thenondualtankie

Let's compile some so-called baby steps for guys who think directly approaching a woman is too hard. The ultimate goal is to be able to go up to a woman, tell her you're attracted to her, and smoothly continue the conversation from there. That second part is important - I often force myself to approach, but then I continue resisting and end up running away from the interaction. To me it seems like this happens because I'm forcing myself past too deep of a resistance, so I end up feeling punished both during and after the interaction. Let me start us off. These will vary in difficulty, because typical baby steps such as 'ask the time' are too easy. Ask for the time or nearest cafe or whatever. Logistical bullshit. Make the compliment or observation and gauge their reaction. See if anything more to say spontaneously comes to you. If not, don't force it and say bye. Find a girl reading a book and discuss the book - ask her what she's reading etc. Similar for a girl working in a cafe - what are you working on? General non-romantic approaches, both guys and girls And here's a guy who outlines how he dealt with approach anxiety in stages: https://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/cutote/comment/exytcvr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Share your tips and resources! This thread might go nowhere but oh well.

I don't want to argue with you. But I don't think most of what you said makes sense. If you want to provide your own examples of baby steps, sure, but don't just bash others' examples.

Here's an interesting discussion between Alex O'Connor and Sam Harris. They briefly discuss free will in this clip at the start. To Alex, free will doesn't exist because: where are his actions coming from? Actions and intentions seem to just pop up in your head out of nowhere. Which seems to discount free will. In a different video, Alex posits that if the universe is deterministic, then we clearly don't have free will. And if the universe is random as implied by quantum mechanics, we don't have free will even still - there is only randomness, not choice. But what he forgets to mention is a third option for where our intentions come from. INTENTION COMES FROM INTENTION ITSELF! Free will is completely circular and not explicable in terms of other concepts. Your intention literally uses intention itself to make itself arise. And that intention is you. Does your direct experience not agree with this?

This is so untrue. AI will be an incredibly powerful tool for creatives.

No I replied to the original question.

Hello Actualizers. Any of you in London? Let's become wing men.

Why the fuck do you care? Because you're not approaching. All you're doing is analysing it.

Once humanity is freed from wage slavery thanks to AI, we will be free to pursue deeper goals. Which probably involves taking psychedelics for many people. It will indeed be for increasing intelligence, creativity and consciousness, but if we set society up correctly, there'd be no need to 'compete' with the AI. The AI would be satisfying our economic needs while we go out and do better shit.

Yet here I am.

would you actually host an actualized forum user if they came over to australia hahahah

Razard, I imagine that you might say that we as humans have access to a sliver of God's intelligence and a sliver of God's love. And many other facets of consciousness for which we have a sliver of God's. So don't we have a sliver of God's free will? Your points suggest its a rather tiny amount. But non-zero.

Crazy story. Not only because she stole a crazy amount of money (almost worth 11% of Vietnam's GDP), but also because she is actually facing justice as a billionaire. This needs to happen all across the world.

That's a great plugin. Everyone should have it. It's an extension called Unhook for people that don't know.

Since when does supporting the death penalty equate to fascism?

Leo, you've said that the number of attractive women you meet is the #1 factor for success. But you've also said that you need to behave in a highly specific way for pickup to work, and you often say you need an experienced wing. I'm wondering which one it is. Is it enough to just put yourself out there to women as much as possible? For example through new age events. As well as gigs/raves/festivals of course. Is it enough to maximise the number of connections you make / try to make?

But will just showing up lead to performance?

This post is especially for engineers / technically minded types, but please chip in anyway if you're not in that category. In a lot of circles it's considered bad to work for so-called 'defense' companies. You're directly contributing to the death of Middle Eastern children. I find myself largely in this camp. But is it always true that designing weapons is immoral? Surely not, because bad guys do exist. Under what circumstances would you agree to work on weapons systems? What country would you want to be working for, or what kind of country? Further, should one just take the 'the game is the game' attitude and simply follow the money? Defense pays. And the challenges are very interesting from a technical perspective.

It's a good question. I think it's possible for the West to revoke support for the Israeli operation. It happened with apartheid South Africa, despite the economic and geopolitical gains. The modus operandi for all geopolitical powers is self-interest, but there are cases where this seems to break down.

Your neighborhood social democrat Kyle Kulinski has made a video on term limits. He says he's mostly against term limits because it can lead to authoritarians like Putin or Erdogan staying in power for too long. But too long according to whom? Definitely not according to the Russian or Turkish population! A bigger danger than democratically elected tyrants is undemocratically elected tyrants. And arguably that's exactly what the USA faces today, with undemocratic state apparatus such as the CIA wielding immense power. Many members of the CIA have said that the CIA views Presidents as temporary officers who come and go, while the CIA themselves stay in power. In fact, there have been cases where secrets have been withheld from Presidents: JFK was allegedly not fully briefed on the Bay of Pigs invasion, for instance. Here is a great video on the so-called 'deep state', which explores the issue of undemocratic power in the United States. Term limits are stupid because they lead to a lack of proper leadership and vision, since the leadership and vision has to get shuffled around every 8 years. As a result, undemocratic state apparatus fills that gap and provides the missing leadership and vision for us.

Very interesting point. I think more specifically we'd need to make ourselves 100x more outgoing. Our brains work with tribes of a few hundred people at most - if we scaled this number up to 100,000 we'd end up with a much more cohesive society. Then why have any concentration of power and wealth in the first place? You need to concentrate power and wealth to do anything meaningful in society. And if it's the case that your society needs some concentration of power, you may as well operate that through democracy - otherwise, as I said, undemocratic institutions will concentrate the power for you.

These AI are yes-men But yes it's amazing for brainstorming. The lack of bias they have is incredible. They've seen so many perspectives in their dataset that they tend to take the higher perspectives.

That's a good point. Any other examples? I think branding places a constraint on production, since not everyone is allowed to produce that brand. And as I said constraints in production can lead to over-valued goods. I could be pulling at straws here.

The labor theory of value asserts that the true value of goods and services in the economy comes from the amount of labor that society decided to allocate to that good or service. Here's Adam Smith's argument for why this is the case: Basically, he's saying that the cost of a good is based on its true, physical cost: the effort that went into it. Labor is arguably the fundamental resource that society has. Society simply decides to allocate labor based on its needs and desires; this is usually done automatically with market forces. This labor then produces the ultimate good or service that we want. If a pile of mud takes a thousand units of labor to produce, its value would still be zero because society would never bother allocating labor to something so useless. If it did, then market forces would simply drive it out. Another example of how this works is when there's a highly demanded item but not many units being produced. This of course means that its price will be higher than you might expect from its labor value. But the fact that its over-valued means there is a market gap (an investment opportunity), and if there are no constraints in place such as lack of raw materials, then the market would simply produce more of the good and return the price to 'normal' - something that reflects its labor content. There are issues though, for instance some things appreciate in value without any labor going into it, for example aging wine. Or alternatively, if two crops require the same amount of labor, but one requires better land, then the one that requires better land will end up having higher value. My opinion is that the crux of the matter is 'what is the literal cost to society' - this includes labor but not only labor. The fact that we needed better land is a cost to society, since we didn't use that better land for something else. We had to give it up.

@Leo Gura So would you say your mind is on the loose or strict end? You seem like quite a logical person but you also have all these mystical experiences. And your psychedelic tolerance is much lower than most.