zurew

The concept of advantage and disadvantage can only make sense in the relative world. In the relative world, there are necessary tradeoffs, because of the limitations and if someone is for example is biased towards survival, we can use the variable of survival as a context to evaluate certain things. Getting shot in the head is bad, if you are a jew and a nazi party is on the rise thats extra bad for you and increases the chance of you getting killed (threataning the variable [survival], that you care about). Going from that, not voting on a nazi party is good, doing certain things that will avoid the nazi party to get elected is good, God doesn't care about any finite set of metrics, only a human care about finite metrics. But if you do care about a finite set of metrics, then you can use those to evaulate situations and things in the biased context of your own survival. God doesn't care about your survival more than about anything else, but you do. You keep talking about bigger pictures, but humans don't have the capacity or the intention to always care about the bigpicture. If humanity care about survival, then God killing all humans on this planet would be bad for humans, but it might be good for this Planet overall. You can keep changing the frame and about how meta you want to go, but as long as you acknowledge that in God's eye humans are not on the top of the value hierarchy (because everything has the same value), you need to acknowledge, that there are things that could be considered bad in the context of "humanity surviving" or developing.

Its still from human general intelligence, so its unlikely, but when it comes to optmizing its own code, thats much more likely. But maybe if its somehow good at manipulation and at how to fake things, then it might be actually able to make people to do things for itself.

I tested it how much it understands concepts like synthesis and synergy, because both of those are very useful to understand and both of those concepts could be applied for a wide variety of topics.

Because that would require a perfect understanding of its own self and knowing how to code is necessary but far from being sufficient. Thats like saying "dude , you know how to use a pencil and draw lines with it on a paper, why can't you create a perfect drawing of myself or of nature?"

Creating an ego that revolves around "I am being anti establishment" makes it so that you won't be able to accept and stomach and acknowledge, when the establishment is right. Besides these very vague and general statements, what tangible things or criticisms do you have that couldn't be applied to the anti establishment crowd if the same standards are applied?

It seems, that if you have access to bing , you are essentially talking to gpt4, which is cool. https://blogs.bing.com/search/march_2023/Confirmed-the-new-Bing-runs-on-OpenAI’s-GPT-4

In that case, you should abandon the context of "being unbiased" and you shouldn't have any problem with people who are not totally unbiased, because if you have even a slight problem with it, that means that you are biased towards being unbiased and by that, you instantly defeat your own argument . If you would truly value the concept of being unbiased, you wouldn't have made any judgement regarding this issue, and you wouldn't value being unbiased more than being biased. The moment you make a judgement, you immediately put yourself in the biased camp (which is totally fine and good, because all of us are biased).

@MisterNobody here is a mindfuck for you, if you want to hold others to this Absolute standard: not valueing everything the same and valueing everything the same all have the same value from the Absolutistic view, so why judge it? Taking a step back from conflating the absolute with the relative, you have to read things in the context they were given. Of course, if you put a certain thing in a different context, then it will mean different thing and it will have to be judged according to that context/standard. Also, you can value things based on different metrics and for different reasons. If you value survival thats already a bias, and some things will be more useful for survival and for politics than other things and denying it would be a big mistake. Its completely useless (in the context of survival and in the context of politics and a buch of other things) to virtue signal the "I am unbiased" behaviour , because 1) its not true (the fact that you are alive, already necessitates that you are biased towards survival) and 2) its impossible to give prescriptions or to move towards any specific value or goal.

But its better to watch a random low quality youtube video on a topic and immediately believe it , because it confirms your beliefs on the subject? In other threads you sometimes use statistics and studies to make your point stronger,so its seems to me, that you are very selective about this epistemic process and you choose it when it suits you and abandon it or even trash it when it contradicts your beliefs about a subject. How do you know that, without looking at studies? You probably have never tried seed oil yourself, so what epistemic process you are choosing over studies to arrive at the conclusion that people should stay away from seed oil?

Yeah I will edit my post, but when I posted the time stamped link, at that time it worked fine ( but probably because it was live streamed, it seems that they cut the first hour waiting time).

https://openai.com/research/gpt-4

Thats deep.

What do you mean by the "trick of the youtube" (do you say, that when you switch back from 2x to 1x the 1x is slower than the 1x it was before)? Its about your mind getting adjusted to one speed and once you change it, it takes some time for your mind to adjust itself to the switched speed. But you can test this very easily by opening up two tabs in one you are doing 2x for a while then switch it back to 1x and then you play the video on the other tab with 1x as well and see if there is a difference between the two tabs speed.

