Carl-Richard

I was simply testing your position that you should be punished for things you did in a psychosis. Why is an exogenous cause more forgivable than an endogenous cause? Let's assume she got a brain hemorrhage instead (no seeming external cause) and that seemed to cause her behavior. Would that change anything for you? The point of an insanity defense in the case of claimed acute psychosis is that the intentions and actions in the psychotic state do not represent the intentions of the person in the normal state. And that if we assume the person will not become psychotic in the future (which may or may not be likely), we should expect the person would not have such intentions or act on them. And if we think they are likely to enter such a psychotic state in the future (or they are currently psychotic), then we've decided that it's best to try to treat the problem with psychiatry (meanwhile non-psychotic anti-social behavior is notoriously hard to "treat" if they even are treatable).

🤔🤔🤔🤔🌝

Imagine if you were just living your life and then somebody spiked your drink with some ridiculous dose of amphetamine and you go into a psychotic state where you end up killing somebody as a result (the police even heard you shouting "they are evil, I must find out a way to kill them; aha! — a knife", implying there was planning involved). Should you be jailed for that?

The first guy I wouldn't actually describe as stereotypically "extroverted" (he was quite shy and quiet when I met him in high school), he is not super high energy or enthusiastic/manic (I'm arguably more like that in some ways). He is just very drawn to talking with and getting to know and feel people, perhaps more deeply than a stereotypical extrovert (which would be more surface level). The second guy is definitely more stereotypically extroverted, a Russel Brand type of character: manic, talks a lot, thinks out loud, very intuitive but also engaged in senses (I think extreme extrovertion dovetails again with openness in a way that makes you both intuitive AND sense-based, not just sense-based; i.e. a very broad and exploratory mind). The first guy I would classify as more sense-based than intuitive (I think extreme intuition dovetails with openness and manic tendencies); he explores a lot of different videogames but he is less intellectually engaged (e.g. does not care about politics at all).

Which are?

Very interesting avant garde black metal, final Emperor album before Ihsahn turned to more prog-oriented solo projects:

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

Np. Playing a murky and dangerous game, prepare to get hurt 🌝

I think everybody can take a moment to assess how bisexual they are by just revisiting memories from the past and it can bring awareness about parts of yourself that you might not have payed attention to or are repressing (hence increasing your sphere of consciousness). Whether you want to explore it further is up to you.

Being gay is the new Spiral Dynamics (it's a rainbow after all).

I'm sorry that sarcasm does not translate well through text.

The most experienced-with-women longtime friend I have (talked with him yesterday) likes to play videogames, studies music production and would probably describe himself as a feminist (if you pushed him on it). What you notice about him is he is extremely socially attuned, empathic, essentially drawn to social interactions. Also quite authentic, but also again quite attuned to social fluctuations; strikes me as Fe-Si heavy. Another guy I know from a while back in university is the most extroverted person I've ever met probably (and also weirdly one of the most openminded people I know, into all kinds of music, drugs, etc.), somebody said he was plowing through Tinder "dates" like several a day. These are numbers games (being social, certainly getting more people to be social with you, but just being social is a numbers game).

We'll also ban your ass if you're disrespectful to men, particularly one man. Sorry, you have to pick up four women to unlock your original topic again in this thread. Oops, there are only three women in this thread. We'll allow it if you can pick up all of them at the same time 👍

Ahhh, mmmwhell, it might be illegal 🫢🫢🫢🫢🫢🫢 I already did this 😏

I would say this mentalized, highly abstract, generalizing, reductionizing (of women) is exactly what PUA is about as opposed to just "naturizing" it out (it's part and parcel of "gaming" it out, and it happens to portray relationships a certain way). All the evopsych "breeding age" and "a fish doesn't know how to catch fish" interlocks with PUA frameworks.

@Sugarcoat Yeesus I re-read that again and now I saw more of the meaning. That's impressively wooooo-woo (don't re-interpret the O's :>).

WHAT THE FUCK I LIKE IT (FUCK) Fuck again^ ._. 🤣

Yeah well, my gripe with PUA is using it to enter a field that values sensitivity to context, "naturalness", i.e. talking to people in a casual(!) format, especially to women who are hypersensitive to context and subtleties like naturalness. Using it to "game" your way into some field where game is the game (business, professional settings), that's no problem. Although of course, I could make the case that simply having an authentic aura can do much for you there as well, but it's of course a different league where thinking is highly central to getting ahead. I again compare casual socializing to learning to tie knots or playing musical instruments. It's centrally procedural. Now, if you approach talking to women like a business interaction, like acquiring assets (your aim is 'quantities' of women), then sure, maybe in a club environment or other high-volume, low-time-horizon environments (where acting like a creep is not as taxing as you can quickly recast the net), that could help. But for people who just want to interact and be with women (or a woman), generally, I say just 'do' it.

Come again? (Come) I came again^ he-he

Well, I'm specifically talking about people trying to get better at talking to women (and get laid), like the wikipedia definition of PUA. But sure, I can also appreciate being reductive here: I would also reduce all of PUA down to "social dynamics", but procedurally acquired ones. I one time worked as a research assistant analyzing the behavior of people teaching each other to tie knots. There were naturally different strategies for both teaching and learning to tie the knots, but what struck me was one pair where the person learning the knots had this incredibly complicated mentalistic way of remembering sequences (like they were looking into their minds eye, looking upwards, trying to create rules for memorizing the steps; and maybe not coincidentally, they were taking a long fucking time trying to learn it), meanwhile I was like shouting to myself internally "that's not how you learn how to tie a knot, just do it, just practice it, repetition, grind it out". I get the same feeling when I look at PUA "approaches" to socializing. Just do it, don't think so much about it. Sure, there are people that need that approach, i.e. they approach social situations mentalistically, be it because they lack the ability to read social cues, or they're just extremely mentalistic (which I again in both cases would definitionally describe as autism, granted again it's a spectrum and I'm not saying you're a non-verbal helmet-wearing fella that needs padded walls and professional care). Hell even I have had "autistic" insights about social situations myself that probably helped me for the better. But those arose naturally through experience. And that's part of my point: you can have mentalistic insights as you experience things, and that's part of getting the experience. And then they will be grounded in your experience and a richness of context. Meanwhile if you try to apply mentalistic concepts that you learned abstractly, you will many times not unlikely come off as a creep. Because you're not being sensitive to context and subtleties of the situation: you're not being natural.

In order to get women? You're leaving out the entire aim of PUA and equivocating it with the methods.

I think if you can genuinely process the scenario of thinking you killed a demon but you later found out you were mistaken and it was actually a human, you would not want to be punished for that.

Autism is a spectrum, so you're not special 😠

They thought it was a demon.

1. Autism is when you think about social situations rather than acting spontaneously in them. So definitionally, PUA is autism. 2. Find me 10 PUA seminar attendees and ask them how many hours total they had talking to girls before getting into PUA.