Gesundheit2

I haven't taken the test, never clicked on the link, and I probably won't. I don't think there is any point in taking it, because: It's not a test of sexism levels. It's a test of loyalty to feminism and your degree of dogmatism about it. The lower your score, the more feminist you are, according to the test at least, which brings me to my second point which is: Feminists themselves disagree a lot, therefore there is no such a thing as feminism, and there won't be. Each woman (and man) has their own version of feminism. Some women who consider themselves feminist, love the "benevolent sexism" that is supposed to be a bad thing according to the test. I have seen feminists complaining that chivalry has gone extinct. And some women even love the hostile sexism (you guessed it, they're also feminist), and these usually complain that men have become way too feminine. I don't think a simple test can define my identity. I have taken a lot of tests (for different stuff) in the past and concluded that they are stupid and very limited. The way the analysis is made is generally flawed because the assumptions it's based on are flawed in the first place.

Totally agree on the daddy issues thing and feminism.

@Something Funny @zurew Moving to a friend's house is like committing suicide. There are only three places a woman is allowed to live in in a third world country (especially the more religious it is): Parents' house. Husband's house. The grave.

Is there an explanation for this? Because both layers seem to be equally a direct result from early childhood conditioning. And if resistance and repression are related, does this imply a certain relationship or a hierarchy between them? Like are they technically two different depths of the same phenomenon? Or does one like feed into the other?

@Emerald But wouldn't that be bypassing my authentic self that is both masculine and feminine? I mean if I replace my negative feminine of victim's mindset with positive masculine accountability/responsibility, then my authentic/positive feminine will still be repressed and it will still not be able to express itself because I haven't yet addressed it, nor given it the outlet, right? For example, the need to express vulnerability won't be allowed and I would possibly become neurotic and workaholic. Would you agree?

@Emerald Yes, I understand the general concept and I agree with it. I was just asking about the flaws that you mentioned and how they might look like after integration. I was expecting an answer like a bullet points list where each flaw/shadow is put against the integrated version. Like, considering that victim's mentality is a feminine shadow, the integrated version of the feminine would be being comfortable with vulnerability. Is this the correct association? And what about the rest?

Interesting! What would an integrated guy look like in reference to these particular flaws you mentioned? Could you name the integrated version for each flaw individually?

Damn! I think I'm finally entering stage Green. It's in my perception now, not just my thoughts. This is bad. I'm gonna lose the ability to bash on hippies

@DocWatts Thanks! That was clear and informative. I appreciate you introducing new terms into my awareness.

Family dynamics are not so simple in third world countries.

Does this mean we're always biased with some sort of perspective that colors our worldview? Is everything like a self-fulfilling prophecy? If so, how to determine the truth of that claim? Cuz if we follow this line of reasoning we will inevitably end up in a strange loop.

@Rishabh R Actualized is just one source of information. Don't make it your only one.

If we consider the mind's relationship with the body similar to the relationship between software and hardware, then yes, ideology is inevitable. It's the kernel that runs your operating system, and you can't possibly function without it. However, that doesn't make all ideologies equal, nor does it say anything about any idea being good or bad, because everything is relative and relationships between things can change at any time. There's also the difference between entertaining an idea and holding it lightly vs. being dogmatic and closed-minded about it. Rigidity of ideas can be more useful in day to day life, especially if your environment is highly stable. On the other hand, having a fluid mind has its obvious benefits too. Everything has pros and cons. A funny paradox would be an ideology that demonizes ideology altogether except itself, and/or an ideology that denies that it's an ideology in the first place.

Another earthquake, this time at 6.4 Richter.

I think one possible explanation is that you haven't socialized with blondes enough because you live in a mostly tamil/brunette environment. You crave the European features because they're advertised well and are very rare where you live. I would bet that many Europeans crave Indians too. The more polarity/difference, the higher the attraction. Personally, I'm more into Latinas. It's probably the furthest ethnicity from mine.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. I especially like the second realization, because it's more practical and I value that. In practical terms, we don't need to know everything. Most people are severely ignorant and undereducated and they still live and reproduce. Most people know how to drive cars, use smartphones, use the washing machine, etc. without knowing the technical details of how any technology works. Sports players almost don't know anything about human anatomy and they utilize their bodies well enough to make a living. Heck! Even scientists and professionals themselves might not know every technical detail of their field of experience. For example, most programmers don't know how computers work on the most hardware level, they just know how to make software, and that's enough for them. I think it works out well to be an expert in one field at least, and to have the openness to learn a little bit about a lot of different stuff. You don't want to be the Wikipedia guy who knows a lot but only in theory, nor the geek who doesn't know anything except his little bubble.

