Matt23

Perhaps. But I'd say probably it's not as bad as you believe. Maybe a few edge cases will do this depending on your family and social circle. But I think, largely, sure, you may get a little "downward social tug", buuuutttt... nothing you can't handle or that's totally inappropriate or devastating. Just like maybe little things, little snippets, little comments or something. People are supportive as well. So hopefully you can see who's supportive and not and try to acertain the reality of things from what you believe and think about them (DIFFICTULT!) Believe people are well-intentioned; or simply unconscious and not knowing what they do. Or fearful. Obviously, if you feel negative with certain people and like they drain you and pull you down, question whether staying with them is totally necessary or to what degree it's necessary. But also, make sure you're taking all perspectives into account; see if you can step in their shoes === Helps a lot in developing understanding and seeing what's an appropriate action to take. It could also be that misreading other people is a thing. Especially for people who suffer from lack of development in cognitive empathy/mind-reading. I myself think I've struggled with this lots and it really can disrupt and create an imbalanced picture socially (like what others mean, the degree to which they mean it, etc.).

...ermmm... lol. I dunno about that. Seems more likely cuz it's about you rather than something else. It's easy to turn something into a belief structure. But maybe. Hope. Something to pull you through tough times. I watched a podcast with a world-class surgeon who travelled the world (including areas of the states with lots of religious people). He was asked if he thought that having religious beliefs helped people's prognosis vs. those who didn't. His answer was like "for sure". He himself isn't religious I don't think. It's the actor Jon Bernthal's brother. You can check it out on YT. I'm sure there's more nuance within that half than you may believe. I feel you may be reacting from something; perhaps experiences you disliked or that didn't align totally with what you felt was right, virtuous, or just growing up or something? I guess I feel bad when people bash others unconsciously from their own pains and feel you may be doing this. I feel bad about it lol. I myself am not religious, nor did I grow up in a religious family (West Coast of Canada), but I had some religious friends and acquaintances. They seemed normal enough. Not pushy. I didn't grow up in an area with huge amounts of religiosity so I don't really relate to people bashing it or backlashing from it lots. So maybe that's why I feel sort of unjust when people bash religious people. I dunno. I feel like I understand the motivation to believe in some high power for sure. It's just that I haven't had many bad experiences with religion so I don't feel bad, resentful, or frustrated by religious people. I just feel they have something to offer perhpas (not saying I wouldn't improve anything also; lots to develop). The literal beliefs n stuff, ya, not so much. But that basic drive to believe in something higher or other than you to me feels soothing almost.

Perhaps realizing that this is a preconception of how you'll feel and not the actual thing (you'll probably feel many, many things throughout that journey rather than just meaninglessness). Often I'll have a preconception of how a thing will be, then I'll do it, and it won't be nearly as bad (or good sometimes) as I think. Yet I'm usually glad I did it since I learned. Obviously balance too though. Maybe start small? Also... What's the motivation for doing it? What type of feelings are associated with the motivation? Anger? frustration? Joy? Courage? Curiosity? Motivation? Positive? Negative? etc.

What's not "the struggle"?

Going through difficult things with others and taking leaps of faith with them. Trust. Honesty. Courage. Togetherness. Faith (in each other). Love. AEDP therapy (Diana Fosha) = recommend checking her out. Basically, this therapy's POV is, if I understand it, to create a secure attachment with your therapist in order to adequately process emotions to completion and what comes next are transformational "Strivings" (specific emotions) that come online. So it's not just about healing old wounds, but about flipping the story (and emotions that run you) to positive and motivational ones. To create the foundation of a secure attachment is through going through difficult things with others. Basically. Taking "leaps of faith" with others and coming out on the other side together.

I didn't know Vervaeke was doing research on this particular theory. I thought it was just autism in general. Do you know what time-stamp Vervaeke spoke about his work on it, even if roughly?

