IAmReallyImportant

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    661

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by IAmReallyImportant

  1. Posted

    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. Posted

    4 hours ago, lxlichael said:

    Dude serious question, how much time do you actually spend connecting deeply with people in real life say on average per week? You'll have your answer to that original question without me needing to give anymore input from here I feel.

     

    Do you mean with different people or like friends and family? Than maybe not zhat much as I work most of the time.

  5. Posted

    31 minutes ago, zurew said:

    More people can earn more money collectively and because they have more money, they can have more freedom in deciding how they want to spend their time, so basically they can manage their relationship better.

    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.

  7. Posted

    1 minute ago, zurew said:

    All of this talk is grounded in subjective valuesystems, you have no upperhand.

    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. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    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. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    14 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

    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.

    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.

  11. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    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. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    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. Posted

    2 minutes ago, zurew said:

    Thats totally depends on how it is set up, and on the dynamics that are in that relationship. Again depending on the situation it could be argued that people in a poly relatonship can distribute more than in a monogamous relationship in other cases they can't, but again it totally depends and not a question of polyamory or monogamous relationship.

    How could they distribute more, in which situations? : D

  14. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    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. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    5 minutes ago, zurew said:

     

    I already addressed this point if you read further. If you have a problem with time , wealth and emotional distribution and cost, then you essentially making an argument against having a big family and having friends, because you spend your time, money, and emotional faculties in those cases as well.

    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.

  16. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    5 minutes ago, zurew said:

    You can have distributed wealth if you want to and you can build more and bigger things if all of you are working together because you can accumulate more resources.

    You can not distribute your time, unless you clone yourself and then you would be multiple persons anyways. And you forgot the emotional part. Most people aren't rich in addition.

    See, you only want to seek evidence for you being right. So what is the point?

  17. Posted

    53 minutes ago, ThermalTide said:

    I understand what you're saying but I have to disagree, this post is an example of how we're all able to think for ourselves and deduce our own conclusions about these sorts of things. I don't want to have a polyamorous relationship, but the fact that they exist doesn't change my mind at all. Nor does it bother me that people are engaging in these kinds of relationships. It's simply not my business. With your logic, straight people viewing homosexual PDA would threaten their straightness lol

    I believe that there is a difference between someone who is heterosexual looking at homosexual pdas and someone who is heterosexual being persuaded by polyamorous relationships. Since man is polygamous, there is a difference.

    I am not interested in opinions but facts. You can have your opinion. You can't stop anyone from misguiding other people or condoning unhealthy behavior. That would also be too exhausting.

  18. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    Moreover, it is not a good strategie because of the mangement emotional, financial and temporal resources over a longer timespan as mentioned.

    So even if a few people are the only one doing it and nobody sees it, they would have less life quality by definition, even if they would feel relatively good doing it. It doesn't pay out or leads to a less fulfilled life one can have. It is counter-intuitive..

  19. Posted

    Of course, you can fall in love with other people, but then you have to let go of the feeling or try to leave it as it is and not enter into a sexual relationship or jeopardize the current one.

    Life is not a fluffy cloud on which you can glide, or not always. It is not only about you or your needs, but also about society and other people. And not only whether you fall in love with someone and then want to live it out.

  20. Posted · Edited by IAmReallyImportant

    4 hours ago, LastThursday said:

    But we do this anyway, we just call them friends normally. In that sense we are polyamorous anyway, we can love more than one person at a time, albeit not sexual love.

    I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here for the sake of discussion.

    I'm unsure whether you're talking relationships or pure love. There's always a transactional element to relationships even sexual ones, so sure, you can call that ego if you want.  Personally I wouldn't call it "taking bits and pieces", I would just call it "enjoying a person's uniqueness". In other words you love each person you encounter in a different way, because of the different things they express or you find attractive in them. That would be the allure of polyamory.

    It is not just about love and relationships. It is also about responsibility and long-term thinking, emotional maturity etc.  It is just so unhealthy and untrue, what most people say about polyamorous relationships, that I feel the urge to say something.

    Just fucking around means increased risk of STDs, hurting someone etc. And in a broader sense destroying society if it scales.

  22. Posted

    4 minutes ago, ThermalTide said:

    which golden rule? I genuinely can't see an issue with how people conduct their relationship dynamics privately.

    I meant, asking yourself what would happen, if everybody would do that. And there is certainly the possibility that it would become a norm. Moreover, as mentioned the role model part. It is not healthy for anybody to live this kind of live and even if they would feel good, they would lead other people to suffer and have other risks in place as well. So you would live it in front of others and - as you want to convince yourself of your views - you would want to make it look like it is good and healthy.

  23. Posted

    I believe that with polyamory one tries to achieve a feeling of being "detached", because one could not do it that way.

    I.e. these people feel restricted by the mere possibility of not being able to do everything they want. Although this is an illusion, because you can't do that anyway.

    I think that has more to do with immaturity. Like a child who wants all the sweets, then eats them up and realizes that he's going into sugar shock.

    Nobody can do that, and even if they could, it would still be harmful.

  24. Posted

    2 minutes ago, ThermalTide said:

    Everyone's different; if consenting adults are participating in polyamory, I really don't see an issue

    The issue is, that you participate on something which can scale and then it becomes a problem. Violating the golden rule.

    Moreover, you live something for other people and signal that it would be good, even though it is harmful. This is similar to taking drugs or smoking at school. Not everyone can get rid of it.

  25. Posted

    I would say that polyamorous relationships are by far more selfish, because individual needs outweigh other needs and you don't want to sacrifice any part of your life. And both parties would sacrifice themselves for each other, so to speak, and it would be more productive over time. Therefore, one cannot say that there is always a selfish party involved who wants to have the other partner for himself alone, because obviously two partners are involved.

    Then, of course, there is the part about health and the negative effect on society, the golden rule, etc.

    Besides envy, there are other negative feelings that can occur in a relationship, so this is not an argument.