zurew

Saying that sounds strange after you sourced multiple studies to sell a point, and you actually made multiple arguments in favour of conservatives (when it comes to marriage) and by that making it sound like thats the preferable path for a person if he/she will want to get married down the road. You used those studies to strengthen your point further(because you thought that they are reliable) and now it seems that you don't care anymore or you want to abandon those studies. If you agree with my conclusion then talking about other variables isn't relevant, it is only relevant if you disagree. If you actually disagree, then please elaborate.

Your saying about "from 25-30 women don't develop personality" is false. OP's orginial implication was that he preferably want a really young girl, because then he won't need to work through her trauma. That could even mean a 18 year old girl. People probably gain more variety exp in their 20s and maybe in their early 30s than anything that comes after that. Most people from their early or middle 30s to their 70-80s don't experience that much new things and their life just on a complete repeat (the same exp over and over again). People in their 20s don't know shit about themselves, most of them not even sure what they want to do with their life, most people in their 20s don't have more than 2 serious relationship behind their back (most of them only have 1 or 0 ) , people in their 20s changing their philosophy about life and about themselves a lot. So the idea that a 20-25 year old women won't change that much is a silly notion in my opinion. @Devin You have to be very careful just reading study conclusions without actually taking a look at sample size or what they did take and what they didn't take into account. 1) For example conservative people tend to have much less relationships, therefore they have a much more narrow perspective on what a quality relationship looks like and what they even like or don't like. Lets go with a super conservative scenario where the girl don't even have a relationship before they get married to her guy, what do you think how much outlook that girl will have about the notion of "quality or high value man". She won't be able to compare her relationship / marriage to anything else and this problem alone can skew the numbers in the conservatives favour (because I have looked at your studies there isn't that much of a gap between the two) 2) Conservative people obviously have a different valuesystem where most highly conservative women will find a marriage a good relationship if the kid is being taken care of. In a conservative relationship the only big thing a man needs to hit is to provide resources and thats it, the conservative women don't have almost any big standards. Just that alone that conservative women have a much lower standard for a relationship could have a big effect on these numbers. Those are just 2 things, but more could be mentioned.

ChatGPT.pdf

Where did I say that I want that? Im probably one of the most disagreeable person here, and I am sure that I have given more pushback to Leo than you did. Notice that you didn't have anything to say to Leo, even though he disagreed with you. Don't try to weasel out from your positions again. At least have the guts to defend the biases and the opinions you have. You obviously like Tate and you have demonstrated that many times in the past, because you have made multiple positive threads about him, and there would be nothing wrong with that, if you wouldn't be sneaky, and slimy and disingenuous about it (I know that you are doing this to have good optics , specifically to radiate how stage yellow you are, but it won't work here). In the same sentence you use "she will dominate over you" and "your soy boy bias" isn't that ironic? Isn't that radiating that you have a big fear that some women will be more masculine than you and that you won't be able to have that much say in your relationship? Im sure buddy. If I hit such a unique stage yellow that you have, I will be able to use SD as a dickmeasuring device freely against all lower stages of people and radiate how confident I am in myself (without an ounce of insecurity). I will also be able to give a non judgemental deep tier 2 level analysis of stage green girls (how used their pussys are, and how much trauma they have, therefore how bad they are to be a potential partner). First of I did not attack guys who want to marry stage blue people, I specifically attacked you for directly shitting on stage green girls, because they didn't fit your bias. You made a big generalisation that all stage green girls have a used pussy and have traumas therefore they are not good for you, while ignoring all the possible advantages and thats obviously a silly generalisation coming from you. I didn't make generalisation about any stage, I specifically made comments about you and Andrew Tate. Notice that you felt a need to negatively generalise all stage green women in order to get your point across about your preferences and biases. You could have just easily said I prefer x type of women for these y reasons, without attacking women who don't fit that category. Notice that you moved the goalpost from trying to date very young girls to trying to date stage blue girls. But again using SD for dating purposes is incredibly limited and I am surprised that you are using it as if it would be a reliable and good explanatory tool here. If you have a goal to have a family, it might be that stage blue people will be better for that, but again using SD terms when it comes to these things is very limited and you lose all the potentially relevant nuance. I know that you are probably only familiar with the redpill talking points about family building, but there are a couple things that could be mentioned that could be a negative if you are only looking for super young stage blue people for marriage: They won't have almost any experience being in a relationship, therefore they won't know how to behave in a relationship, they won't know what they like doing in a relationship, what roles they like playing and doing in that relationship, they won't know what they can and cannot tolerate, they won't know how to communicate their disagreements and problems before they become big etc---> lack of knowledge about those things can very easily lead to divorce They will have little experience of being an adult, they will have to totally rely on you when push comes to shove, because they won't have the necessary tools and experience to deal with problems. Because they are so young, their preferences and beliefs could change in a very short period of time and they might realise that you are not a good candidate for them down the road, therefore it could lead to divorce. Or it might be the case that they change so much that you will feel that they are not good enough for you anymore. They won't have any sexual experience, and it might be the case that the sex that you like they won't like, or it might be the case that their libido is totally different from yours but they won't be able to communicate any of that to you, because again they don't know what they like, and most of these girls will feel shameful for speaking about any of these things (and with these highly religious and virgin girls you won't be able to have sex unless it is determined that you will wife them up, but if you two are misaligned on the sex part that will be a disaster down the road) ----> sex problems is another thing that lead to divorce

