Joshe

Yeah, for many reasons. For example, in this instance, I have a hard time believing you don't understand the difference between a claim like mine and a falsifiable claim. You keep asking me to prove something that I can't and then marking my position fallacious because I don't prove it. The knowledge stems from pattern recognition trained on volume. It would be like telling me to prove how I knew I was beat and should fold at the poker table. I can't prove that. The inability to prove it doesn't make the read circular or unfounded. It's a perceptual skill. A self-sealing structure can't distinguish its strong reads from its weak ones. I'm simply saying, I have a strong read here, and the best I can transfer it to you is point you to Horney and hope you can get there. I think you understand all this. See, right here, my read is shaky. But if it's right, from my perception, what would that say about you? Can you see how it reads as bad-faith? And not just because this single instance, but because I've seen over a dozen other similar instances. For the time, I remain open as to the cause. Also, I don't experience "charge" as negative or toxic. It's a natural part of being a human. I meant no ill-will. Also, just because I suspect less than ideal character traits in a person doesn't mean I dislike the person (I have bad traits as well). If I didn't like you, I wouldn't be conversing with you. So please don't think I'm over here with some super negative image of you. This is all fun-adjacent for me, lol. But anyway, yeah, cheers mate 😆

Sorry, what exactly did I skip over? You asked "why do you think people miss it?" I responded "because it's a hard thing to see" and explained why it's hard. It's like asking someone who can read sheet music why most people can't and they respond "because they haven't put in the work", and then calling their reasoning for why most people can't read music circular because it relies on them having superior capability. It's fucking absurd Natasha. And I think you know it is. Also, if anyone disagrees with me and wants elaboration/explanation or to stress test it, it's not like I haven't went into great detail about my position. I've elaborated on it and pointed to resources that flesh most of it out, many times. I'm pretty sure you've read most of the stuff I've written on the topic, as you were involved in the threads. You voiced no disagreement on the technical points. Seemingly only disagreement with my confidence level. If you want to argue that I'm wrong, you have to tell me what exactly I'm wrong about. NOT point to some epistemic process you suspect I botched. Karen Horney's "expansive solution" is most of my model. You would need to explore it for several hours and look closely for patterns. But like I said, most people aren't interested in this type of stuff. And unfortunately, that work alone probably isn't sufficient for installing high confidence. I think you have to be able to read well in the first place. But anyway, now that I've explained my interior to you in more detail, did you update your model of me, or do you find my self-reports untrustworthy/unconvincing? Because I feel like you're not updating. I ask because I get the sense that there's another motive beyond understanding me.

Because most people don't models minds with high enough resolution. You said: That's the obvious interpretation and it's what it appears to be for most everyone. When Leo says "You leftists have no clue how much conservatives love their culture", the most accessible interpretation is that a good-faith person is sharing insights. The idea that the person is asserting their position atop a hierarchy is not an easy one to see, and even harder to verify. It takes a good bit of deep psychological insight and analysis to accurately model someone. Most minds aren't interested in that kind of work. And if Leo was never called out on any of this in recent past, the blindness would be even greater. There are several other contributing factors, but this is the biggest.

lol, no. It's just an expression of my innate values. I would never think of myself as "righteous" or being morally superior to anyone else, even if I were. If you built a scale and I ranked high on it, I would not be interested in my high grade because satisfaction from elevation is just cringe to me. "no one else" wasn't literal. I even made sure to include "mostly no one else" once or twice in hopes of avoiding this nitpick, lol. I'm aware of the few on the forum who have acknowledged it publicly. And it's easy to see it's not really a thing on the radar for the vast majority.