I just did some wiki research on autism and also specifically the theory that was posted. It definitely seems to have a lot of flaws and holes in it. Everything from the backgrounds of the two researchers (lack of expertise in the fields the theory is based in), the way they've handled criticisms of the theory, to the actual theory and data itself and contradictory information and findings from other studies that disprove or at the very least highly discredit their theory. One being that this theory sees autism and schizophrenia as being "opposites" and that schizophrenia is more about having "too much empathy" and autism too little. Wiki (again, I know it's only wiki) cites how it actually seems like both schizophrenia and autism both suffer from theory of mind/empathy and socializing, and that many people with autism have higher probabilities of getting schizophrenia at some point. Again, I'm writing this from memory, so not all details may be accurate. But the basics of it was that autism and schizophrenia, contrary to this theory, seem to be more related and "together" than on opposite sides of some sort of psychological duality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinted_brain_hypothesis I wouldn't start treating personality theories as very credible either. Especially not taking theories from actual neuroscience and correlate them to something that's more like pop-psychology. imo. They might have some validity and like usefulness, but I dunno... when it comes to actually tracking reality and neuroscience etc... I just don't think they pale in comparison. I dunno, maybe there's something there. But I'm just skeptical. It also seems like there's a lot of uncertainty about what autism is and what causes it in the first place. From the brief research I did today on autism, schizophrenia, and this theory here, it seems like the safest bet is saying that autism and schizophrenia are disorders of the social areas of our brains and minds; specifically deficits in theory of mind and cognitive (not emotional) empathy. Not meaning to poo-poo this post...too much lol.

Ya, I think there are benefits, and drawbacks. I've heard from a surgeon who traveled the U.S. and the world helping people out. He said that yes, being religious and believing in some sort of higher power does seem to increase the likelihood that that person while recover better and survive. Also, social factors like belonging, togetherness, and meaning (even if it is constructed meaning). Drawbacks: Groupthink, extremism (not everywhere obviously), stifling your authentic self expression, homophobia possible, us-them dynamics. Altogether, it seems maybe if you're not a very inquisitive person, don't care about knowing the truth for yourself, are fine going along with the group, highly value belongingness and social cohesion... it seems a religious group could be a good fit for you.

That's been my fear of trying 5-Meo... I've tried other psychedelics and have felt off-kilter from them a few times. I'm worried 5-Meo would like really be too much.

Just wanna say, love the title of this thread lol. Ya... probably best to try something more tame like shrooms or LSD. I guess the trick is to have them have an experience and give them something they enjoy so they'll want to try more stuff, eventually leading to DMT. Basically like a drug dealer does with their clients lol. Maybe MDMA? Low dose (80-100mg--- probs closer to 80mg if first timers)

THanks! Also... I'd highly recommend reading "The Essential Difference" by Simon Baron Cohen. It's on Leo's book list under the "relationship" section. One phrase he uses to describe autism is as an "empathy-disorder" (cognitive, not emotional, empathy). It basically says within each human mind there is one part systemic-thinking and one part empathic-thinking. Systemic thinking is all about understanding systems in order to control them (a system being anything from a kids systematically organized toy collection, a golf swing, or the economy: anything that follows If-Then rules). Empathic thinking is about connection, intimacy, and being able to go into someone else's experience and care for them. This is ideal for relationships since it's too much of a complex phenomena for the systemic-thinking mind to deal with (why you get people with autism who aren't socially adept, and they try to form logical rule-sets around socializing). Men in general (across age and culturally) = systemic > empathic *in general; obviously there are edge cases Women in general = systemic < empathic Of course there are edge cases. Basically his theory is that autism is an extreme male brain (i.e. systemic > empathic mind). With either average to above average (but even below average sometimes) systemic thinking, but the key being lower than average empathizing. Also, empathizing being two parts: A) cognitive empathy (accurately imagining what another is thinking and feeling; psychopaths are good at this), and B) emotional empathy (caring for the other person). People with autism do care, sometimes a great deal and can be very sensitive, but they lack the cognitive empathy piece. This is what separates them from psychopaths and sociopaths. Well... pretty sure we can consider this issue solved. Nobel prizes anyone?

I have never used slurs. That wasn't directed towards you. It was more my general philosophy and guideline for what I think is reasonable rules in public spaces like this. No, the apostrophes around the word "harassment" were meant to mean that I didn't think it was to the degree that I'd call it harassment. And I guess this is why this whole debate is happening in the first place: what's one person's opinion others deem trolling/bullying/harassment... and people can use all sorts of words to justify their sides and then it ends up being a bunch of people throwing psychological concepts at each other like grenades. But until we know what was going on directly, it's hard to say what's fair, reasonable, and just. It's like shit happens and we gotta deal with it and I just feel triggered, put down, pain... a lot of people do. It seems like it's all a shit show to be real. All this culture war stuff. It's like I think most comes from personal issues that then get projected or people react from which reallllllyyyy blows reasonableness and realness out of the water. (my feelings towards this whole issue in general). All probably mostly about people trying to feel better within and about themselves. To feel secure, not attacked or put down etc.

