Consept

When i say female attraction, im not just talking about physical, women select differently than men but there is still a criteria eg confidence, intelligence, ambition etc. Yes it is about how they feel toward you, as in you have to make them feel good in some way for them to consider you a viable partner but initially, that usually revolves around the man being fun or interesting to be around. What I want to ask though is do you put any weight on genetics in terms of women choosing partners due to how theyve evolved, also do you give them any autonomy in their selection? or do you think its completely down to their social conditioning which has been effectively chosen for them by men in power?

Hypergamy is actually where i disagree with the redpill, i dont think most women are just going to jump into another relationship if they are happy enough with the guy that theyre with, it basically speaks to a fear men have evolved to have because they need to make sure that the child they have with their partner is actually theirs. How would this work in practice though? On a desire and attraction level women are not going to get horny for someone who just fulfils their emotional needs and not their attraction needs, so im not saying fulfilling emotional needs is not important but it seems like youre down playing the role of attraction which is fundamental in people getting together. Ideally you would have both. Would you personally be with someone that you werent attracted to but fulfilled your emotional needs?

So would you say women are going against their nature when selecting men? If so what do you characteristics in men do you think they would select for if there wasn't this pressure?

Hypergamy is definitely overstated by the redpill but to say women don't have much of a say on who they mate with, of course they do, they literally push men to become who they want them to be. I'm not sure you're taking in what km saying though, so I'll leave it here otherwise we'll just go round in circles. I would recommend you read evolution of desire by Dr Buss he touches on a lot of what was discussed in the thread.

OK can you breakdown the exact philosophies from the red pill that you disagree with? The issue with your argument is that you seem to be saying red pill and patriarchy or social constructs that are outdated and we should abandon them for a higher level way of getting together. I appreciate your sentiment, but i think what youre missing is that red pill is attempting to teach what is already ingrained in human the psyche in terms of attraction and desire, its not inventing it. These attraction cues are hard wired in us and are an evolution of why our ancestors selected the partners that they did, you are how you are specifically because your ancestors had some trait that was considered attractive in the mating market place and they would have been chosen over other rivals who didnt get to reproduce. Men have always gone for women that have markers of youth as this is when they can reproduce, women will go for guys with good genes and who have resources dependent on their mating strategy. Red pill did not invent any of this, its just trying to manipulate this nature and is essentially just another mating strategy designed to help men who are at risk of not being able to reproduce. The issue isnt so much women have more say in who they mate with, the issue is that they now have more resources, which by itself is not an issue of course but the way they have been wired for 1000s of years is to be attracted to someone who has a lot of resources, so their mark of a lot of resources is basically a man who has more than them. This makes it harder for a self made wealthy woman to find an eligible man around her age who is making more than her, her pool has now shrunk immensely. Of course social media, advertising, films etc has also increased the standards of women and men, so it does make it harder all round. Also males fight over females strictly because of how women select males, a fertile female in the animal kingdom, lets gorillas for example chooses the strongest male, whoever the winner of their battles is, she sets that standard. In other species it could be the most nurturing males get chosen, i think thats the case with penguins for example, its basically whatever evolution needs you to be and the females make that choice. With humans, females select for lots of stuff inc ability to procure resources, intelligence, physical strength, this is just what it is.

You can call it more bullshit, which it kind of is, but you can also see it as just a more complexed strategy as we have more developed brains as you say. There are chimps now that adapt different mating strategies such as isolating females when they can, theres a fish that pretends to be a female to bypass the alpha male and fertilise the eggs of the haram. Point being that what youre seeing as a bullshit marketplace is just a natural development of human mating strategies. I think a good argument is that its kind of on steroids because of social media and capitalism in general but even so, it is what it is and the 'successful' humans will reproduce. Once you get into a relationship then of course set your system and find a mate who will partner with you, but in terms of changing mating strategies as a whole which i might be wrong but its what you seem to be suggesting, thats not going to happen

