aurum

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,326

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aurum

  1. Posted

    1 minute ago, Raze said:

    The things that our baseline instincts evolved to be attracted to =/= the best traits for long term relationships and societal stability today 

    My guess is you want to believe that because you think women shouldn't be attracted to the men they are.

    But maybe you're the one that is wrong. Maybe they should be attracted to exactly who they are attracted to.

    1 minute ago, Raze said:

    Obviously there are many different factors, but women themselves play a massive role in it through the standards they set.

    The standards they set are mostly very reasonable.

    1 minute ago, Raze said:

    Today women are individually empowered to make their own choices & have far more influence over dating culture and etiquette than perhaps ever before. The idea that has no effect on the issues is silly. 

    That's not the debate.

    Of course women's empowerment has affected dating.

    Overall, it has been a net-positive.

  2. Posted

    32 minutes ago, Raze said:

    The testing is itself often the problem, it is one reason why they end up with men use use them, have problems etc. 

    The issue isn’t filtering, it’s how they filter. Then there is the issue of how their tests are contradictory to what they say. 

    The filtering is survival genius.

    Neither men or even women generally recognize it, because few people are conscious of how survival plays their mind. 

    You think it's malfunctioning or maladaptive, but it's not.

    Which is not to say women don't still have problems in relationship. Obviously they do, and they can be extremely serious.

    32 minutes ago, Raze said:

    Again you keep looking at it from your individual perspective. I am talking about the wider society. Just because it doesn’t effect you personally doesn’t mean it isn’t causing issues across the spectrum

    You can start with a wide view, but ultimately that doesn't tell you what you should do personally. You have to narrow it down to what you can be responsible for.

    32 minutes ago, Raze said:

    Right now half of young men have never even asked a woman out in person, the social etiquette and standards for behavior being confusing and contradictory absolutely cause scalable problems.

    It being easy or not like it’s a game is not the problem, it’s about is it producing sustainable results. 

    It isn’t. The average man is getting beaten down and not gaining the right skills, and the skills he does need to train have little to do with making him a better long term partner. Women are being manipulated and used and becoming bitter, we are headed for record single hood and childlessness and huge amounts of bitter people.

    1) The average man has almost always gotten beaten down throughout history

    2) We are not debating whether men are struggling. That much is obvious

    3) You are talking about complex societal problems with many factors. These things are effecting everyone, it's not something women are doing to men.

  4. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Raze said:

    The amount of women who regularly complain about the men they date disproves this.

    It does not.

    1) Filtering and testing does not guarantee your relationship will not have problems

    2) Women complain because men fail tests, not because they are necessarily testing poorly

    3) Things would be way worse if they didn't test and filter

    9 minutes ago, Raze said:

    I already pointed out examples of contradictory standards, you just said none of that makes it “difficult”. The things I listed do, and I can point out many others in the same vein. But if you won’t even accept the example I gave is there is no point in pointing out the rest.

    Those examples were poor and not serious. I do not accept those as scalable problems, they are closer to cherry-picked incel ragebait.

    So I suppose we are just in disagreement here.

    9 minutes ago, Raze said:

    That’s true for any individual person who wants to get better, but on a societal scale when their opinions on what the dating etiquette and climate are taken seriously while they also have free roam to date how they want plus all the complications of modern technology it among other behaviors results in them making it as hard as possible for men.

    Modern dating has its unique challenges. But on the whole, I'd say it's easier than ever.

    You could go out to a bar or nightclub if you live in a major city and get five different girls phone numbers tonight.

    And the challenges that do exist are not because women are trying to make it as hard as possible for men. It's more social media addiction, technology isolation, ideological brain rot, financial struggles, etc.

  5. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Raze said:

    You’re not getting my point. It’s irrational because the way they test can filter for men who have the traits they don’t want leaving them as their only options, and they’re doing it on a societal scale.

    That's not a serious problem at scale.

    Women's filtering is effective and works well the vast majority of time for her agenda.

    Guys just want to assume they are not the problem.

    8 minutes ago, Raze said:

    The testing is just one symptom of a psychological phenomenon that is just one of the ways they are doing it when it shows up in other areas.

    Like what other areas?

    How else are they making it impossible for men? 

    8 minutes ago, Raze said:

    You essentially just said I should ignore it all and assume everything is a collaboration and that women test men naturally so there must not be a problem,

    That is narrow and biased, it’s not even acknowledging the wider problem which I’m saying this is part of the reason for.

    I acknowledge women can behave in toxic ways. You don't have to assume everything is a collaboration.

    I'm trying to balance the perspective here.

    Yes, women test men naturally. It's your job as a man to understand and accept this. This will actually make you less bitter towards women and likely improve your dating success as a byproduct.

  6. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Raze said:

    It’s irrational in that it can conflict with their own interests 

    No, because filtering men is in her interest. 

    If she's interested in a guy, but then she tests him and he drops the ball, that's a win for her.

    6 minutes ago, Raze said:

    I’m not saying every woman is doing it on purpose, I’m saying generally as a collective they are driven to do that

    It's still exaggerated.

