system works and give the right people the right tasks to do. And plan the entire operation for their team. This is not the problem. It's pure pragmatism for the purposes of making the economic-system function smoothly. The problem is that the education-system is too theoretical and it suppresses human creativity. Once we solve this problem, we will recognize more definitions of 'master' than an 'expert'. And, one final point - don't use this as an excuse to be lazy. You ARE wired to work hard. Your ancestors have worked way harder than you, so don't give excuses. If you have long-term patterns of laziness, it's because you've never worked hard in your life and you need to learn to discipline yourself, i.e. wake up early, go to the gym, eat healthy, put in all of the work-hours and sleep on time. Now, if you have long-term patterns of demotivation, that's different. It's because you are not passionate about what you do. This is where you need to commit to doing what you love doing, so that you can get good at it and so that it can be profitable for you. But, never forget that there are manual laborers in this world who are not passionate about what they do and they survive on minimum wage, only based on discipline and hard work. It sounds very privileged when you say that you're 'not wired for hard work'.

Now, I can understand that if you drop all your conditioned standards, look into the situation with an open mind and you see that he has the mindset of an individual who doesn't have enough and who's holding onto whatever scraps he's got, that would concern you. It should concern you, for sure. Because, such an individual has no incentive to question their limiting-beliefs when it comes to ambition and making it big. So, one day, if you get a genuine million-dollar idea which you want to pursue, this individual will hold you back. The way for you to discern this is not to look at these isolated incidents in which he's being stingy with spending money on junk food. They are not enough data-points. You have to talk to him about it, you have to look into his past. What he's done for work in the past, what failures he's seen, how he interprets them, how he feels about his accomplishments in life, what he's presently doing about it. Based on this, you can figure out where he's headed in the future. Then, you make up your mind to stay or leave.

I mean, maybe he believes that chocolate is unhealthy and that it's a bad investment of his $4. Maybe, he would be more willing to spend $100/hour on a fitness-trainer and he'd find that reasonable. And, maybe his unwillingness to spend the $4 on chocolate is being interpreted as 'cheap'. I'm not saying she should change her definition of 'cheapness', that that's the solution for sure. I'm saying that it's worth a shot. Also, it could also be that he's just too stingy and he should reflect on it. We're talking to the OP right now, that's why I'm making this suggestion. If we were talking to him, I'd have a different suggestion for him. Also, in my culture, 'cheapness' is seen as a positive quality, believe it or not. If you're cheap in my culture, people say 'Very good. You know how to keep your money in your pocket'. Men and women would unanimously applaud 'cheapness' in my culture. I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm just telling you that I have reason to question the negative connotation with 'cheapness'.

First of all, if we're debating whether or not being cheap is good or bad, in an absolute sense, we're wasting our time. Because there is no answer to this debate. There is no absolute morality, no absolute good or bad. @Barbella However, if your boyfriend's 'cheapness' is bothering you, I would ask the question - is he really being cheap? Surely, he must spend his money somewhere, right?! What is 'cheapness'? Does he see himself as 'cheap'? And, does he have a problem with it or is he fine with it? Here's my point - if he's fine with it and if you're not, as it seems, the answer is not as straightforward as 'break up with him'. Because, the definition of 'cheapness' is subjective. And, the solution could be as simple as one (or both) of you changing your definition of 'cheapness'. So, even if this is a short-term conflict, it may not be unworkable.

If living on your own, going to therapy and doing shadow-work isn't enough for you to heal your trauma (because the trauma is so much that it overwhelms you), you probably need more time and energy, logistically, to get this done. And, if you live with your family, you will see all of the dysfunctionalities and root-causes of your traumas to begin with. It is understandable that your trauma would make you want to give up. But, I would give the process of healing trauma my best shot before giving up. And, sometimes, you gotta move back in with your parents to put your finger on the root-causes and heal the traumas.

Good. Now, the next step is to look into the dysfunctionalities in your home and to figure out solutions to those. Clearly, you've tried to take a bunch of actions in the past and it hasn't worked, which is why you're feeling hopeless. And, if you have bad results and bad conditioning, that bad conditioning will screw up your interpretations of the bad results. In such situations, you have to get to the root of the issue. I recommend shadow-work/inner-child work. Teal Swan has a process called 'The Completion Process' that's very helpful in such situations.

I've had my low points. But this-> This is not supposed to happen. If you're living alone, I'd rather you live with your mom than be thinking these thoughts. I don't care how toxic/dysfunctional that relationship is. I'd rather you give up the battle to make it on your own, admit defeat and live with your mom, than be in a state where you're so stuck that the only relief you see is to do something heinous. If you're stuck, take a step back.

Sounds good in theory. If you don't care about your impact on the other person, though, wouldn't the energy of your approach be one of a taker? I'd prefer to focus on what I have to offer to others before putting a price-tag on it.