This is not me taking the piss here but try and make your argument in regard to Lions. Male Lions have to become strong and dominant so they can be protectors, female Lions pick the most dominant males so they can pass down these genes, the males will then mate with the most fertile Lionesses. This is basically a market in the same way we have a market, we select for different things but the idea is the same and its all about reproduction. So what it seems youre arguing for is a man made system over nature. The market place we experience is our reaction to our nature, its nothing to do with redpill, at its core. You can make the argument that redpill tries to manipulate this nature for the benefit of men, which is true but all that is is just a mating strategy geared toward men, the criticism could be that it hurts women in the process but some female mating strategies hurt men in the process, its just one of those things. Your mating strategy might be to convince women of dropping their ego and work on the relationship and thats fine, its not even a bad strategy. If you want to talk about higher level love then that would exist with or without a relationship.

This is fine for when you actually get into a relationship but the selection stage is completely different and is more like a marketplace. For a women to want to take you seriously enough to work out a system with you she has to choose you, shes not going to choose you just because you drop your ego aside, shes going to pick the best person she thinks is suitable and usually women will want the same 'suitable' man that other women want, in which case that man is now going to choose out of the women that hes managed to get interested in him. It works similar in the animal kingdom as well, its very difficult to get around.

The more i think on this topic the more murky it seems to me in terms of how you even judge intelligence. A persons intelligence is adapted to whatever the environment is around them, for example African or South American tribes that were around a few 100 years ago, must have had incredible intelligence in terms of their environment, they would know what slight changes in the wind meant, been able to hunt, how to track etc etc. These wouldve evolved and wouldve been learnt over 1000s of years, to then suddenly rip them out of this habitat and judge them as intelligent based on a world they had never experienced is almost insane. It wouldnt even work the other way, any of us now who had to live in that envioronment probably wouldnt last very long. So it stands to reason that the ancestors of these tribes maybe at a slight disadvantage within the western world, however the adaptability of humans is phenomenal as there isnt much difference in iq and this is shrinking as conditions improve. But its even more murky considering how mixed up everyone is, especially in America, most white people will have african dna and vice versa. As well most south Americans will have european DNA so to separate the races and say one is more intelligent than another really seems kind of an impossibility. In reality the more interesting questions are things like, what affect does poverty have on intelligence? or what parenting style produces more intelligent kids? Are there certain areas that have higher IQ and what might be the reason for this?

I second this, I havent been able to find any scientific research that confirms and can say for sure that one race is innately more intelligent than another but im curious to see if there is actually any evidence to back this up. As i said before it is so hard to get a study thats completely independent of environmental factors it could be near on impossible to find. Maybe if you had children of all races growing up together in the same environment maybe a foster home or orphanage and then tested their intelligence and one race always stood out that could maybe be something. But I can imagine anything that proves this will be very difficult to find if it exists, but always open to changing my mind

