Emerald

I typed in the same prompt you did. "if A woman is locked in a room and a man is locked in a room who will go crazy faster with data?" And I got a TOTALLY different answer. I also don't have a ChatGPT account, so it isn't trained on me or anything. This is just generic ChatGPT prompt. ChatGPT said: That’s an interesting question — but the answer isn’t as simple as choosing “man” or “woman.” If you mean who would psychologically deteriorate faster in isolation, research in psychology suggests that it depends much more on the individual than on gender alone. Here’s a summary of what data and studies tell us: 🧠 Key factors that influence mental decline in isolation Personality traits – People who are more extroverted or anxious tend to struggle more in isolation, regardless of gender. Coping skills and resilience – Individuals with stronger emotional regulation and stress-management skills fare better. Prior experience with solitude – People used to spending time alone (e.g., artists, researchers, monks) tend to adapt better. Social support perception – Feeling connected to others, even virtually or in memory, buffers against mental decline. Biological and hormonal factors – While some gender differences exist in stress responses (e.g., cortisol release patterns), these differences are small compared to psychological and environmental ones. 📊 What the data say Studies on solitary confinement and isolation experiments (e.g., polar expeditions, space simulation habitats) show both men and women experience anxiety, depression, and cognitive issues, but no consistent gender-based difference in the rate of decline. A few small studies suggest women may maintain social and emotional regulation slightly better due to stronger stress-buffering oxytocin responses, while men might show more behavioral agitation — but the data are mixed and context-dependent. 🧩 Conclusion There’s no strong scientific evidence that one gender “goes crazy faster” than the other when locked in a room. What matters most are individual psychological factors, coping strategies, and prior experience with isolation — not gender. Would you like me to show you specific research studies or statistics on isolation and mental health differences between men and women?

I'm stopping this conversation now. You're just pulling random nonsense out of your hat.

That women crack faster under solitary confinement than men do. He was saying you need to back up your claims rather than just making assumptions.

Like I said, because society is emotion-phobic and Femininity-phobic more Feminine expressions of emotions like crying is seen as crazy and unhinged... while anger gets re-categorized as a non-emotion and isn't seen as crazy and unhinged when a man is expressing it. But crying isn't crazy. It's just what humans do. Be careful not to repress your emotions. It's not healthy. And it's basic emotional release during times of grief, sadness, and distress... even sometimes joy. And it helps with emotional regulation.

Of course, all people will go crazy in solitary confinement. But it's an assumption based in sexism that women will go crazier faster than men. And it's not based in evidence... just your own sexist assumptions. It's been studied, and women biologically have a greater capacity for internal emotional regulation than men... and will tend to regulate by feeling emotions and crying. So, according to that study, women have a higher capacity for self-soothing. it's posited that women evolved a higher capacity for self-soothing because women are less aggressive and less strong than men. And it was safer for her to be able to self-sooth in dangerous and stressful situations rather than to try to fight back. But in the study, it showed that men tend to need to retaliate in order to regulate themselves. It required rage that led out to a desired change in the external world for men to get regulated. It's posited that men evolved this capacity because they needed to be able to respond to threats from animals and other humans with force and violence. That's why an upset man who is upset about something that doesn't have a concrete solution and that can't be solved through anger or retaliation might punch a hole in a wall. So, emotion and action tend to come simultaneously. And this can lead to men having more of a tendency towards taking more impulsive, chaotic, and risky actions than women do, on average. But a woman who is upset will tend to go through a quieter and more low-key process of feeling her emotions and crying. Then, she will seek solutions after the emotions have been sufficiently taken care of. So, emotional processing comes first... and then action comes from a calmer state once the emotions are taken care of. So, that leads to women have a greater capacity for self-soothing than men do. It's just that society is very emotion-phobic and fearful of Femininity. So, the act of crying was often seen as more of a sign of being weak or unhinged than aggressive anger and wall-punching and violence because the crying is understood as more Feminine than the wall-punching. So, if some crazy person tries to put a woman in an isolation room, she might cry and process emotions to try to adjust to the isolation room, seek solutions... then go crazy if she can't find any solutions. But if some crazy person tries to put a man in an isolation room, he's probably going to immediately rage out and tear the isolation room apart... which is useful if it's escapable but just frenzied chaotic rage if the room is inescapable. Then, he'll go crazy too.

My issue is that his words will influence people in a negative direction if he makes little short quippy statements that influence people into deeper levels of social isolation.

You literally were like, "If women are alone their inherent insanity starts to come out." It's just a rehashing of the "women are hysterical" stereotypes from the early 1900s where women were frequently institutionalized and even lobotomized because of diagnoses of "female hysteria." How can you say it isn't sexism... when it's one of the strongest historical examples of women's lives being destroyed by sexism? Back in the 50s all it took was for a husband to call up the institution and say, "My wife is being taken over by her womanly emotions. The other day I slapped her when she didn't have dinner ready when I got home. And instead of just taking it and improving her behavior, she let her female hysteria get the best of her and she shouted at me like a mad-woman." And she'd be carted off to the funny farm to have her frontal lobe scrambled by top-of-the-line medical experts to cure her of her hysteria.

Mostly, I'm talking about how he speaks about socialization on this forum. But relative to this video, impact-wise it doesn't matter if he caveats it in a video called "How Socialization Makes You Stupid". The message is still that "socialization makes you stupid" and that socializing is a foolish thing to do.