Lol. So true. Kind of a counter-intuitive sign that, obviously isn't desired, but if all your concerned about is being in a cult or not, just see if people are arguing out in the open. --- though, what if the cult leader knows this and thus encourages and allows this behavior!!!! You just can't ever know I guess. In any case, I think we can all agree this will never be "perfect" and please everyone. Which is why it's good that it's just the internet and you can just leave if you want, or get banned, w/e works for you. As per the thread: Improvements / What I'd like to see more of No huge overhauls... I like it's simplicity of layout and it's just not too fancy with lots of options and pages etc. I think the forum is fine in its layout. Like, you can overthink things like this and I think it's fine just as is. Sure you could make little adjustments and add-ons.. but really, I think if people can see what's being posted and it has broad categories to search stuff on, I think it's fine. I mostly use it just to distract myself anyways and see "what's new" in the world. Ya, maybe more courses. Maybe more resources and links to other works and people you use in your videos. Just so people can follow their own trails of what interests them and see what influenced your conclusions. --- even though I know you say recently you do most work without books etc..

What about when you "harassed" all the guys on the NNN thread and nothing really happened about it? You posted stuff like "natural male sexuality is to be horny all the time" and ......? It seems you also do what you accuse others of doing. What if some guys here have mental health issues like you say you do, and then see this and feel awful about it? Also, as a queer person on this forum, I've not once felt anything anti-queer or misogynistic. I actually felt quite uplifted and supported when I posted (while doing mdma ... I know, for-shame) about coming to terms with my sexuality. Lots of support. From straight white guys too. As long as people don't use slurs or language that's clearly just plain insulting/demeaning, I think people should be allowed to voice their opinions. We won't get nowhere by straight up silencing people just cuz people can't take others' opinions due to their past traumas and pains coming up unconsciously.

I feel hints of accuracy or agreement here. For me, I know recently I've considered strongly that I'm on the spectrum.

is also a loaded term and like I think most people, even scientists and stuff, can't definitely say this' or that is "natural". It ain't black and white. When most people say "natural" what they use this term for is actually "right" or "wrong" or "this feels good or not". "Natural" may not even a useful concept since, like @Carl-Richard pointed out, something being natural ain't everything since things evolve and barely anything remains static... and the word "natural" usually refers to something having a static form of being. But it seems very few, maybe even no, things in the universe are completely static. Thus, it's possible to use the word "natural" as a form of defense against inevitable change.

So... you say men must cum AND that they must increase their testosterone... BUT YET NOFAP CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE TESTOSTERONE BY 400% if done for a week or more. Again... Also... ...... Look... I know a local magician who does kids parties I'll send your way. Just so it'll be a more equal fight.

Don't worry guys, I put a protection spell on this thread at the beginning. Nobody's gunna be putting any curses, spells, or incantations on any ya'll. @Tyler Robinson

Bruh... that's not a documentary. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8772262/fullcredits --> here's the cast list. For example, the black guy's real name is William Jackson Harper. He's an actor that was in a show called "The Good Place" alongside Kristen Bell and Ted Danson. Wiki: The film was shot on location in Budapest in the summer and autumn of 2018. Midsommar is a 2019 folk horror film written and directed by Ari Aster... " the film was initially pitched to Aster as a straightforward slasher film set among Swedish cultists While elements of the original concept remain in the final product, the film's plot centers on a deteriorating relationship, inspired by a difficult breakup which Aster himself experienced. Here's also an article comparing the movie to actual mid-summer festivals in Sweden, none of which the author said ever contained ritual suicides or anything like that, even in Medieval times. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a28259552/midsommer-movie-fact-check-real-swedish-midsummer-traditions/ Also, you can search "A24" (the production company) on wikipedia to see all the documentaries they made, Midsommar not being one of them.

Lolz Sounds like campbell river.