We are getting back to the point where we talk about that each side gives value, but we often times forget that part because we are so focused on the money and resources part. A 10/10 chick will give beauty for being on a yacht, so it is not like , only one side is giving value, but more about each side is giving value (that the other side care about) (women in this case give beauty and the men could give the opportunity for that women to be on his yacht). You might say ,"yeah but money is more valuable and has more utility than beauty", but that doesn't matter (and depending on the context, it might not even be true), because we need to evaluate all these things in the context of the dating market. It seems that men value beauty so much , that they are willing to do such things that you described above. But if we only want to talk about the money, then we could talk about rich sugarmommies. Of course number wise there are more men who are using their money and assets to attract women, but it start to become more popular when it comes to rich single middle age or elderly women (and we know that women start to outearn men, so its safe to assume, that it will become more of a trend as time goes on). That is true, technically everyone is unique in their own way, but yeah in the context of dating we can somewhat reduce it down to countable variables. Yeah, but when it comes to women not all women are hot and just as not all men are high in the traits that matter in the context of the dating market, the same is true for women, who are not that beautiful. But there is a big difference. The difference is that men can work on most of their skills to climb up and making themselves more valuable in terms of dating, but women who were born with bad genetics will have an insanely hard time dating and she can't even change that disadvantage, unless she has enough money for surgeries. And again, I still disagree with some of the phrasing. Hot women will have an easy time finding sex partners, but them being hot will make them harder to find a long term relationship, because almost every men will look at her as a sexobject even more, because she has outstanding looks. Men will look for different traits when it comes to sex vs when it comes to long term relationship, and when it comes to long term relationship, beauty will be important , but not the most important. You talked about certain positive traits that women can have to have a massive advantage in certain contexts, but we shouldn't forget, that every positive trait can become a negative if a different context is given. Just as a rich man having a lot of money can be a negative, if he is actually looking for a normal relationship and not for a gold digger, the same way being a 10/10 women could be good at in some cases, but when it comes to you being intelligent and hard working its a big negative, because no one will acknowledge your intelligence and what you achieved, because everything will be dismissed by assuming, that you achievied everything ,because you just used your beauty, and you will only be looked at as a sex object and you will be reduced to just that variable and nothing else will be taken into account. All men, and a lot of people directly connect their selfesteem to their career + the feeling of being useful is very important and finding meaning in things is also very important, and work is one things that gives people meaning. I would be very curious how most men would be selfesteem wise, if they would be forced to do all the women roles at home and the taking care of the kids for decades, while not being able to work on their career at all (lets say scenario , where women earns twice as much as her men, and her career is on the rise). Now, you could say that kids give meaning too, yeah, but those kids will grow up and what you will do then + nowadays in a lot of cases ,where men wants to dominate the whole relationship (where he doesn't let his women to work) and they don't have kids the 'kids will give meaning to your life" is out of question. Here is a relevant thing here. Women have to do a really big gamble here, because she needs to have an insanely big trust in her men, that he will be a good husband and won't fuck over their relationship, won't leave her for another women, will stay with her when she gets pregnant etc, because she is sacrificing her career, and imagine spending 10-15 years on a relationship , where you didn't imporve anything on your career and then you need to start everything from scratch. I agree when it comes to the child being under 2 years old, but when it comes after that it comes down to who has better traits for staying home with the kid and that can mean feminine traits of course, but masculine traits are not exclusive to men, and feminine traits are not exclusive to women, so the correct thing to say here is that , lets evaluate who is more applicable for staying home based on who has what career and who has what traits. Roles shouldn't be given based on sex, it should be evaluated in a more nuanced way, where we look at the set of traits that person has. The same logic is applicable to men and I already outlined the argument why it is silly to equate 'dating up' only to women (all depends on what variables you are looking at). If a high quality men has 1000 options to choose from he will obviously pick the option that is the "best" according to him, not surprising that women will choose the best from all the options she have. Your article disagrees with you. Said by all men, who wants to dominate and lead their relationship alone, without the cooperating with their women . Imagine being a men where you want to dominate your relationship and the main leverage that you bring to the table is your money and your resources and your women starts to outearn you, having a higher intelligence than you, and you eventually lose all your leverage and you either have to lose your leader role or have to leave. + most men are not equipped to be in more feminine roles (taking care of the house, cooking ,cleaning , taking care of the kids), and they don't want to be forced into those positions, therefore they will rather choose a women, who is not earning that much money, who don't have a successful career, and who is not that intelligent (because that makes dating even harder, she will be more likely to see through your games, most men [and people in general] have too much of a fragile ego to stomach, that they are the less intelligent in their relationship).