Thought this Forbes article might be relevant to your contention - Statistics Show IQ Disparities Between Races. Here's What That Really Means Yes. there are differences in measured IQ between various ‘races’. But what if anything do these differences mean? One cannot accurately and meaningfully compare scores of people with differing experiences health status and educational opportunities ( see the answer to the question Why is African IQ so low compared to Asians and whites? below).” If IQ tests are being used to compare individuals of wildly different backgrounds, then the variable of innate intelligence is not being tested in isolation. Instead, the scores will reflect some impossible-to-sort-out combination of ability and differences in opportunities and motivations,” writes Brink Lindsey. Moreover, IQ is not a measure of inherited, permanent, unvarying intellectual potential. Although it is often discussed as if it is. It does measure, albeit imperfectly, how well one has mastered certain intellectual skills such as literacy and the ability to analyze and use basic math. People who do this less well than others may have intellectual deficits or they may be suffering from poor educational exposure, trauma, poisoning or even from poverty. So IQ is a useful metric for perceiving such limitations, but NOT for discerning that one has a genetic or permanent intellectual decrease: unfortunately it is routinely interpreted in this manner to claim the innately lower intelligence of dark-skinned people. In evaluating the claims by hereditarians with known racist ties of higher white and Asian IQ, we must be mindful of a tendency called the ‘Pygmalion effect’ The high intellectual achievement and IQs of whites and Asians may owe something to this. In a classic 1960 experiment, California teachers were informed that as a result ofIQ test scores, certain students of theirs were found to be “special,” with prodigious potential and the expectation of intellectual greatness. Accordingly, the grades of the children labeled “special” improved dramatically, and, when tested a year later, half of their IQ scores had risen by 20 points. In fact, these children had been chosen at random, and the improvements in their scores served to demonstrate the outsize role that teachers’ expectations can play in a student’s academic success. Also, in 2005 we saw an example of this effect when Broward County Department of Education which had formerly assigned children to normal, remedial or gifted classrooms solely according to their teachers’ assessments, began administering standardized tests to all second graders. The number of gifted African American children in the district soared 80 percent, and that of gifted Hispanic children immediately skyrocketed 130 percent. Shortly thereafter, the policy shift resulted in a tripling of both black and Hispanic “gifted” students. None of the students’ genes had changed. It’s worth noting that some point to the fact that some Asian populations, not whites, are accorded the highest scores and point to the fact to counter accusations of racism. However not all Asians are accorded high scores, and the higher scores are use to reinforce the model minority myth— and to demonize Asians. Frank Wu who wrote Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White points out that “Asian Americans are brought into the discussion only for the purpose of berating blacks and Hispanics.” He also notes that the high IQ scores and intelligence accorded Asians is also subtly turned against them to characterize them as lacking creativity and as unfair competitors who are clannish and unwilling to assimilate. Meanwhile the gap between white and Asian IQs continues to grow, with Asians outstripping the growth of whites’ IQs. The average gap between African American and white IQs is narrowing, which some ascribe to greater access to higher education but more study is needed to understand it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/08/14/statistics-show-iq-disparities-between-races-heres-what-that-really-means/?sh=3c77c4274490

Yes I agree with what you say but my point is that you have to ask why are these Nigerians are the top 1%? It is usually environmental factors within Nigeria, the 1st generation immigrants would be from wealthy families who were able to afford to study abroad. There could multiple genius' living in the slums of Nigeria who would have no access to any opportunities and literally no chance to develop their genius. So this is why environment is so important. When you say top 1% it's the top 1% who have the means not necessarily the potential highest intelligence. OK I get what you're saying and I probably agree but the issue is there are so many variables and so much historical context that it almost becomes a moot point. It would also be just as likely that black people were higher in iq when you control for everything. You could also bring in that there are very few 'pure' races, as in if you do a dna test you'll most likely be a mix of a lot of different races, this is the case especially with african-americans, so then it's like what are you even testing? Overall I think intelligence is very flexible and dependent on environment, especially the parents. So if its believed by others that a certain race is less intelligent this can actually have real world implications as the children will be treated as such and it will be even harder for them to achieve if the world thinks they're stupid. So this is the issue with the thought process of one race being inherently better than another. I appreciate your attempt at the conversation though

Seeing as you dont want to engage my points, you do realise that having stereotypes of black peoples intelligence does actually affect them in many areas, not least education where black boys are treated markedly different from a young age in comparison to their white counter parts, where theyre seen to be more aggressive for example, this leads to self fulfilling prophecy as these boys get labelled from a young age, which in turn leads to not doing so well at school. Heres an example of a 53 year old woman calling the police on a 9 year old black kid because his backpack brushed her and she thought he groped her - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/13/black-childs-backpack-brushed-up-against-woman-she-called-report-sexual-assault/ Another interesting stat is that here in the UK black women are 4 times more likely to die during childbirth, one of the reason being that healthcare professionals have an unconscious bias that black women can take more pain - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59248345 Just some examples on how spurious racial claims and bias' can have real world consequences

