Tinder update - Mother Nature is an asshole to women

[Yog]

Yea. That will create a lot of sci-fi jars full of meat and goo.

Also Hitler did that genetic improvement thing before it was cool
With eugenics.
Some may say, it was a good call, some may not.

[possibilities]

Hitler was ahead of his time in this regard and overall was on the right track there, just completely went about it the wrong way including the final summary of what otherwise was a good deduction, that is, that genetics matter.

People bring up the Hitler thing and try to refute these kinds of arguments with the fact "oh it must be wrong and bad because Hitler caused a lot of harm and evil" no that doesn't take away from the argument one single bit.

If person x solved cancer but they killed millions of people, the fact that they killed millions of people doesn't take away from the cure they've created.

[DrewNows]

@possibilities heard of cognitive dissonance? Sure we may all chase ideas of attraction based off culture/society and our upbringing, and like attracts like, but it’s never as shallow as we’d like to imagine. Let’s say there a fit dude and an overweight insecure woman, she’s not gonna be too comfortable in that relationship because just seeing him will make her feel unworthy maybe even fearful. Emotional/psychological development and simply the differences in the way men and woman think will be a factor in attraction 

heres a fun audiobook on seduction in case you’re intereted 

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by DrewNows

[possibilities]

Whatever works for you @DrewNows , experiments are experiments, results are results. The latter speaks for itself, I have no desire to prove anything only searching for what's real there.

Regardless, if you're the ugliest guy in the world it wouldn't matter how good you were at applying robert's knowledge there's absolutely no way you're gettin a woman who's a 10 (in attractiveness - based on the science of what we've discovered so far about the subject of attractiveness)!

Its nothing personal though, its just the math of mother nature.

Edited August 27, 2019 by possibilities

[DrewNows]

2 minutes ago, possibilities said:

Whatever works for you @DrewNows , experiments are experiments, results are results. The latter speaks for itself, I have no desire to prove anything only searching for what's real there.

You can’t take away your own subjectivity in the results. There’s no universal real, outside of YOURSELF 

[possibilities]

@DrewNows If you want to rationalise it away, be my guest. I don't care.

[DrewNows]

@possibilities no need to cling to science, learn from yourself. I’m not rationalizing anything away dude. Who do you think you are ? 

[possibilities]

@DrewNowsSo because I mention one word, “science” suddenly I cling to it?

Obviously I’m learning from myself when I’m performing my own independent experiments.

Its far more reliable than just imagining stuff, how do you think you’d go imagining how the world looked if you were blind? No we need to look at what is actually happening in reality if we want to have a chance at deciphering it.

I am likely just Mother Nature. 

Lol, I would appreciate it if you brought objectivity to the table as opposed to your own biases.

People don’t realise, that if they worked out how good looking they were and could come to grips with it, there dating prospects would increase significantly if they decided to focus on those with a similar or lower level of attractiveness. Going beyond what you are too much in these areas will only lead to suffering, by working out how compatible we are with various aspects of reality we can establish a bridge of communication, from dating to skill acquisition (people mentally handicapped should stay away from trying to become a chess champion or a medical doctor, ugly people should avoid trying to become models, people with poor dexterity should avoid trying to become surgeons because that’s when plastic surgery goes bad).

This isn’t a “who do you think you re bro from saying such a thing!”, I’m simply stating things as they seem to best be, if you have a better hypothesis, experiment and corresponding findings then state it. 

The more in alignment with reality we can be the happier we will be.

In the future plastic surgery and generalised augmentation (I.e. including brain implants from improving intelligence to improving empathy) will become the norm because our skills there will continually improve, it’s just a matter of coming to terms with it, though there will always be demographics that can’t handle the truth.

Edited August 27, 2019 by possibilities

[universe]

5 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I would appreciate it if you brought objectivity to the table as opposed to your own biases.

I’m simply stating things as they seem to best be

Everything you said so far is rather subjective.

You are stating that woman should all be getting surgery to look better to find their love.

 

By stating this you assume the following:

-All woman need to find love

-Getting surgery and finding love outweights the cons of complications of surgery

-Surgery increases attractiveness rather than decreases it

-Surgery is more effective than doing makeup, doing sports and dress nice

 

Then you state that media tells lies about how everyone is ok as they are

Implying that some people are not ok the way are.

 

Do you see how your subjectivity shines like the sun through your statements that you say are objective and based on experiments? Experiments you didnt quoted once apart from your 10 minute experience on tinder, which is again based on your subjective feelings.

Almost everyone here can see that because its so obvious. Do you see it now?

[possibilities]

Think about it this way @DrewNows, let’s say hypothetically you’re a 5 in attractiveness or a 3. There’s millions upon millions of people you could still date and get to know that are a 3 or below (if you weren’t a 5 otherwise they’d be a 5 or below). So you wouldn’t ever need to lack confidence in the looks department because (1) you’d know you’d be physically compatible with them (2) there’s millions to sort other characteristics through (from personality to intelligence).

Now that’s a dating hack for people! It’s so obvious as well, people are just pumped with media nonsense though so they lose their self esteem and confidence on this subject.

Its literally like poker except everyone can see what hand one another have but many are in denial about how good that hand is. The more accurate you can be the better poker player you can be here, inaccuracy is inversely proportional to winning here because we can clearly see who’s bluffing (unless there’s favourable lighting).

Edited August 27, 2019 by possibilities

[possibilities]

@universe believe what you want. Show me evidence that I’m wrong.

I bet you can’t.

Request evidence from me and I’ll give you truck loads.

Thats the difference between our ‘subjectivity’ here, I’d rather be on my side of the fence.