Yep, Im obsessed with Tate, not you who are making his 5th thread about him or mentioning him in the beginning in your threads

I will make sure to learn all the lessons from Tate's pimping course, how to handle these heartless , transactional women.

So you are picking and choosing from articles the stuff that you agree with and totally exclude everything that you don't agree with, thanks god that you are not doing motivated reasoning and cherrypicking. I don't know why you are referring back to the video, when I responded to your reply about "women being totally transactional" and at the same time implying ,that men doesn't.

You need to get off from slurping Tate and F&F content for a second and think one time in your life from the female perspective as well. You literally did nothing so far, but just reiterating brainded redpill talkingpoints and haven't responded to anything I said. I don't know where you saw, where I implied that women and men don't have different desires and expectation in a relationship, in fact I did the opposite like multiple times, where I made the arguments why its silly to use arguments that you used "women date up and men date down" when men and women desire different things and the evaluation of all those things will be totally depended on what variable you will use as the standard to judge all things by. Its very easy, there are variables where women date up, and there are variables where men date up.

Thats a very weird way and very reductionistic way to use the word "transactional". Your article said, that they were too much of a people pleaser, and thats literally the opposite of waiting for an exact return for what you give. You are trying very hard here to paint women as purely rational, almost sociopathic beings, who can't get attached to anyone and only driven by resources and money. An exchange of value will always happen, and it will happen naturally, without a person consciously calculating and evaluating all the contribution that their partner gave, before they make a contribution to their partner. If we were to use the word transactional the same way you defined it above, then literally all relationships from all end are transactional. Why do you think people leave any relationship? Because they get all the things they want from that relationship, and they are totally satisfied with their relationship or they don't? You are trying very hard to make this a women thing, when this is a human thing.