The response would largely depend on how you deliver and how she responds, but it's generally safe to play innocent and dumb. Although, that doesn't generally happen because most people are not too conscious to catch up on it. Most of the times, they're just running a certain program/virus from past trauma and they're expecting a comforting result. So if you give them the comfort, they won't look past it. It's generally safe to assume that nobody is really interested in truth. However, if they are persistent for some reason, you can tell them that you are willing to be flexible and compromise, and then return to distracting them further away from the topic.

I have found that the best way to minimize conflict with controlling people is to never answer them directly no matter what. It's like when you're not supposed to look at a snake directly in the eyes (not sure about that though). Generally, that can be done through distraction by telling seemingly relevant stories in order to maneuver around the original topic and make it seem like you're answering without really giving an answer. For example: Why do you wear the damned glasses all the time? Well, I was actually thinking of buying new shades, maybe they look better. Or what about contact lenses? What do you think? Notice that no clear answer was given to the original question, and now the topic has slightly changed and is dissolving. Do that a couple more times and you will find yourself and her talking about something else entirely. Why do you wear so much damned black? Really?! I didn't notice that! I guess I'll have to make some adjustments to my closet. The important thing here is to let her have being right and not fight over that. Do not argue or try to prove your point. You already know it's true to you, so what's the point of her agreement? This distraction technique is a skill, and it gets better with time and practice. I'm not an expert myself, but I know a couple people who never run out of red herrings. I learned a little from them.

@Someone here You don't need to know everything in order to make good decisions in life. Learning about the most common traps and pitfalls should be enough in most areas/cases. For example, you don't need to memorize all the rules for being a modern Indian citizen in order to live in India, but it is absolutely essential that you understand the general guidelines for what is considered a crime under the Indian law so that you don't get into trouble unknowingly (most people understand social norms subconsciously, but that's just one example). A better example would be electricity. You don't need to be an electrician in order to know not to go around touching live wires. You also don't go around popping pills and swallowing them. That's like the bare minimum knowledge that everyone should have. Any added knowledge on top of that is a plus and it will definitely help you, but it is not essential and you can move and play the game of life without it. Perfect understanding of anything is very rare, if at all existent, so be careful not to let that stop you from taking the necessary action/steps in whichever domain(s) in life you might be feeling stuck in. A certain reasonable level of knowledge is generally required about most stuff, which people refer to as common sense. The more informed you are, the more common sense you will have, and the easier you will be able to navigate through life. Generally, I think it's wise to aim to strike a balance between knowing and not-knowing in that we should seek to educate ourselves about the most common/relevant stuff in/to our lives, while neither going into overthinking mode and paralysis by analysis, nor at the same time coming at things without any clue about them at all. A little bit of research is always a good starting point, but the deepest insights and understanding come mostly from direct experience. Now, it seems you're also inquiring deeper into the nature of knowledge itself on an existential level, which is great! I can feel your love and enthusiasm for learning and understanding. These are probably ones of your highest values in life, so you could benefit from basing and designing your life around them. For example, you could start by making a YouTube channel where you share your insights about certain topics, just for fun. You could pick a niche if you're really serious about a certain topic, you could make reviews of popular books that you have read, you could make general philosophical content about a variety of topics, and so on. The possibilities are endless. You might be lucky as well to publish your own books, but the more modern digital game is probably easier, more profitable, and accessible for more people. You don't necessarily have to write physical books in order to get recognized, even though you can. If you have the content, you can share it through various mediums. You can publish your books and sell them both physically and digitally. And you can also utilize YouTube and other platforms to share yourself and insights with the world. At the end of the day, if you really have the desire and you are persistent, everything is possible. Anyway, here's a question for you to contemplate and ponder upon: Why is knowledge important (to you)?

@Someone here

@Someone here Thanks dude. I'm fine. It was just the ban thing. I thought I was banned for good so I stopped logging in.

Not giving up, but giving away. You give away your power to someone that you respect that otherwise you would not. And you take it back when they lose your respect. It's all 100% sovereign.

If people with BPD knew the difference between truth and delusion we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Decency and respect are two different things. Unlike decency, you can't force respect, because it is an involuntary reflex and an innate experience that has emotions. Feminists and hippies are so confused about this. They can be decent all they want, but that will not express any respect. Giving away your power is what it means to respect someone. A leader is respected because people give away their power to him. A fool is not respected because people don't take him seriously.

Do not misunderstand the burning monk. Do not glorify it or idealize it, but also don't poo poo it. It is a feat that you cannot accomplish normally without drugs/anesthesia. It takes quite a lot of practice to be able to reach such states, but it's impractical to attempt to do so when you have cheap alternatives. It's not Buddhist psychology to just consume suffering mindlessly, but rather quite the opposite. But again, you don't need to work towards that in our modern age, because you're unlikely to experience massive pain. The alternative being putting your awareness to better use, not jerking off or playing video games.