You’ve provided zero evidence to show that attractiveness is merely subjective.

[DrewNows]

@possibilities the question ‘who do you think you are’ drastically impacts the results/meanings behind your experiments. If you cannot see how meaning is created, How attraction is influenced by this and by what culture / family values deem attractive, then you’re blindsiding yourself. It’s self deception, overlooking the subconscious mind, paradigm shifts and level of psychological development  

[possibilities]

@DrewNowsThe pattern I see here is you're doing your darnedest to try and shoot the messenger in whatever way you can fathom. My guess is that I have a better handle over how I come to understand reality than yourself, however please feel free to show evidence to the contrary. 

Have you composed something to a similar or greater degree of comprehension (in this subject of how you come to understand what you come to understand) here? Please see the following post I've made:

Your words so far have little meaning because you're just making tacit statements of refusal with no justified argumentation against the claims whatsoever other than to say, "you don't understand meaning", well I've proven that I do, now once again the ball is in your court. My prediction is you're not going to be able to get it over the net but I hope you do so that you can contribute more to the discussion rather than simply trying to criticise with no critique.

Edited August 27, 2019 by possibilities

[DrewNows]

@possibilities sorry dude most people here, like myself, aren’t interested in debating as the limitations are understood. Have you studied self deception and spiral dynamics? What you seem to be looking for is someone else to change your world view and that’s not possible if you cannot yet see how it’s been created. I agree this needs to be a collaboration but for that to be so you must let go of your beliefs and consider trying to understand other perspectives 

Take your poker hand example, the cards are our subconscious minds and we are the players, the initial level of attraction might be the expression on our faces as we perceive the cards we’ve been dealt (pretend it’s online but nobody is aware others can see their faces). To some this expression may be a huge tell but to others, they are more interested in reflecting and evaluating the many other factors in play to decide where they stand 

[possibilities]

DrewNow let me just copy and paste what you've stated from my own position and I'll show your own deception at play:

"@DrewNows sorry dude most people here, like myself, aren’t interested in debating as the limitations are understood. Have you studied self deception and spiral dynamics? What you seem to be looking for is someone else to change your world view and that’s not possible if you cannot yet see how it’s been created. I agree this needs to be a collaboration but for that to be so you must let go of your beliefs and consider trying to understand other perspectives 

Take your poker hand example, the cards are our subconscious minds and we are the players, the initial level of attraction might be the expression on our faces as we perceive the cards we’ve been dealt (pretend it’s online but nobody is aware others can see their faces). To some this expression may be a huge tell but to others, they are more interested in reflecting and evaluating the many other factors in play to decide where they stand."

Like I've told you Drew, my arguments stand from the perspective I've illustrated, if you don't want to agree with them that's your prerogative. It's the other way around pal, you're not respecting my views because you're trying to argue with me, well if you want me to accept your 'arguments' provide arguments with reason and evidence otherwise move along. You've come on to a thread created by me trying to weasel your way through my mind trying to change my opinion with thin air as opposed to trying to evaluate my perspective objectively.

Your side swiping isn't going to get anywhere here, you haven't even bothered reading my linked post and if you have you've made zero effort to refute it. You made a claim, "you don't understand meaning", I refuted that claim with my linked post and yet you still go on with your original premise with no refutation as to the points made.

Move along or provide reason and evidence. 

I'm not going to go onto someone else's thread and try and change their perspective if they have reason and evidence, if they do then either I provide better reason and evidence or I'll just move along, I suggest you do the latter.

Edited August 27, 2019 by possibilities

[DrewNows]

@possibilities my claim you don’t understand how meaning is created. Cmon man you aren’t seeing between the lines, 

theres nothing wrong with your perspective, heck all perspectives hold relative truths and impact the experience of reality. Just realize that your perspective isn’t any better than another’s unless it’s perceived through your very own view.   

The question is, why do you choose to hold the perspective you believe to be true? Do you even exist without your perspective? How do you know what you know and why? How can you see what you do not see or know that which you do not know? 

 

[possibilities]

This is going round and round in circles @DrewNows

Here's how the pattern goes:

1. you make claim

2. I refute claim

3. you make original claim without addressing my refutation

4. I say I've already refuted it

5. you go back to number 3 continuously.

" Just realize that your perspective isn’t any better than another’s unless it’s perceived through your very own view.   "

Here we go again, alright, would you be willing to volunteer photographs or put yourself through tinder compared to a model to see if its "just my worldview"? Like I've stated time and time again here, I'm not stating my worldview I'm trying to understand the worldview of Mother Nature.

"The question is, why do you choose to hold the perspective you believe to be true? Do you even exist without your perspective? How do you know what you know and why? How can you see what you do not see or know that which you do not know? "

This would would be number 3.

My prediction is you'll likely just repeat number three in different ways.

Well, looks I've hacked your strategy here, I wonder if you'll shift strategies now.

[DrewNows]

26 minutes ago, possibilities said:

I'm trying to understand the worldview of Mother Nature.

What makes you think Mother Nature has a worldview? Are you separate from Mother Nature? 

 

[possibilities]

Please just go away @DrewNows , you have no idea how deeply I think about subjects. I'm at least 5 steps ahead of you here you're just taking up my time with little appreciation. Move along please.

As I predicted you're just repeating step 3, you can't expect me to take you seriously if that's what you're just going to do over, and over, and over again.

 

[DrewNows]

@possibilities yes sir, your perspective is far superior, just read your beginning posts, totally agree, like attracts like it’s pretty fucking obvious. Don’t know what else you may be trying to prove here, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out, I apologize for the gibberish