@Natasha Tori Maru This is rich. You're doing the same thing to me you're claiming that I'm doing to Leo, which I'm actually not doing. Had you inquired into my interior before writing all this, you could have understood the actual motivation behind my comment rather than guess between two wrong options. So, if you want to understand: Is it intellectual peacocking? No. If someone else would have posted the exact same thing before I did, I never would have commented, unless I quoted it and said something like "100%". Am I trying to change Leo? No. In fact, if the forum had a "hide from Leo" button, I almost certainly would have pressed it here because I don't like saying negative things about people where they can read it. So why did I do it anyway? It's far more complex than either of the options you floated. The motivation to interject in these situations is: toxic or harmful stuff going unnoticed. The point of interjecting these reads is that no one else is or that people are not aware of them. When there's something people aren't seeing, that's when I interject. Crude/visible bad behavior doesn't need me. The sophisticated, room-confusing kind is what pulls me. If everyone could already see it, or if someone already pointed it out, I often don't feel a pull to interject unless there's an open discussion specifically about the topic. And it's not to be the one doing the delivery. I think this is some projection on your part. I actually don't like it when people see me as intelligent or anything like that. I even experience mild agitation when this happens. I don't like to be elevated in any way. I do like to transfer ideas, but not "my ideas", just "ideas". I've never felt special for being the one who has ideas or who can see. This is just weird shit to me. So, when I harp on Leo's superiority complex, it's because of the harm I see in it and because no one else is seeing it. Now, I need to explain how Leo's superiority complex is harmful, because it's not obvious. He's not meaning to harm anyone. It's just a byproduct of his nature. I've explained elsewhere the psychological disposition that produces his behavior regarding putting others beneath him, so I won't elaborate here, but it basically works like this: Leo creates a hierarchy of mind/intelligence/consciousness/awareness and positions himself at the top. Then, when his superiority needs fed, he finds ways to erect that hierarchy and puts people beneath him. This specific instance was "you leftist don't understand conservatives, but I do. I am above you leftists on the mind/intelligence/consciousness/awareness hierarchy." If you don't see it like this, that's on you. I can't tell you how to see the truth of it for yourself, especially when you have the disposition that thinks "remaining open" and refusing to convert evidence into usable conclusions is the wise approach to life. But anyway, whether or not I'm right or wrong about this isn't the point here. The point is that I see harm that most everyone else is missing or letting slide. The harm is teaching people to rank themselves below an unearned authority and to distrust their own perception. People being being nudged to defer and subordinate themselves primarily for the benefit of a grandiose ego, not for their own betterment. All because some dude's ego needs boosted, and at their expense. I see that as harmful and worth calling out. Also, you need to keep in mind. I don't hold any personal grudges toward Leo. I don't walk around with animosity toward him. It's simply the case that when his superiority complex rears its head, I call it the fuck out because sometimes, that's the best or only tool for keeping it in check. I'm not going to pretend like it's not a thing, even if you or anyone else finds it uncomfortable or off-putting. Also, you don't understand my model of Leo. If you did, you would know that there is no fixing this aspect of his behavior. It will exist for the rest of his life. I know you're probably cringing at this statement because you can't fathom how this could be known. But again, it takes specific effort to arrive at such knowledge. Just because you haven't put in the work, doesn't mean you can't. Strap on a sack and start figuring stuff out, is all I can say. No amount of "relating" would ever work here.

What do you mean by "relationally understand you"? You're right, I often don't have high confidence that I know what you're getting at. I pick an interpretation and roll with it and expect explicit correction if I misinterpreted. I try to parse and understand you, then you let me know if I've misunderstood, then I adjust. No need to get hung up on misunderstandings or dwell on the fact that it happened. Good-faith communication keeps moving forward.

I analyze my own behavior 100x more than anyone else's. Understanding the mind is just what I do. Which is why I do it with others as well. For example, I've probably spent over a dozen hours asking "why do I write the things I do on actualized.org", lol. Imagine having deeply inspected every type of action you take, and knowing what the root motivation is. Do that enough, and you no longer need to "inspect" specific actions anymore, as you already know the motivation behind them. You and I keep coming back to this idea of perpetual "not knowing". It's like you don't want to know some things and want them to forever remain open to interpretation or something. Resisting conclusion related to the psyche or something. IDK. Interesting though. Is it possible to fully account for and understand your motivations? If so, what would the implications be?

I'm neither of those things regarding this, so this isn't relevant to me here. Some corners are darker than others. It is what it is.

It’s time to feed Leo’s superiority complex. This is just him finding some weird thing to use as an excuse to tell you he’s more conscious than you all are. It has nothing to do with any deep insight that you’re missing or that he wants you to see. It’s a recurring pattern. Tends to come in waves. This wave probably isn’t over.

Came across an idea the other day that "tired is an emotion", not just a state. The very thought of doing something you don't want to zaps your energy. But insights give you a surge of it. Interesting just how subtle, yet powerful thoughts are.

This is a repeating pattern. About time it was noticed. Natasha likes to put you down under the guise of helping you, then gaslight you that your negative emotion she spawned in you is because you misunderstood her good intentions. She’s really good at it too, so most people don’t even notice. Natasha, wishing you the best.

I signed up to get notifications from Trump. Just got this: Live now.

Oh yeah, that probably happened. It's been so long I can't remember. I definitely don't recommend doing meth for more than 1 day. I've watched people stay up for almost two weeks. Not good. Meth isn't as bad/dangerous as it's made out to be, but heroine/fent is something I won't touch because the health risks are too great. With meth, if all you did was a tenth of a gram and nothing else, that's actually a really nice experience. If you can't control yourself, you should definitely stay away from it though, and I think everyone should stay away from heroine/fent and not even try it once.