So if someone agrees with Leo on a specific topic, they are just droning on what he says, right? What a good quality engagment with what was said here. I could literally use the same argument and say, that you are just parroting everything that came from Andrew Tate, but that would be a very weak argument. Essentially what you are saying here is that you would rather have a daughter than a women. You have a very poor engagement with this topic and your characterisation of stage green shows that you have a lot of stage green integration to do. Also, the idea, that age alone could be a good variable to judge people by is a very naive and incredibly reductionistic view. There are like a bunch of potential negative things that could be brought up, if you think that wifing up an incredibly young girl and building a family with her is a good idea. Andrew Tate's framework and toolset is one of the worst if you want to build a healthy family. (All the attention has to go to him, everything has to revolve around him, He doesn't care if the mother of his child is sexually satisfied or not, He has multiple girls and multiple families, so the time that he can spend with hid kids is very limited etc) By following that you are literally setting yourself up to a disaster, because that framework hit all the points that are some of the biggest reasons for a divorce. Who said that you should or that thats your only option? Its interesting though, that in your mind there is only two choice- going with a stage blue girl or a stage green girl. I don't even know why would you bring SD into this in the firstplace. Its a very shallow way to categorize people all the time, it has its own place but there is almost no utility to it in this case, because you lose all the nuance. Notice how insecure you would have to be to bring up spiral dynamics for the purpose of dick measuring and then calling yourself stage yellow. I wasn't talking down on lower stages, I was talking about a very surface level analysis that was came from your buddy, Andrew Tate. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you created this whole thread to get feedback on yours and Tate's opinion on this matter, and now that you got some pushback you seem to be surprised.

Obviously thats what he is implying and pretending to be otherwise is disingenuous. Except this is a made up rule in his mind. He has 1 hypothesis to explain why women are single above the age of 25 and thinks that it is true in the vast majority of the cases, without actually examining the issue from multiple perspectives and explanations. Even his categorization of "quality" women is based on his very childish bias, where he doesn't actually want a partner, but he wants to be a father for his "women". He has his biases and then try to use his biases as if those would be the objective way to judge whether a women is good quality or not, and then when he finds out that only a few women aligned with his biases, he concludes that most women are bad or low quality. - What a dumb and surface level way to analyse anything and what a good way to appeal to his incel audience.

Nowhere near.

They might have sex with that many girls but he won't have actual relationships with those girls. One sided open relationships are incredibly rare, so even if there are guys who can fuck multiple women, those women won't dissapear from the dating market and you can still date them its not like all of them are engaged to one guy.

I found this comment on reddit (came from someone, who already has access to integrated bing)

When it comes to gaslighting often times you get accused of doing stuff, that you have never done(and making you believe that you did those things), but in the case of blaming, people are usually using stuff against you, that you actually did in the past. Other way to think about it, is that when it comes to gaslighting, people are making stuff up (that you actually didn't do) so that they can justify their bad actions, but in the case of blaming its usually not that they want to justify something, but more like they try hard not to take responsibility for anything and to put all the responsibility on you.---> so if we go with framework,then gaslighting is the bigger category, that involves blaming but more than that (because its also often used as justification for bad actions)

The chat and Destiny thought that its just another regular redpill content.

It has multiple definitions, I guess you are in the "or low interest or desire for sexual activity" camp. So you never had any strong desire or urge to have sex?

@aurum dont waste your time with this guy, he is a lost cause.

Because its easy for women to have sex , and its hard for men to acquire sex. But that doesn't indicates that women don't like having sex, its just means they don't want to get slut shamed. Maybe, but there are a lot of reasons for breakups and for divorce. I think most people would be okay with monogamous realtionships if the quality of sex would stay good.

Everyone likes to fuck, women would fuck around a lot more, if they wouldn't be shamed for it. That being said, being in a serious relationship is a different question. There are a very few people who can actually manage a serious poly realtionship (regardless if we are talking about men or women).

This statement suggest to me, that you are not asexual, because you are not saying that you never want to masturbate and you are not saying either, that you never get aroused by anything. Considering all the text from your post I assume you are not asexual, you just have a very low sexdrive. One question: Were you more horny in your teenage years, or not?

Lol this was fast.

This crying about chatgpt not praising right wing people enough has to stop. All of these examples are cherrypicked and all of you who are spreading these pictures about chatgpt being biased, have either never tried to ask chatgpt these questions or have tried it once and then decided to come to the conclusion that it must be biased. All of you claim you want the truth and that you think critically, but in all of these examples you just demonstrate that you take information for granted from sources that are reinforcing your biases.

yep, there is a big misconception about microsoft edge, because it was shit in the beginning and then a lot of people stopped using it, but since then it has improved a lot.

Interesting study, however I don't necessarily agree with their definition of an 'AHA' moment. The whole magic trick domain revolves around being deceptive, manipulative and leading your attention to certain things. I don't think thats a fair way to test AHA moments, or to even put an = between AHA moments and moments like mentioned in the paper. When it comes to AHA moments, I think of moments when your mind finds new, deeper connections between certain concepts and ideas. To frame it a different way - an AHA moment is when you find a different or a new pattern between certain concepts and ideas. It could also be framed like this: an AHA moment is when you look at a problem/task from a different than ususal lense and you immediately see the solution or the synthesis of ideas.

I have high expectations for this - I really hope it will be good.

There is no argument that could be given, because you haven't even made any argument yourself. The only thing you have is a descriptive statement and your conclusion. Your conclusion alone is too vague without a specific example or argument - I don't think anyone would necessarily disagree by principle with asserting your will on the world even if you would need to break some laws or morals - Its always about a value trade and there are justifications for those trades, but to talk about justifications we have to have a specific example at hand, you need to give some context to this, because for the most of us it will depend on the context. Right now there is literally nothing to attack there, only your definition, which is indeed shallow, because its way too broad and according to your definition a rapist, a murderer, a sex trafficker would be all exceptional people. No one uses the word "exceptional" this way.