    Filtering and testing, yes.

    Making things as hard as possible for you, no.

    6 minutes ago, Raze said:

    Nothing in my attitude is combative or toxic, I’m analyzing the situation, not giving dating advice. 

    Assuming a collaborative frame is self deluding yourself into a perspective more likely to work, doing that for socializing is fine, saying it should also be done to avoid looking at the wider situation objective isn’t.

    But is it more of a wider, objective analysis?

    It comes off to me as pretty narrow and biased.

  7. Posted · Edited by aurum

    1 hour ago, Raze said:

    Right, but their desire to test is often subconscious so it expands in ways that are irrational and they just rationalize or defend it, which is how they make courting them more and more difficult.

    Is it irrational or do you just not understand it?

    1 hour ago, Raze said:

    This is a good example of the issue. While this is true, you will also find just as many examples of women 

    - purposefully making themselves unapproachable, even in situations where they like the guy, and bragging about this

    - dismissing and deriding men for expecting to get signals from them or the idea they have to signal a man in any way

    - getting upset at and deriding men for assuming their signals are interest when they aren’t, and even seeking to give him social or legal repercussions 

    That is just one example of the layers of contradictions, and I can give you a dozen worse ones. This is how they make approaching and “chasing them” more and more difficult, yet they’ll only justify doing this while also complaining about the results.

    None of that means women are making things as difficult as possible for you. You'd have to cherry-pick the most toxic behavior to believe that.

    This kind of combative attitude is extremely toxic and partly why guys struggle to meet quality women.

    Assume more of a collaborative frame.

  8. Posted

    The biggest gap I see with young guys is with dating.

    I'm not saying this is all your fault. Many of these things are extremely difficult to change. I myself struggle with some of them.

    But if you're serious about improving your situation, this is what I would focus on taking responsibility for. This is some "tough love":

    • You're bitter from your past or current failures with women
    • You're hyper-fixated on your looks or you ignore improving them
    • You're scared to approach or your approach is way too aggressive.
    • Your head is filled with manosphere, redpill trash or progressive, egalitarian fantasies.
    • You're emotionally needy or emotionally stunted
    • You don't socialize enough
    • You don't have enough friends or social circle
    • You're trying to influence her with logic
    • You don't have a purpose or a world to draw her into
    • You want women to make things easier for you
    • You think she's being irrational or you don't hold her accountable at all
    • You're not proactive enough about leading and logistics
    • You don't know how to have good sex
    • You want to fight with women rather than do the relational dance with them
    • You don't make enough money to seriously raise a family
    • You're conflicted about what kind of future you want with her
    • You want to fix her rather than be with her

  9. Posted

    17 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

    At the moment, not at all. Every other metric is spotless and and my lived experience somehow only gets better and better each passing day.

    The notion that I "risk getting heart disease down the line" has the same emotional weight as saying I "risk breaking a bone" while going climbing (technically true, but I'm still going to climb! And if I do break a bone, I'm willing to eat shit and course-correct)

    I am still young, turning 26 this year. So I am aware that the real stress-test is yet to come. 

    Fundamentally I have come to deep acceptance that I am a living personal experiment. I'm genuinely ok with dying earlier, if it means my time here was more enriching. But also, I don't actually expect to die earlier! That's just a contingency scenario, lol

    I acknowledge this

    It's possible that by the time you are old enough to where it may catch up with you, medical science will have vastly advanced.

    Trying to predict medicine in 50 years is almost impossible at this point.

  11. Posted · Edited by aurum

    1 hour ago, Raze said:

    They are, but paradoxically they also make it hard for men to not approach them, and they’ll always refuse to acknowledge any contradiction.

    This totally confuses the situation.

    Both things are true:

    1) Women are interested in attracting men

    2) Women will filter and test men in that process

    So there's no contradiction. It's part of the same strategy for women. And it's pointless to berate them about this, even if you don't like it. They are not going to stop filtering or testing men, nor should they. Stop wanting women to make things easy for you.

     

    The idea that women are making it "as hard for men as possible" is also absurd. If this was the case, no guy would ever be getting laid.

    In reality, women give you indicators of interest. Smiling, laughing, attention, agreeing with your frame, physical touch, playing with their hair, turning their body towards you, and even just talking with you at all. If she's willing to just talk and be in your presence, that can be enough of a green light. Sometimes interest can be subtle. It's your job to recognize it.

    If she's feeling really bold, she may even initiate or lead things herself. Or she might just tell you point-blank what she wants. Although I would not rely on that.

  12. Posted

    Here's another scary thought: if AI eliminates all standard meritocratic justifications for power, then what decides who holds power? Who and how is it decided that you're in the top 5% versus 95%?

    Worst-case scenario, things devolve into a SD Red-esque might-makes-right situation. Power is given to those who can hold it, period.

     

  15. Posted

    27 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

    Funny enough, there's yet another wrinkle that Jason would add, which is that store bought ghee is usually oxidized (not many people know this), so unless you're making your own ghee from scratch, he would say to also avoid that and just use coconut oil.