Nah, what's that?

Coke is actually pretty amazing when mixed with alcohol. It usually sucks if you're sober. Also, there's nothing really terrible about meth in moderation. The first time you do it, best feeling ever. If you've never done it, you can't really judge it. It's not really like it's portrayed on TV. TV shows you what it's like after you've abused it irresponsibly. I've experimented with quite a few drugs but never found myself fucking my life up with them. After your first 3 days of no sleep on meth, that come down is so brutal and such a living hell, you realize its unsustainable and you don't wanna go through that again. Some people, for whatever reason, just keep going. That's the problem.

I never cared for more than one or two at a time. I enjoy having good friends. They bring me out of my head and provide spontaneous variety I otherwise wouldn't experience. A friend ringing to ask if you want to ride with them to the mall or bookstore - something simple like that brings me out of my head for a while and it's enjoyable because you're goofing off and laughing. It's often restorative. Also, you get to help them with their problems from time to time, which is an opportunity to be there for someone, which I think is healthy. Just seems healthy overall. Viewing friendship as transactional seems like an unnecessary, defensive frame.

lol, it's fuckin hilarious. Yeah, I've seen this but not sure how prevalent it is. Crazy how things have changed. That's my preference too. Strange how this isn't really taught that much.

Clickbait title but just to highlight the idea that data center as moat might not be the case in 5-10 years.

40

Yeah, you're right, it's not always true. But take the star you're most attracted to and imagine the scenario. You might still turn it down, but surely you'd deliberate, right? lol. And depending on how things were going at the time... My sister wouldn't do it either. But she's one of those types of girls who once they're locked in, they're locked in. I don't think most girls are like this though. I'm sure the percentage who would turn it down increases with age/maturity. But typically, 20s and early 30s, I think it's a very high percentage. In my scenario, I don't think it's really about the sex, but more the prospect of a better life. I think the majority more girls would turn the offer down if there was clearly no prospect of something more than a one-night stand. Like, if the dude said he wanted to spend the next month with her to get to know her, the percentage probably skyrockets. I've always thought it was weird how girls with boyfriends openly talk about how attracted they are to some hunk on TV. My ex and her friend used to do that all the time with Jax Teller from Sons of Anarchy. Her friend was married and had a life-sized cardboard cutout of this dude in her house that her husband had to look at everyday. lol

If you’re average or above average in looks, erase “game” from your mind. It puts you at a psychological disadvantage and takes the fun out of it. Trying to run some system as opposed to relying on your own intuition in the flow is artificial and stifling. Game tells you to be imposing. And sure, if you approach 100 girls, you’ll increase your odds of sex, but this is no fun at all. Also, there’s nothing wrong with having a crush. In fact, that’s organic attraction, not some desperate ploy to get your dick wet. Nothing wrong with the latter, but crushes are more fun, especially when you actually do get your dick wet. To finally get that piece you’ve been working on and dreaming about for the last few months is much more fun than sexing some random you don’t even really know. Anyway, back to being imposing. “Be assertive” “Be direct” “Make a move”. My tact was always the exact opposite of this because I noticed it didn’t work. Of course, there might come a time for these, but IME, usually not. Usually, attraction leads to getting the dick wet without ever having to be direct at all. Rather than approaching 100 girls, run a long-form seduction on 20 girls at the same time. Hard to not get pussy when you’re swimming in chummed waters. The key is to spend time around women in loose social environments and to be unimposing, yet a bit mysterious and interesting. This is literally like 80% of it. You might let the attraction build over a dozen encounters, or even more if you detect no interest at all. Sounds like you were already doing this, but it’s all about subtlety and calibration. Long-form seduction might be a good name for it. After many interactions, there’s nothing quite like the moment she looks at you and finally let’s you know it’s time to kiss her. All without ever being talked about or you asking for her number. This doesn’t work for recluses. I mean, it can, but it’s hard to seduce your barista behind the counter of her workplace. Loose social environments are the waters to swim in. There is a reason why in the movies, 99% of sex scenes don’t culminate from a guy having asked for a number or making his attraction explicit in some other way. The way it works is attraction builds covertly, behind the scenes until it leads to kissing. No asking for phone numbers. IME, getting the number almost always came AFTER the kiss, not before. For the love of God, just put yourselves around women and learn how to calibrate your shit. This is how getting laid has worked for centuries. Op, you just learned what didn’t work. This is calibration data. Being direct didn’t work. You could have executed perfectly and it still not work. Once you made this move, you revealed your position, which severely constrains your maneuverability. Get good at reading the situation. And next time, don’t be direct. Instead, play interesting, subtle, escalating games. At each escalation, you're waiting on a signal to advance. Your job is to make that signal fire. When the signal fires, that doesn’t mean it’s time to seal the deal. It means it’s time to advance - time to make your seduction a little less subtle, but still not overt. Rinse and repeat on each signal fire until the most obvious next advance is tongue in mouth. But also, you have to allow each escalation sufficient time and not be in a hurry to reach the next one. It's close to time to seal the deal when she starts getting closer to you and getting physical, touching your face, hitting you, etc. I suppose the best barometer is noticing how often she closes the distance between you two, and with what energy. The distance is the tell and the energy is your calibration data. Reciprocate her actions. Never go out of your way more than she does but let her see you'll go out of your way if she will. The dance ensues. I was once standing at a crowded bar, drunk off my ass. Some girl I never seen before came up from behind me and reached into my pockets to take my keys out so I couldn't drive. No idea how she knew where my keys were. If a girl reaches into your pocket with playful energy, that means she's ready, lol. Probably because she saw me sitting with two other girls earlier and she could tell they were evaluating me. The girl who reached into my pocket made the other girl jealous. Had sex with both of them. Never cold approached, never asked for a phone number. Just building attraction in a loose social environment. Ahh, the good ole days. Oh and guess what, I was wearing dirty pants and shirt from having stopped at the bar after getting off work from my construction job. Dirty as fuck. All this "dress to the 9s" act like this, act like that. It's all bullshit. So yeah, you should give up "game". Also, keep in mind some girls are just weird af. And some aren't sure themselves of how the process works and will play oddball games because of it.

