nerdspeak

I think you should probably start meditating and maybe make some friends

Most pickup "advice" is designed to make men feel insecure so they'll pay for coaching and information products, and stay in the product cycle once they do. This is true of most self-help niches tbh, including professional psychotherapy.

I have experimented with poly and didn't find it worked too well for me. The relationships I had were kind of thin, and all came crashing down during a major crisis (Russian invasion lol) when multiple partners wanted support from me at the same time. I couldn't be there for all of them equally. You might say, that's a unique event, but I know a lot of boomer New Left types among whom poly was very popular in the 70s, including a psychotherapist (not mine) who is pretty self-aware. They all concluded that it doesn't work very well. That doesn't mean that it is ethically problematic, just that it isn't very satisfying long term. A big part of the needs romantic relationships fill in contemporary Western society are basic survival needs that would have historically been met by the extended family or tribe. By that I don't mean housing or food, but the sense that someone would be there for you in an emergency, if you got sick, etc. Polyamorous relationships seem like they might meet that need even better -- I am romantically bonded with multiple people, so if one doesn't come through I have a back-up! But it doesn't really work that way. Summary of their points. The female orgasm releases a lot of oxytocin, so if a woman is orgasming with multiple partners, she will feel conflicted about which partners' needs to prioritize. This can cause a lot of problems and jealousy even without any sort of acute crises, especially because, in general, women into poly will have an easier time finding partners than men. Both because women are more selective, and because fewer women are open to poly. Men don't release much oxytocin from physical intimacy -- it's more through emotional and verbal intimacy. However, men don't really have much of an incentive to pursue verbal intimacy in poly relationships. This intimacy is built largely through verbal and emotional conflcit, and instead of working through these issues with their partners and building intimacy, if the option to go see another woman is there, most men will just withdraw and start spending time with another woman...until conflict starts with that woman too. So, the relationships end up being kind of superficial for the men, because they have no incentive to stick it through. The ones that stuck with alternative lifestyles said the swingers' lifestyle is actually a lot better for relationships than poly, because both partners are getting the dopamine and excitement together.

In my own experience, whenever I run out of money or feel like I'm in physical danger, I slide back down that spiral pretty quickly.

Agreed with this but I think he needs help figuring out what he wants. OP, what do you find enjoyable? That’s a good signal.

@MajedI wouldn't worry about value stuff really because it's hard to change in the short term, although dressing better helps. Besides that, if you just want a gf whose status is similar to yours then it's not necessary to increase it -- there are a lot of women with similar value to you, and it’s about finding one you click with at an acceptable cost of your time and effort. Of the women with similar value and age, you'll still only be the "type" of something like 20% of them. And, many will have boyfriends and not be open to you. So, randomly approaching women will mean getting repeatedly rejected, just based on the numbers. This is why approaching random people is basically a numbers game (like cold outreach in sales). Let's actually go with the sales analogy for a bit, because it is less emotionally loaded. In sales, you make a list of qualified prospects -- companies that can both afford and benefit from your service -- and try to book meetings. But, 95% of the people you contact will brush you off because they already have an existing provider. Of the 5% of people who don’t have a provider, some will brush you off because they're in a bad mood, don't like the sound of your voice, etc. This is why cold-calling is brutal and the best salespeople hire underlings to do it, rely on marketing to generate leads, focus on going to industry events where companies go to meet new vendors, build a network of referrals, or at least use software to measure "intent." They don’t just open the phone book and dial for dollars. Ok, so let's go back to your situation. If you find the repeated rejection exhausting, you can make it a bit less of a grind. Pre-qualify your prospects. If you continue with cold approach, try to pre-qualify the women you approach for interest and availability. So, do far fewer approaches, like 3-5 per day, but on women who indicate some interest in you or at least high availability. This is what I did when I was single because the spam approach was way too exhausting for me. Some ways of doing it (none are foolproof, just increase the odds): Eye contact If she meets your eye contact for more than 3/4 of a second or so, she is likely single and will be receptive to a conversation. Slow movement, wandering around during the day The girl is probably bored and will be receptive to at least talking for a few minutes If she does not have her phone out as a shield, then she is probably hoping someone talks to her on some level Hanging around in your proximity in a bar situation Use a marketing channel -- like a dating app -- to screen for women who are looking for guys and who at least like your photos and what you say in your profile Lower the price of your offer, i.e., approach less physically attractive girls Just like in business, you should only lower your price after experimenting a bit with the other options though.

I disagree, because risk of armageddon goes up exponentially with each additional actor who gets nukes. Long-term this poses greater threat. You could say, an individual state shouldn’t care about that because it still helps their chances of survival. But it doesn’t actually, long term. Let’s say Poland builds nukes to deter Russia. Smart right? Except, then Sweden, Germany, Lithuania, Ukraine will build them too, to counter Poland. That world is a lot more dangerous than the imperfect NATO deterrent.

Mearsheimer has an academic position but he's considered to be a kind of crazy laughing-stock. To give one anecdote, in the 90s he went around telling European countries to start nuclear weapons programs to counter the threat of a reunified Germany.

Most people who claim to be interested in philosophy are not interested in academic philosophy in the sense that it exists today. That said, I would keep doing it as long as it's enjoyable for you. If you're like me, when your engagement with intellectual pursuits starts to threaten your basic needs, it will become less enjoyable and you'll be motivated to go do things in the world.