Nope, your question was to make a comparison between an average men and women, and all my points still stand. Women in average definitely have much better social skills than men, and they have a bigger network also, they have better hygene , they have more beauty and they have more skills when it comes to cleaning and cooking, they are more emphatetic, they are better at communicating in general. Women are more social than men, thats just true in general and from that comes them having better social skills and bigger network. I don't know what social circles you are talking about "getting accepted into", but in general women are more outgoing and have more friends than men. Men don't have friends, some men have business partners and thats basically it. An average men is pretty bad at social stuff. You are making it look like as if men won't get accepted into social circles until they earn 100k a year, going to the gym 5 times a week, develop high charisma and other things. The fact of the matter is that men is much less outgoing in general and don't even look for friends or even if they do, they suck at it, and they have low social skills. I don't even know what a 70% men even mean, but if you stick with the comparison of average men and women , then what you are writing there "men being far superior " is not true, I already wrote down a list of things where an average women is better compared to an average men. An opinion won't become a rule, just because you agree with it. Its not a fact, its just one kind of analysis. The idea that men has to hit so high standards is just not true, as I already outlined, an average men can't even hit a standard that should be basic to everyone (take care of yourself, take care of your hygene, develop bare minimum social skills, dont be a schizo, cut your neckbeard) and as I already said if you look at most relationships you will see, that for most of them these things are true: dating in the (same class, same culture, same intelligence level, same or similar finance level etc) Is it about women not wanting to date men who are lower in education than them, or is it more about men being insecure about not being as educated ,therefore not dating such women? A lot of highly masculine men in general will want to lead the relationship and will be turned off or maybe even intimidated by if a women have a lot of factors that are all giving her a lot of leverage in a relationship. One trait could be intelligence, other could be she earning a lot of money other could be she having a successful career other could be she having a very rich family etc etc. All of those things can contribute to this and the narrative of "women just don't want to date down" is incomplete and most of the time misleading. Your linked article agrees with me (that people date in the (same class, same culture, same intelligence level, same or similar finance level etc): Again if you attached to the idea of "women will only date up" then I can make arguments why men will only date up as well (this game is so silly, because it all depends on what variable you are focusing on, so I dont know why some of you guys are so attached to this idea). Men will mostly only date women who are more attracting compared to them, men will mostly only date women who are younger than them, men will mostly only date women who have a lower bodycount than them, therefore men date up and women date down on all those things. The advice of "just work on yourself bro" is the same low quality advice that brought us here, and there are more things that clearly needs to be done here. Tell me how people are going to work on themselves and become a high value males, when they have 100 unresolved traumas that are making them act impulsively and unconsciously? You can't work on your lifepurpose, when you don't even have your bare minimum things resolved and done with yourself. You don't have to go to a therapist, you can try other healing methods, but as long as men will pretend to be this stoic purely rational humans, men won't be able to massively improve themselves on a big global scale, because their traumas need to be resolved first. You have a strawmen version of what therapy is, and what it is about. The fact of the matter is that men don't have anyone to talk to and men are pretty bad at showing and communicating their feelings. All men are human and humans have feelings and if you ignored and play the stoic rational game, when deep down you are fucked, then you are ending up with a society what we have right now, where males pretending to be "rational" but at the same time quietly kill themselves, because they think talking about their problems is gay or weak and other "rational" men will kill other men for a random passing comment that is targeted at their girlfriend or if someone steps on their shoe they immediately start a fight. Men a lot of times confuse being a pride defending tough guy with simply being emotional and triggered and they do a lot of rationalization afterwards to try to resolve their outburts in themselves . Men kill themselves for a wide variety of reasons , one of them is because of certain unresolved traumas and certain indoctrinations (some of them coming from redpillers), where they put a = between what value they have on the dating market vs what value they have outside of that. Because of that most men have massive self esteem issues and can't differentiate their self love from what they can output and again that comes from confusing dating market value with self value. The other thing is that most men is being indoctrinated with other shit like "you have to solve everything by yourself all the time, and it is weak to ask for help or to collaborate solving certain problems". Again, men in general have almost no real friends and most of the time pretend to be a stoic problem solver who needs to solve everything alone, but that is just dumb and not necessary all the time. We live in a society and we can utilize and collaborate with each other and help each other to solve certain problems and pride shouldn't be more important than solving some of these problems. If men can develop their social skills and start to build real friendships with each other more, then most trauma healing won't be that important anymore + they will be able to solve much more problems + again men needs to realize that asking for help is sometimes necessary and much more better, because it is sometimes indeed necessary to solve certain problems and those times you have to put your ego and pride aside. You can say that, but most men are still incapable to do any of those things. If there is a household where a women outearns the men, chances are high that that women will still have to do most cleaning and cooking and other stuff, simply because men can't do those things. If we were to switch the roles I am telling you, women would be much more capable of doing the men roles than men doing the women roles. Men won't do any cooking and cleaning and taking care of the kids, but most women will be able to do a job. But that aside, it is not easy to take care of the household and to take care of the kids. You have to cook and clean everything and kids are really time consuming and needs a lot of attention and care. You need to be their friend, their parent, their psychologist at the same time keep the house clean, cook and take care of every other social stuff (like going to meetings in school, planning all the holidays and a ton of other stuff). You have to drive the kids to school, and help them solve their homework, if they get sick you need to drive them to the doctor and give even more attention to them and encourage them etc. The other big thing that comes with staying home and taking care of all that stuff is that you are doing that same repetitive thing, that is alone most of the time not really that meaningful, but the husband if he is successful but even if he is average at his career, he can harvest all the compliments from all the relatives and all the friends and almost no one cares to compliment or to acknowledge the work the mother does at home. + the mother has to sacrifice her career for all of that, so none of these things are easy. Most men will go to work and then get home to a clean house, where lunch or dinner is ready, where all the problems are solved and where everything have already been taken care of.

it can say that it is a women thing, but it doesn't make the argument that you were making (that women treating men almost purely in a transactional way and always looking for a better opportunity). This article argues, that women in average have more empathy in general and women in general are people pleasers and because of that they won't talk about their needs and problems much and they will rather just leave, because they will find that easier that to talk about their problems. That is a wildly different from the argument you were trying to build up. But I would say even if I take the article's claim for granted, even then I would disagree that it is a women thing, beause empathy is not exclusive to women and to make this problem a sex specific problem is misleading and not precise. Empathy in general could be developed and most people (regardless of their sex) could be brought up in a way ,where they will end up having more empathy.

Its sad, that you cant follow simple logic. Its not a contradiction, because it still has almost everything to do with leverage and I said that like 5 times now. Just because in general maybe women have more leverage right now, that does not mean ,that having more leverage is exclusive to being a women.