They’re two different creatures with totally different offerings. A lesbian is not offering the same thing as a man. I can’t think of a good analogy. It’s like comparing whiskey to beer and saying because age isn’t a factor with high quality beer, it’s not an important factor for high quality whiskey. People drink both to get loose or whatever, but they’re two different offerings with varying degrees of sophistication. We could have a totally separate discussion about what makes for a “true, good lesbian”, lol. As in, what separates a lesbian who gets ran out on often while another has something that keeps them around. A lesbian with a capital L, and man with a capital M. Lol. I’m sure there is some overlap, as there is with alcoholic drinks, but what makes one good is not what makes the other good. I think I see your point though, and it does muddy up my model somewhat. I’ll have to consider it.

It’s not just countries with this distinction, but individuals as well. It’s a common source of communication problems. I’ve heard it framed as “ask culture” vs “guess culture”. People of guess culture will present an indirect statement or a question and expect you to discern what they want from you. They do this because it’s how they themselves prefer to be addressed. They don’t want you being so direct, which is why they aren’t themselves. Seems like a threat minimization strategy. Guess culture might fish for an invite to your party whereas ask culture will just ask you outright.

The same way men get laid. By appealing to the woman. I’m not sure I follow. Getting laid and keeping them is a different story. I would imagine lesbians suffer at least as much, if not more with women leaving them than men do. Ever seen “Orange is the new black”? lol. And lesbians are specifically not looking for men, so they wouldn’t need to meet that specific bar?

Teaching men how to get laid is backwards. They need to first be taught how to be men. I’ve never seen any material that actually teaches this plainly. The way you’d teach this is to transfer the appropriate internal responses to various situations - how to emotionally deal with things. Not just “how to respond internally”, but why. Without the why, they often just fake it. The why has to be sufficiently internalized. It would work the same way you teach a child to navigate their emotional landscape. Learning how to not be afraid of the dark or not cry over trivial things is no different than learning how to deal with your girlfriend making eyes at another. When you have dozens of these emotionally challenging situations solved such that you internally manage them well, you join the ranks of men. To work through neediness, cowardice, bitterness, jealousy, self-pity, etc. These are the trials by which you genuinely become a man women are attracted to. If you suppress these trials or continually fail at them, you will forever have to fake being a man. Teaching how to navigate these trials is IMO the highest value things you could teach regarding courtship. I suppose they call this “inner game”, lol. One issue with this frame is it doesn’t seem to sufficiently acknowledge the emotional fragility of men, and the term “game” gives a false sense of control over their emotions, which biases them toward conquest of their emotions rather than letting them be what they are and to endure them until they lift while in the meantime seeking a healthy resolution via reason. Men should be taught from the outset the shape of the emotional challenges that lay ahead, and be given good resources/guidance for how to navigate them, and what proper resolution looks like. @aurum not sure if these thoughts could be useful.