• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About IAmReallyImportant

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,013 profile views
  1. If you use the law of big data and practice as long as it takes to do a market analysis right and to learn skills you will have some success as long as your iq isnt under 80 and you dont live in an 3rd world country and are able to create a supporting environment and manage it to overcome your demons with willpower.
  2. Do you mean with different people or like friends and family? Than maybe not zhat much as I work most of the time.
  3. I didn't want to drag anyone down, so I apologize if this is the case. Like I don't feel well in pushing buttons or activating the ego in people. This is not on purpose, at least conciously.
  4. @zurewI don't think that's fruitful. You obviously want to be right and you can in your world. However, you see this becomes an endless discussion so we should stop. You can add what you want now, this doesn't make it better.
  5. But they have as much money as they would have alone and now they have to spend more on dates, events etc. When you have multiple persons participating on the relationship you have to take the time unless you plan less for them.
  6. Yes, I shouldn't do that. I did response and then I start analyzing the situation and try to anticipate different perspectives. It is not worth the time, as basically people are stubborn and only bring a few valuable arguments. Bad habit.
  7. This is a subjective statement, as you have no rational argument underlying that. I just look at what is actual and it doesn't make any sense to me, why a polyamorous relationship could be good in any ways, other than fulfilling one's own needs. There are relationships, which are polyamorous that somehow work, but this is the minority. All polyamorous relationships I have seen didn't last longer than 5-7 years. And basically that is also what the data suggest approx. You can of course live that - I don't care. It doesn't change the objective facts and logic.
  8. Last thing is that is worth mentioning is that hierarchies would arise, as the do naturally in different situations under animals e.g. or nature in general. It is true that there is also a hierachie in a 2 pair relationship, but the higher the level of the hierarchy-tree, the more inequality develops. You see that in finance, evolution of cities etc.
  9. Ok, you could damp the system using regulative policies. But this would soon become very complicated and you basically would feel more restricted than in a mongamous relationship. Moreover this would cost even more resources etc. Even if something like that would work - as said logically you get deeper with less partners, so 1 partner would be the deepest as you spend more resources on that. There are of course people who would say "it hasn't be that complicated it can work just like that". These people are unconcious about all ego-dynamics, their biases and evtl. consequences.
  10. However, if you have a partner, who is not compatible with you, then of course a monogamous relationship cannot get that good..
  11. There could also be a polygamous relationship that works better than a monogamous. But this doesn't make for the big data. These would be just outliers. This could be like a completely messed-up monogamous relationship and a superficial polygamous relationship-set with 3 people instead of 30 e.g. that somehow works, but isn't as good as a 2 pair romatic relationship could go.
  12. But if so, this would be edge cases, but if you look at it gloablly it is obvious that more resources are taken for a distributed set of entities and the outcome would be less. Synergetic effects would lead to chaos and regulation-problems, as there is resistance in the system because of egos. So it is an unstable system, which can rarely work and if so, the quality would not be better than on a single-resource distributed one. Morever, regardless - it wouldn't be good for society and the broader collective anyways..
  13. How could they distribute more, in which situations? : D
  14. And also it doesn't make much sense, if you have 1k friends. You cannot possibly create a real friendship out of that. And if you concentrate on some more and on some less, are the other people real friends then? And also, der would be a moral issue as well. So in general, less friendships are usually better. Of course it is fun to be around with many people, but the quality is less.
  15. Multiple partners would cost much more of that than just family and friends. And I also mean like the outcome of your resources. If you allocate these resources for one partner, the outcome would be better obviously. Because, it develops better if you do it right, it gets deeper etc.