Federico del pueblo

Yeah. That might be the power of status that makes some women blind, but yeah there shouldn't be any excuse. So? Remember...we don't reduce anyone on their looks ? I didn't say he's a good role model. I said there's a need for masculine role models. I'm not a fan of him either. Agreed on shallow. Weak would be hard to defend because he is simply a hustler and he gets what he wants, is not afraid of any confrontation, expresses his views without any inhibition. Insecure is kinda the same thing as weak. He does use aggression and intimidation of some kind, but I don't think that he does it to overplay insecurities, but rather because he simply knows that it works to get what he wants (manipulation). It's more like he is in a negative way smart and knows how to affect people. Yep. I highly doubt that. Even if he uses trickery and manipulation, you don't get what he's gotten when you're dumb. And if you carefully read my last post you should without any doubt be able to tell that this is not what I meant, right? You could contemplate whether you are projecting more negative traits on Tate than he has (even though he certainly has negative traits as I pointed out). I understand that this guy is triggering and upsetting, but it's a typical mechanic of our mind to project still more negative traits on someone if we don't like him in order to make it still easier to bash him (called "pathologizing"). Maybe you can learn something interesting about your mind.

@Tyler Robinson It's kinda complicated. I would judge her as partially deluded. She can't seem to see that Tate is indeed a manipulator and sexist, but then she also says some things that are true. There is truth to it that nowadays there's a trend to take men down if they promote masculinity. But in the case of Tate it's justified that people freak out. It's kinda like you could probably even try to defend Hitler. Because if I just show you a random bunch of quotes from Hitler without telling you they're from Hitler, you might say "yeah that's a good attitude". But of course just because someone says a few truthful or good things doesn't mean he's not a complete psychopath. And Tate seems to help some men because he has mastered certain masculine traits, and there is a lack of masculine role models. He's just also gone overboard with it and become a sexist asshole. So the woman basically defends Tate based on the few positive things he does, while ignoring his toxic bullshit.

I don't know, I had read something like that here on the forum, but I'm not motivated enough to research that. I'm not even sure if the guy in the video is Andrew Tate or his brother (who is pretty much the same from what I've seen). Btw, how the hell does the quote from my post show up in a window quoting someone else, are you a magician.

I don't know. I haven't watched another video. But if there was another video of that same girl, then I'd still be doubtful about it. Because he might force her to do that kind of thing because there might have been some outrage about the video. A guy who can get a girl to tattoo his name on her body might also manage to make her say something in a video to not get in trouble. But what do I know...

That was hilarious. I was wondering why his neck was so long haha. But it just makes it easier to kiss yourself when you grow a second head I guess.

Ehm, did you watch the video to the end? I can't deny that there is a big variety of sexual tastes out there, but that stuff with the second girl seems psychopathic. He slaps her hard in the face and she starts to cry while he verbally abuses her. I'm not so sure whether this is some consensual dominance/submission kind of thing.

Love it! Thanks for writing this!

The ego is truly amazing at what it does! There's no denying that. The ego wants to ensure its own survival and the survival of its host. The ego's biggest enemies are other egos. When other egos attack the ego it will defend itself and it has an impressive armory at its disposal. There is denial, aggression, manipulation, rationalisations, lying, status games, putting others down and many more. The ego has endless creativity to achieve its goals. When an ego doesn't like the view of another ego, in most cases it doesn't matter how well the other ego argues for its point of view. The ego will go to tremendous lengths to disprove the view of the other ego and in the process of doing so it will apply some of the strategies already mentioned above, especially denial. It is painful for the ego to admit to another ego that it was wrong about something, so it tries to find ways around doing that. The ego can mature and improve. Anyway, even though the ego is far from perfect I feel like it deserves some recognition and validation. It doesn't have an easy job and all in all it's fulfilling its purpose rather well. Egos deserve some love too. So don't be too strict with your own ego and give it a clap on the shoulder every once in a while, too! Ok, that was it. If your ego wants to, then it can add to this thread, or not add anything. Or it can criticize me/my ego, but then be prepared for war! ???

Yes!

I don't even know where you could possibly meet guys who talk such horseshit?! Or is this stuff from some posts on the internet, because surely there's no limit as to how bizarre opinions, that you can find somewhere on the internet, can get. So don't consume that stuff, these guys are more toxic than Chernobyl was one day after the atomic catastrophe.

It doesn't even enter my mind how other men could see it differently. I know that there are some guys who will say things like "yeah, cheating is not good, but come on, it's still much more disgusting if a girl cheats on her guy than the other way around". And I just think they are hypocritical, narcissistic, insecure and just plain dumb, fucked up guys. It should not even cross your mind to waste your time with any guy who says things of that nature.

@Tyler Robinson I don't think most men believe that cheating is ok. They know it's not ok, but some of them still do it, whilst many don't do it. It's only ok if the guy is single or has a open relationship. Everything else is bullshit. If man really believe that it's ok to cheat on their gf in a monogamous relationship, then they're just using their minds capacity to create some kind of nonsensical belief system that helps them to not feel bad about cheating. That's all. And btw, women do that too.

Man you wouldn't believe how long it took me to realize that. What a blessing to know that most of these people are just full of insecuries, problems and will just project tons of their own stuff on you.

We could accuse the ego of a lot of things, but we could never deny that the ego is an absolute master of its craft!

