Jirh

You said the max you've tried is 75-85% authenticity. I am suggesting that you try 100%, even if it costs you in the beginning, because it's more rewarding in the long run. I am suggesting questioning this. You aren't really forced to work in a big company for survival. There are plenty of ethical jobs that satisfy most basic survival needs. But you are asking for more and paying the price and refusing to see that you are doing so. You aren't misaligned in life. You're choosing to misalign yourself and refusing to take responsibility for your choices.

@Miguel1 Pardon my bluntness, but clearly you are choosing to play those games at the cost of your authenticity, therefore creating a heavy facade that's tiring and draining you, even though no one is forcing you. I would examine the small choices made every day in social situations. There is virtually no real excuse for engaging in games and lies and manipulation unless physical safety is on the line. And even then, I would say, in many cases, you can figure out smart ways to stay true to yourself without endangering your physical body. For example, if religious persecution is a threat, you can choose to make an absolute boundary that you do not discuss these private matters. But I doubt physical safety is the motivation here. You probably want social benefits like validation, belonging, sex, etc... and the price has become too high for you. Not because the price is real, but because you are making payments in cheap currencies like games, lies, and manipulation instead of the truth. The real question isn't "Why are people so fake?". It's "Why do I keep showing up to a game I hate, hoping to win a prize I don't respect?" You are absolutely free to stop engaging in whatever is causing you pain. I'm not saying you have to, but it's worth contemplating why you haven't yet.

@Razard86 Being alone is a thought.

I honestly have no idea who you're implying. So far, I've never met anyone like this on this forum. Everyone here seems genuine and earnest. Disagreement is a natural consequence of multiple perspectives. And misunderstandings can happen. We're all humans.

@Miguel1 I don't think you're an extrovert. A natural extrovert genuinely likes being social without rules or expectations. It is actually a refreshing and recharging experience for him/her. A natural extrovert is not out there playing games to manipulate or get something. He is just being himself. Enjoying being social because that in itself is rewarding for him.

Maybe your acting is terrible and you're making too many detours around the original script that was handed to you. It would be wise if you stick to your role and stop making me doubt my precious solipsism. Let's say it together: only Majed is real and the rest are all imaginary 😅

@StaraX There is an experience; something that has actually happened. And then there is an interpretation of said experience; a mental layer on top of that experience. When someone cannot explain their reasoning behind something, it's often because they haven't truly thought about it, or maybe thought but not deeply enough to make sense. If I claim that my coworker ignored me on purpose because they don't respect me, that's the interpretation. The actual experience was: they walked past without saying hello. Maybe they were distracted, had headphones on, or were deep in thought. But if I fuse the two, I'll start acting cold toward them, and when asked why, I'll just say "they disrespected me" as if it's a fact. I won't be able to explain why I think that, because I never separated the raw event from my story about it. I just felt it, believed it, and reacted. By the way, you killed me with the lion zebra broccoli metaphor 😂

@Carl-Richard Some people adopt the mindset of personal responsibility above all else. For these people, leaving a toxic environment is the ultimate act of agency. So, when they bring up leaving, they are nudging towards that end. It's not my stance, but at the same time, it's not always motivated by maleficence. But I haven't read the entire dialogue, so I may be missing important context.

Yeah, everyone would choose the higher-paying job if they had the choice, man or woman. But we aren't talking about work here. We are talking about attraction, the raw desire to have intimacy with someone. We are talking about the involuntary reflexes that tick the right boxes deep inside, not the calculated pragmatic choices that someone makes for a transactional arrangement. Those are two entirely different registers. And citing socioeconomic statistics and using them to prove a biological claim about desire will not work.

@Natasha Tori Maru 🤝🏻💯

Well, when you say "a con", it feels like a minor issue, not that big of a deal that requires instant solutions, or even simple consideration. On one hand, it sounds like: "It's just a con, I'm pointing it out, take it or leave it." But then on the other hand, the amount of intellectual and emotional investment and effort that's put into it feels like an overkill. Note: I'm more in agreement with you. But I'm just playing devil's advocate to try to bridge the gap between the two perspectives.

@Natasha Tori Maru I waited for something of substance to come up but nevermind, I'll answer for him because I think I know the framework he's using without knowing that he is and because I wanna hear your thoughts. I think "being above" frames the relationship as a strict hierarchy, where one partner holds the dominant leadership position and the other is expected to be the compliant follower. In that context, the premise rests on the assumption that all women are inherently submissive and that their primary role in a romantic relationship is to fulfill that dynamic. The logic suggests that a woman's admiration for a man is the mechanism that triggers her submission, and by turn deep attraction, therefore unlocking traits like obedience, loyalty, and deference. It's the same red-pill nonsense that keeps appearing everywhere nowadays that misses the point entirely about confidence and independence (objective traits) being universally attractive, while dominance and leadership are more relational context specific positions rather than strictly fixed roles let alone objective traits. Also, dominance and submission are not a binary or a one-way street. Someone can be dominant in one area and completely submissive in another. I wish that people could think more independently. That would be a lot more attractive.

I think this is the literal definition of cognitive empathy, which is a feature of more developed species like us humans. I think it speaks more to emotional intelligence. Solipsism never truly made sense in this light, because I tend to view others in a similar way by default. Not that I have thought much about it, although I did think about it briefly.

It will never work because it's severely skewed to the man's advantage and against the woman's. One penis policy. Zero commitment to rotation girls. Girls get nothing but feeling cheap.

Maybe in some cases. But from what I have seen it's also often an invitation towards consistency between theory and practice. It's like a double-bind where: If you stay then it's not as bad as you claim it is, maybe not bad at all, or the pros outweigh the cons. If it's truly bad then you have to leave to stay coherent with your convictions. I think it often implies this double-bind, and is not as rhetorical as it might seem.

That's interesting! I never thought of it this way.

🤦‍♂️

@zurew Well, yeah. That's the problem with language. It is limited and circular like that. There's no way around it. (Pun intended) I asked Google and it gave me the compound "bring about" instead of "produce", which is even worse 😅

I don't think most women are hypergamous. Most women are mostly reasonable. They just want a man who's not a liability. It's really not much to ask for. But you're right. I don't want most women. I don't want the average materialistic woman. My ideal preference is a spiritual woman who's also self-sufficient and at a similar level as me and who loves me for who I am. I had a few relationships like that. I fucked up in the first two and learned. And the last one fucked me up lol, but it was totally worth it.

Well in this case, the user @hyruga did provide a definition between brackets:

Yes, exactly. A healthy woman is mostly self-sufficient on her own too. Why would anyone want a liability? And on the flipside, hypergamy could also signal unsafety and instability. Because there's always someone richer or higher status than me, and she will not waste the chance once presented. So, I cannot experience safety in a long-term relationship with a woman like that. Very transactional in nature. I'm always one step away from being replaced. It's the same red-pill mindset projected onto women. Always flip plates. Always look for more. Always look for better. Never settle. Never be content. It's mostly unsafe to be with people like that for long-term. Because everyone is so cheap and easily replaceable. I cannot imagine anyone with proper self-respect and self-esteem to want to live in such a dynamic. And they come up with all kinds of crazy rationalizations for why that is the normal way of life. As if we're still living in caves. Or worse, as if we're barbaric savage animals. Can we develop? It's sad.

All language is circular in that sense. But I agree with you on this topic. Just stating the definition of causation does not prove it exists.

Most women just want a self-sufficient man who's confident and capable. Nothing more. To me, a woman that embodies hypergamy is a low-quality woman. I would run miles away from women like that.

@Hojo 💯