He totally trashed the concept of 'high-value man' as something that women want, practically. Yeah, fine, it may not have anything to do with attractiveness. But, getting jacked can be important to inspire romantic feelings in her, having money can be important to show provider-potential. Sex is just one part of a relationship and there are other factors that make a relationship work. Yes, the conversation of sex is a separate one from the conversation about the other factors. And, he does acknowledge that the other factors do help your quality of life. I think he failed to emphasize the importance of the other factors in making relationships work. He does say that 'this is not a hill that I want to die on, we don't gain much from fucking around all the time'. True. What we do gain from, as a society, is having relationships work out. So, it is important to do the needful to have that happen.

Wouldn't this be a bait-and-switch in dating, where you show yourself as someone you're not, then she gets with you and then your true colors show? Right. So, given the long-term goal of keeping her, how should you prioritize being around her? Or, is there a third option?

Sounds good, in theory. Practically, though, we would have to prioritize being one way, right? Let's consider a realistic practical situation, where you're living with your girlfriend. She is the love of your life. Both of you have your own jobs you go to. They're not very good jobs, they just make ends meet. You have a vision to actualize your LP and you have plans for it. Now, in this relationship, let's say, you come home tired after a hard day of work. What should the priority be? Should you be logical and work on your LP or should you 'let loose and have fun' to keep her happy, 'pump her state' but neglect your LP in the process? Let's say that your long-term goal is to make your LTR work because you do love your girlfriend.

The thing is that tits and ass don't take away from a woman's commitment-worthiness. But, for a man, being hard-working, serious and logical is paramount to being financially stable. And, if that's 'unattractive' to women, isn't this a conflict?

The information he presents here is conflicting, to say the least. What he's saying are the qualities that'll make you 'sexually attractive' are the opposite qualities from the ones that make you commitment-worthy. Things like hard work, discipline, being logical, caring about outcomes, etc. If you ask reasonable women what they want in a man, this is what they'll tell you. Here's my question - why should I want to sleep with women who are attracted to incompatible individuals? If you are attracted to individuals who are incompatible to what you want in a relationship long-term, that's an issue with your attachment-style. Why should I waste my time with such individuals? I know, he thinks he's breaking men out of the paradigm that 'they have to do all of this stuff in order to get laid'. And, he's right about that. He (and Leo) are right that game is it, if you want to get laid. But, can you carry this information into an LTR to make it work? Or, do you have to change the way you play the 'game' (if you want to use that word lol), if you're playing it with your own woman? I think it's the latter. Because, as 'sexually liberating' as it sounds for men, it's limiting when it comes to making an LTR work. I personally don't see any shortcuts to making an LTR work. You can't be someone who is just in a positive state and has good game to keep a woman. A lot of other guys can do that. You do need to be a stable individual to keep a family together.

Stop crying, then. Stop whining. Take some responsibility for your feelings!

Looks like you like to hate on men. You're using crying-emojis when I appreciate equality.

This issue is very nuanced. I agree that mockery does nothing to help them. However, to 'pity' them, would mean, to agree with the black pill ideology. And I don't think that's a good idea. I think the word you're looking for is 'empathy'. You can put yourself in their shoes without necessarily agreeing with them. If you put yourself in their shoes and look into the black pill, you will realize very quickly that it is heavily based on online-dating stats. Meaning, it is the dating-ideology of someone who doesn't leave their house, who only relies on online-dating and social-media DMs. I think that the root-level solution is to make the internet a safer space for men. If you want to help them, that's how you help them. Here's why. It is true that the issue is that they're not going out and touching grass. But, the more you tell them to do that, the more invalidating it's going to feel to them, because they're subscribed to the blackpill ideology. So, the more resistant they'll be to doing that. And, the reason for holding onto the blackpill ideology is not necessarily that they're 'lazy' (or that the blackpill ideology is true - it's NOT), it's that the media and internet-spaces have waged a PR-war against men. Men are being sent a message through the internet/media that women don't need them, the world doesn't need them. This is what makes someone want to sit in their room and play video-games all day, living in a nihilistic funk. It's not that 'life is too hard and I'm too lazy to deal with it'. So, how do you make the internet a safer space for men? Very simple. Moderate man-hate and have zero tolerance for it. The more people you see do that (because let's face it, the internet is run by real people), the more hope they'll feel and the more likely it is that they'll go out and touch grass.

Now we're talking. This is some equality.

Buying low and selling high would happen even in long-term investing, right?

@teraflu It is not true, fundamentally, that women are meant to be receivers and men are meant to be providers. However, mothers do need to receive and fathers do need to provide. And, if as a man or woman you don't accept this, you will struggle as a parent. Because men have a physical advantage over women, the conditions of society impact women more than men. And men have more of a responsibility to protect society in general than women do. So, in careers that require you to be territorial, men will be favored. This part is fundamental and it probably won't change. Also, there are a lot of cultural factors that make some careers very competitive. This favors men more than women. This could change as the world develops more and becomes more conscious.