That's a really odd assumption. Have you ever interacted with women before? Personally, I've always a strong tendency towards finding relief in solitude because I feel more at peace alone... as being with other people is emotional labor because I tend to feel responsible for everyone. Like, I remember that when I was 11 (when I was first allowed to be at home alone), I was just overjoyed by it because I could really just be myself. And I have tended to polarize into that and be quite avoidant and self-contained because connection always came with emotional labor and showing up only partially. Mind you, this avoidant tendency isn't healthy at all. And I'm aware of that... which is why I push back on these ideas around solitude being better than community.

I could see that also being a strong motivator for many.

I am most certainly not exaggerating. You often talk about being above the need to socialize. And it doesn't matter if you say, "Go socialize with women" on the dating section of the forum. If you present yourself as "above it" and you say "once you get to a high enough level of development, you don't get anything from other people or social interactions" as you frequently do, people who look up to you will want to imitate that. And it is very dangerous to isolate yourself. Being a monk isn't too dangerous if you live in a monastery among other monks. The purpose of living in a monastery isn't social interaction, so that need is still something they're semi-foregoing... though meeting somewhat just by being in the same space as others. So, they still have a support system in a monastery, and they don't have to worry about survival because the institution takes care of them. There is a social support system built into monastic life. But being a monk that goes out in the wilderness and sits on a mountain is VERY dangerous. And cutting yourself off from human connection (if you're a house holder) is also very dangerous. There are serious consequences to foregoing basic human needs and spiritually bypassing them. That is why I see this glorification of transcending social needs in a similar vein to how Breatharians see themselves as transcendent of the need for food. They didn't really transcend those needs of course. They're either lying to themselves and others and still eating.... or they're not eating and in the process of eventually starving to death. Just like someone who claims to have transcended the need for human interaction. They're either lying to themselves and others and still socializing (like on this forum)... or they're not socializing and reaping the psychological (and physical) consequences of not having a social support system.

This is just doomerism, and it's not helpful and even counterproductive. The Trump administration is weak and foolish... and will certainly eventually destroy itself. The administration's approval is already VERY VERY low among the populace. It's under the water on all metrics... including the economy and immigration, which are usually the strongest metrics for Republicans. Also, ignorance helps the spread of Fascism.... but it doesn't cause it. Facism happens when conditions are stressful and a demagogue influences the populace in a way that causes people to collectively scapegoat certain groups of outsiders, and transfer all of their frustrations about life onto the group of outsiders. And it's not just ignorant people who are susceptible to this... though ignorance certainly helps this process. It comes from deeper psychological vulnerabilities and can happen to the educated and non-educated alike. In fact, educated people who have a higher intellect are more able to skillfully do mental gymnastics to rationally justify foolish Fascistic things when there is a deeper emotional motivation to adopt Fascist viewpoints.

That's the wrong way to think about the purpose of this protest... and protests in general. First off, it shows strength in numbers and that people aren't just going to stand down and allow the Trump administration to do what it wants. Secondly, the Trump administration is cracking down on the right to protest. You see, most authoritarian regimes don't need to take freedoms by force. The people willingly modify their behavior before they're forced to because they get intimidated by the authoritarian regime. What Trump hopes for is to crack down on some protesters so that people get afraid and stop protesting. So, it's important to use the right to protest... or we will certainly lose it. Third, it's a great networking event for grassroots political organization to get more average people pushing back in small ways.

Thank you for sharing your experience. My perception (from the outside looking in) is that many guys who get involved with pick-up tend to do so because they semi-consciously hold the illusion that attractive women hold the power to judge their existence as worthy or unworthy. It's sort of like, "A man has to be x, y, and z to be sufficiently Masculine and to be a man among men. And the 'objective' judges of whether he has x, y, and z values and is sufficiently Masculine are attractive women, with the most attractive women having the highest and most objective adjudicating power. So, a man must prove his worth through proving his Masculinity among other men. And the only way to prove his Masculinity among other men is to gain the sexual approval of very attractive women." (Note: women's attractions aren't objective of course. They're HIGHLY subjective. That's just a necessary part of the illusion so that the attractive women feel like their objective in their judgments.) So, there seems to be a lot of validation seeking through proving one's Masculinity to attractive women... as a means of getting away from shame. Of course, the only way to resolve shame is unconditional self-love. So, it doesn't work. And it often takes a decent amount of experience to realize that it doesn't actually do the work of resolving shame... as it's usually a mostly unconscious driver.

You have stated OFTEN that 'Once you get to a high enough level of development, interacting with people doesn't give you anything.' And you have called yourself "above it". It shows that you value solitude and isolation... and you don't value collaboration and community. And you position solitude and isolation as the thing that superior people "the adults in the room" do. So, even if you never say verbatim "Isolate yourself and never collaborate." there's plenty of young guys on this forum who look up to you that will go, "Leo has transcended his need for social connection and community. I want to reach the level he's at!" Then, they just convince themselves they don't have that need because they're trying to model themselves after you... and isolate themselves and put themselves in a more vulnerable position because of that where they're not getting those basic human needs met. And there's a lot of potential for further social stunting because this community echo chamber really glorifies social isolation and lauds being "above" the need for human connection. Most of these young guys are already nerdy guys who struggle to socialize. The last thing they need is someone to say, "The most developed people don't even value human connection and don't have need to socialize." They can simply be like, "Actually, I'm not a guy who struggles with social connection. I'm just like Leo... above and beyond the need for social connection, as other people are like children compared to me!" So, even if I take for granted that that's not what you're doing... (which I don't, as it's clear to me that connection is a basic human need. So, I see people who say they've "transcended" the need to socialize like I see Breatharians who have apparently "transcended" the need for food)... your anti-social self-back-patting will certainly influence a lot of guys in the direction of isolation.