Ehhh!!! Woot woot! I'm from Campbell River (in Vancouver now though). Where are you from originally and what part of the island you at now? Beautiful place; ocean, lakes, forests, mountains, rivers, rednecks... it's got it all! Well, I think it's like being authentic but from different places of your circle of concern or your ability to hold others and go beyond an ego/1st person perspective. It's like rather than just doing what YOU (not saying it in a diminutive way) feel like authentically doing, going with the flow of your emotions and sense of truth (which hey, may not be a bad thing and I think has some merit), you do this WHILE ALSO being in tune with and holding, considering, empathizing, caring for others around you. This leads to both you authentically expressing yourself while also taking into account of a MORE HOLISTIC PICTURE. It's like... Situation A = your awareness is limited to yourself. So, to you, authenticity means just being/doing/acting/expressing what YOU feel like. Which is great, but you can go a step further. Situation B = your awareness has done the ol' transcend and include thing so now it is aware of and holds not only your own perspective but also those of others around you in a holistic picture. Now, authenticity to you means taking in your own and others' perspectives as nodes of input into a single, holistic picture of the situation with others and will thus change what your authenticity manifests as (perhaps more socially relatable). In each case there is a sense of "what is authentic" and you try to follow that (if you wish). But each one has less or more input of perspectives into the, let's call it the "authenticity generator" which creates the sense of "what is authentic" experientially. This leads to very different expressions of authenticity yet is still authentic. My idea was that you're experiencing issues relating to people even if you're being authentic. And that it's because often (maybe, or maybe just sometimes, particularly when socializing) your at an ego-centric perspective and don't hold other's perspectives alongside your own (no fucking idea though, just a possibility). Thus, authenticity + egocentric perspective = authentic but issues with others. So... the solution I thought would be to to increase your circle of concern and perspective to include others more which would give you the ability to do both. --> authenticity + expanded perspective = authenticity and happy relating ! Phew! lol. Bit of a diatribe but I hope you get the gist. This could be totally off the mark, and this is just one idea. My initial thing is to just be authentic and be yourself.

Ugh... that would be a pain. Not even getting the pleasurable part; just get the mess. It's like throwing a party at your own place but then passing out and then waking up and the place is destroyed and you gotta clean it all up.

Curious... soooo, do you just wake up with cum everywhere or are you hard or do you feel like aroused etc.? I don't know why having wet dreams would knock one off NNN since it's like totally out of your control.

Bunch of hippy-folk doing dances and holding hands... I dunno. I get the uneasiness with this type of setting. But I also think maybe you're overblowing it a little bit. Ya, sure, you can probably get some "weird" stuff happening there (dance circles, nudity, strange beliefs and experiences, etc.)... Buuuut I don't think equating it with the movie Midsommar is probably realistic. Dunno.

Ya... I'd not do this. But I also appreciate that it's hard when you see this as being antithetical to something else you want (i.e. relationships/connection/intimacy/sexuality). First I'd ask, is it true that you need to hide yourself in order to have the relationships and connections you want? Delve into that (Byron Katie's "The Work" method may work well, or using the CBT Thought Record Worksheet). Thought Exercise: consider hypothetically that it will always be true that MOST, not all, women will close down from intimidation when relating with your expressiveness/friendliness... what if that's true? What would be the most constructive attitude to have in relation to that truth? For example, maybe you now accept that ya, most women you won't have a connection with. Ok. But now you'll simply concentrate more on the ones who can accept your personality and just focus on those. Maybe you also learn to reduce your desire for such relationships. Dunno. ---- (remember, this is hypothetical and I doubt it's true or completely true). Finally, ask yourself... What do I really want in relationships right now? Is it mostly simply sex? Or do I crave a deeper connection? The answer to these questions may help you realize how much you want to be authentic vs. "playing along" to create a sort of, maybe, "faux" connection in order to have sex or short-term relationships. I guess I believe that in order to have a real, genuine connection with someone, you need to be authentic and genuine yourself. So, if you're looking for a deeper relationship, the choice seems to be limited to being authentic despite, perhaps (and I doubt it), having women pull-away from feeling intimidated by your personality. But, maybe you do just need/want to have a bunch of sex and short-term relationships now and can thus afford being a little inauthentic... but I feel that's maybe not ideal and like you gotta weigh the pros and cons of that. Good luck & Enjoy P.S. I also just remembered the idea of "being authentic individually" vs. "being authentic while considering others/circumstance". Maybe some people, myself included, get carried away by being what some may call "too authentic" which may be just like expressing what you feel honestly but that this lacks an awareness of others which can then maybe lead to issues of "It seems when I'm authentic and honest people dislike me and I find it hard to connect."