    Yeah I remember that. 

    I have personally stopped with ghee. I do my cooking with EVOO.

    27 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

    Yep, Jason also somehow keeps his LDL under 100 despite not even trying to (given that he's a LDL denier lmao)

    It's probably genetics.

    90% of this stuff is just what the good lord gave you. We're just tinkering around at the edges.

    27 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

    For me, I haven't had bloodwork done in 2 years now, but last I checked I was at 150 mg/dl LDL-C and 1:1 Tris to HDL both sitting at 60 mg/dl. 

    That test didn't come with ApoB though. I'll get a more comprehensive test done later this year

    150 mg/dL is kind of high my dude, are you not concerned?

    27 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

    https://chatgpt.com/share/683ca340-3b44-800f-926c-271d3668fac5

    had to push your GPT just a little bit 

    That all makes sense to me. But it also shows that you can't rely on "I will never oxidize so I will be safe!!".

    No, you're going to oxidize. So pragmatically, an increase in ApoB is definitely a risk, even if you're doing all the right lifestyle things. It's just a question of how much.

  16. Posted

    27 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

    The GPT is being as PC and nonpartisan as possible but already casts doubt on seed oils and admits to oxidized lipoprotein theory and literally tells you that ghee and coconut oil are more ideal than seed oils. None of this is "new info" per se, but you could say the overton window is shifting. Just a few years ago, the consensus was that canola oil is "probably safer" than something like butter ghee or tallow due to saturated fat concerns.

    I asked GPT a few more questions if you want to read through to get a more nuanced picture:

    https://chatgpt.com/share/683c8192-5910-800c-a591-22a2e75e2433

     

    The punchline seems to be that there's a tradeoff between ApoB and oxidation levels. Saturated fat is going to drive up ApoB and LDL-C, but potentially reduce oxidization. Whereas seed oils are going to lower ApoB but drive up oxidization.

    So really it's a nuanced choice you've got to work out with your medical provider, depending on your unique situation. And you need to be testing.

    What's your lipid panel levels? ApoB was 58 mg/dL and LDL-C was 76 mg/dL for my last test. And I'm eating meat everyday.

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

    @aurum As of May 2025, ChatGPT explicitly names native LDL-C as benign in the context of chronic disease, and spells out that oxidative stress is the core causative mechanism of atherosclerosis, after cross-referencing the entire collective of known human literature and looking for the most self-consistent explanation. It will also point-blank tell you to stop consuming seed oils if you specify that you want to maximize vitality and longevity.

    It will do this even if you open a fresh account with no preferences in memory, and use no leading questions.

    You are, of course, free to be skeptical of AI. 

    Food for thought.

    Here's my results:

    https://chatgpt.com/share/683c8192-5910-800c-a591-22a2e75e2433

    I don't see anything particularly new here. Of course native LDL-C itself has to become oxidized, we have known this for a long time:

    Also, the idea that you need to keep a balance of Omega-6 to Omega-3 is also not new. You could probably over consume seed oils, but this is hardly an indictment of the evilness of seed oils themselves.

    Open to pushback.

  19. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

    Mindfuckery of Leo. What some people call solipsism, is actually non-duality. What some people call solipsism, is actually a pseudo-materialistic snowflake ideology.

    I agree that taking a philosophical position of solipsism is not the same as awakening, yes.

    You could consider yourself a solipsist but still not understand the consequences of it.

  20. Posted

    8 hours ago, zurew said:

    But your direct experience says otherwise - its peculiar that you have human thoughts , desires  ,and you have an embodied experience of what it means to be a limited human - and yet in your mind none of that is finite.

    Yes, that's the mindfuckery of God.

    You thought you were a finite human. You were so, so sure you were a finite human. You were so, so sure that it never even occurred to question it.

    That's how convincing the human experience is.

    But you are not ultimately a finite human, despite the fact that you can have a human experience.

    Both things are true: you are not ultimately a human, and yet pragmatically you can still pick up the phone and call your mom. That's how powerful a God-dream is. It's indistinguishable from reality.

    8 hours ago, zurew said:

    You dont have access to and not aware of a bunch of things right now.

    That's also imagination.

    8 hours ago, zurew said:

    It can be true all the time, that what God's aware of is what exists, but thats different from saying what a limited dream character (you having a limited embodied experience as a human) is aware of at any given moment is all that exists

    Pragmatically speaking, the dream-character is not aware of all things. That is nessesarily true to create realness within the dream. But it's only true within the context of the dream itself.

    You just have to stop thinking you're a human and it makes sense.

    No finite-thing has awareness. God just exists. 

  22. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

    Oneness doesn't mean solipsism

    It does. You're just not yet understanding how radical the ramifications of Oneness are.

    7 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

    Oneness means one being, perspective is not being. Individuals are not beings , there is only one being , not only one perspective. A perspective has no existence.

    Not only does perspective have existence, it's the only thing with existence.

    Anything you want to claim outside of perspective to exist requires perspective.

    You have never had an experience outside of perspective.