I agree that nuance matters, but in general I would say, that an average men who don't have a girlfriend would really do a lot to sleep with a women (a lot of incels are out there and the number is increasing). I would say, what I said before. For a women to be able to have sex, they generally speaking don't need to do anything, however, for them to get into a high quality long term relationship they will need to contribute, especially if we are talking about being a wife to a higher quality guy. For a high value men to get into a long term relationship with a women, that guy will have much more standards for that women. If you want to compare average women vs men, then I would say, that women beat men when it comes to hygene, social skills (because of that having more friends and a bigger network of people in general), starting to outearn men, better educational levels, better looks and probably a better ability to take care of the house (cleaning, cooking). Yes modern women are probably not as good at cooking and taking care of the house as they were in the past ,however I still believe they are much better than modern men, because men were never pressured to learn any of those skills) For a guy to be able to have a girlfriend I don't think the standard is that high as you and as some of the guys are making it look like. If you look around in the world, you will see that most people having relationships in the same class, same culture, around the same educational level, roughly the same financial level etc. Yes the top 1% men are probably fucking most women, but that does not mean that , that top 1% men having relationships with all those women, in fact thats not the case (thats why we always need to seperate and analyze these stats in different contexts having sex vs long term dating) and its not like those women are actually taken, because they are not. No, I don't think men are expected to be charming, attractive, having a lot of money, and having a network all at the same time, because I can see a lot of relationships, where a loser, broke, charismatic guy have a relationship with a decently looking women. There are a lot of fuckboys who wouldn't be considered a high quality men, but they are normal looking and they have very good charisma and or social skills (but they can still lack financially and in other ways). I also disagree with the notion, that women are always going for a better guy than them, because I think that is misleading. Women and men are valuing different things generally speaking and they are looking for different things. You could say that when it comes to the current dating dynamics, women are still looking more for financies and resources compare to men (but I would say, that be careful here, because this part is not necessarily sex based either, we have never lived in a time ,where women outearned men so we will see in the future what things are actually inherent things to men and women), and men looking for beauty very simplistically speaking (more things could be mentioned here ,but for the sake of being simplictic I won't list all the things). Now, when we are aware of those things, why would we use resources and finances as the ultimate standard to analyze all things by? When someone says "women date up, men are able to date down" that is misleading, because that person using the the variable of finance as the ultimate variable to arrive at that conclusion. If we would to use the variable of beauty, then I could make an argument, that a men in general date up, because they will almost always date women who are more attracting compared to them. We could use other variables and we could create multiple arguments why women or why men dates up, so I think the question who dates up in general is silly, because it is totally depended on what variables you judged it by. I disagree, what I see most of the time is that men don't really contribute much other than resources and doing his work and then expect all the other things to be done by his women (so for instance do all the cleaning, cooking, taking care of the kids (helping them study, take them to the doctor, if that kid is really young ,then changing diapers, waking up early in the morning etc without a father ever do any of those things). If we are not talking about kids, then (doing all the cooking, cleaning at home and doing work at the same time + being a psychologist to her men (who most of the time unfortunately sucks socially , doesn't have much or any friends and therefore he is offloading all his emotional problems at some point on her women or if he doesn't, he will just snap at some point or the relationship will completely go downhill). Depending on the relationship, you could argue that men can be psychologists to their women too, but there is one big difference, and that difference is that women can talk about their problems with their friends (because they are much more social and it is socially considered okay to talk about your problems to your friend) and it is more okay to heal and go to a therapist, but when it comes to men, even if we have friends most of the time those relationships are low quality or purely business and opportunity based and healing is still considered as weak and gay.

I would actually have to see the actual stats on this (the link), but Im not sure what you trying to prove or suggest with these raw stats. If you want to suggest here again, that women are more selfish, then this point alone won't be sufficient enough to prove that point (even if I can't come up with a hypothesis that would explain these numbers), because there are a wide variety of variables that are all contributing to a divorce and selfishness is just one of them. Or maybe men changes during the relationship and he start to not care about things that he cared during his dating phase (not working out anymore, not caring that much about his hygene anymore, not being able to listen and take care of his wife's problems and never talk about those problems, never really doing anything or contributing anything other than doing work and being really terrible at reading certain signs and being terrible at communication). Because, they couldn't see beforehand what they are getting into? Some men are deceitful and good at playing certain roles in order to get what they want and some of the men are successful at it (obviously not to say that all men are manipulative), and of course we could add the option that those girls might have been naive and couldn't see the redflags ( but again, here I have to mention, that some of the redflags could be hidden for a very long time, if that men is good at being deceitful) Its interesting to see some of the redpill guys suggesting in this context (very conveniently) that women are perfectly rational and purely transactional, but at the same time in other contexts argue, that women are very emotional and they are not allowed to have sex with other men , because when women have sex with another men, they do it because they must be emotionally attached to that men.