@7thLetter it's something like 80% excuses/20% truth. Women come up with a lot of reasons to not meet you. The thing is, if these women perceived you to be extremely attractive, most of that stuff wouldn't matter. If their favourite actor is Brad Pitt and then Brad Pitt asks them on a date, she will find the time to go on a date with him, even if actually she didn't know where she was emotionally, or if her baby hamster was ill. It's tough to deal with these things, but it's better to know things the way they are. You'll simply realize that if you improve your attraction skills, your humour, your lifestyle, your confidence, maybe your physique, your fashion and similar things, then suddenly women have a lot less (not none) of these reasons for why they can't meet you AND also suddenly much less girls will have a boyfriend. And women want to be kind to you, so it's easier to have an excuse to not meet you than it is to tell you "hey sorry, but I didn't feel enough attraction for you". Not to mention that many guys freak out when they receive messages like that, so we can't even entirely blame it on the girls ? Now, please don't make this a problem. You shouldn't base your sense of self esteem on how much women tend to like you. It is what it is.

Interesting and helpful! Thank "you"! ?

Cool! But it doesn't it come back at some point? How is the ego different after returning, once it was gone for some time?

Sure. What do you find most fascinating about the ego?

@Irina Wolf The lord has an ego, too?

@Tyler Robinson good finds. So does it amaze you how others dedicate their time to making fun of Leo, or is it that you're becoming doubtful about Leo yourself? ?

@Someone here yeah I understand what you mean with science and objectivity. But still having said all that I still believe that science is influenced by the subjectivity of the people who do it. Science claims that it wants to generate knowledge about reality. But then when you look at what science actually studies you can clearly see that there are certain preferences. Why is there not a ton of science done about voodoo or whether ghosts exist or not? I mean there's probably some research on this, but compared to how much research there is for understanding quantum mechanics or whatever it's very little. Can you imagine how in some other world (like if we imagine a parallel universe for a moment) it could be the other way around? Like all the time they would study paranormal activity and ghosts and voodoo and they would care little about gravity. Then science also isn't ever satisfied with just measuring things. The measurements have to be interpreted and a theory is required for what causes measurements to be the way they are. Humans have to come up with that theory and then validate it. Science has the standard for itself to be able to explain why certain measurements are the way they are, as in which physical law is causing these measurements or these phenomenons. What do you think? If there were hyper intelligent aliens with 1000 IQ, will they arrive at the exact same conclusions based on certain measurements? Because if the results are objectively true, this should be the case.

@Someone here It probably really depends on the specific phenomenon. There are more exact sciences like physics and less exact ones like psychology. And there is definitely bias within science. Science doesn't always just objectively figure out truth. Like for example conventional western medicine is considered evidence based which basically means that it's based on scientific findings. Naturopathy is considered unscientific. So basically if you prescribe someone vitamins and minerals and herbs as a treatment this would be considered "unscientific". But it's not even like there are no studies done on the effectiveness of "natural" substances like vitamins to treat certain dysfunctions, there are studies like this. But these findings just get much less recognition and attention. There clearly is a bias towards pharmaceutical drugs and many more studies are made for the efficacy of these pharmaceutical drugs, and then when the results show that a certain drug yields better results than just a pure placebo, the treatment with this drug is considered an evidence based treatment. But there are even cases where certain antidepressants did not even exceed the effectiveness of the placebo and still the antidepressants found their way on the market. Hmmmm...might this have something to do with money that could be earned? ?? Even in sciences like physics it has happened that older theories were later proven wrong. Like Einstein basically disproved the physics of Newton. You can use Newtonian physics to calculate certain things, but that's because for most of our purposes the effects of general relativity can be ignored. So science can be wrong, there are biases and preferences within science, financial interests that interfere with science and so on. But therefore I do not believe that science is horribly wrong most of the time, it's just not perfect. If science was that bad we probably wouldn't be able to build smartphones etc.

First of all, people think a lot of bullshit. You push on a button and then comes the automatic conditioned response. Secondly, why not simply have a 1 - 2 minute conversation first? Why would you immediately ask for a number? See if you can build some chemistry and then you can be like "ok, but now I really gotta go...anyway you seem interesting...how do feel about having a drink some time?". Like this if she says no you don't even have to ask for the number and if there was no chemistry to begin with there's also no need to ask for a number.

@Raze I just think this is not the best approach in a gym to say "hey you look nice in those leggings, can I take you out some day?". It's bold for sure, but you're coming on strong, immediately asking for some kind of commitment (to go out with you) based on 0 information she has from you. In a gym it might be a better approach to acknowledge that it's rather uncommon to be approached there ("hey, this is probably a bit out of the ordinary") and then just compliment her in a less sexual way ("you seem to be having a kickass workout here so I was like "this girl can't be boring, let's talk to her quickly"). Then throwing in a "I gotta get back to my work out in a moment, but just quickly... you're probably a student right?" (Or some other assumption) Now it sounds much more like she will get rid of you anyway if the situation gets awkward, but you still can spend maybe a minute talking. Maybe even better if you build a bit of social status in the gym first, by talking to everybody and then it looks like you're just doing a little bit more of what you're already doing when you approach a girl. And more generally, of course approaching women can be sort of on the edge of what is socially tolerated, the more direct and out of the blue, the more this is the case. So if you walk over some public place and approach 40 girls within a 1000 m2 then it looks really weird. And if you're in a dead silent metro with 100 people doing a very direct approach is guaranteed to overwhelm the girl ("hey I think you're sexy").

If a woman did that with me I would run as fast as I can. It's not territorial for me, it's just utterly bizarre. He doesn't even know you yet.