@Heart of Space Hey man I know you're busy but could you address my previous post where I asked how you would account for Nigerian immigrants and second generation Nigerian Americans being more educated than white Americans. I also linked a study talking about how the gap between black and white kids in education is shrinking, coinciding with environmental improvements. Seems relevant to your points

But we'd probably get free Yeezys so pros and cons

I just want to get in some stuff before this inevitably gets locked. @Heart of Space How would you account for the fact that Nigerian-Americans are actually more educated than white americans, with 59% of them over 25 having at least bachelors degree compared to only 33% of white americans. I also found these interesting points from a paper that ill link to, i would like to hear your take on them - —When black or mixed-race children are raised in white rather than black homes, their preadolescent test scores rise dramatically. Black adoptees’ scores seem to fall in adolescence, but this is what we would expect if, as seems likely, their social and cultural environment comes to resemble that of other black adolescents and becomes less like that of the average white adolescent. 4 —Even nonverbal IQ scores are sensitive to environmental change. Scores on nonverbal IQ tests have risen dramatically throughout the world since the 1930s.5The average white scored higher on the Stanford-Binet in 1978 than 82 percent of whites who took the test in 1932.6 Such findings reinforce the implications of adoption studies: large environmental changes can have a large impact on test performance. —Black-white differences in academic achievement have also narrowed throughout the twentieth century. The best trend data come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which has been testing seventeen-year-olds since 1971 and has repeated many of the same items year after year. Figure 1-2 shows that the black-white reading gap narrowed from 1.25 standard deviations in 1971 to 0.69 standard deviations in 1996. The math gap fell from 1.33 to 0.89 standard deviations.7 When MinHsiung Huang and Robert Hauser analyzed vocabulary scores for adults born between 1909 and 1969, the black-white gap also narrowed by half. In a country as racially polarized as the United States, no single change taken in isolation could possibly eliminate the entire legacy of slavery and Jim Crow or usher in an era of full racial equality. But if racial equality is America’s goal, reducing the black-white test score gap would probably do more to promote this goal than any other strategy that commands broad political support. Reducing the test score gap is probably both necessary and sufficient for substantially reducing racial inequality in educational attainment and earnings. Changes in education and earnings would in turn help reduce racial differences in crime, health, and family structure, although we do not know how large these effects would be. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/9780815746096_chapter1.pdf

I have really tried to get my head around what Ye is trying to get across and the reasoning behind it, heres what ive come up with. So in the black community especially the african-american community there is a sense, and in a lot of ways its true, that black people have been taken advantage of and have always been under the power of other races. Theres a sense of powerlessness and also the effects of this have been seen through the last however many years in black communities. Specifically in the music industry black people have been constantly taken advantage of with ridiculous contracts where they sign away their publishing rights or are blocked in favour of white artists etc, as long as there have been black musicians there has been someone there to take advantage and make money from them. The most successful white artists you can think of in history, Elvis, Rolling Stones etc most likely ripped their sound straight from a black artist and repackaged it for a mainstream audience. So this is the context Ye seems to be speaking from, as hes experienced this in his own career, ie having to really fight through to release his music and probably more so in the fashion industry. Essentially he wants black people to be on a par with white people in these fields, in terms of the respect given. There is of course validity to this point but his anger seems to be focused on Jewish people who do have a lot of positions of power in these industries, but what he doesnt seem to realise is that who you know and networking has always been a massive factor in success and Jewish as a community have been incredibly successful in this regard. This doesnt mean that there is some conspiracy around it, its just humans acting like humans, it would be the same if black people had gotten into these postions of power as well, most likely they wouldve given other black people jobs or helped out friends etc. So he seems confused on this point, which i think is a result of just not being that in touch and not being able to think critically which is not a problem unique to him. The anti-semitism seems to come from some black-nationalistic rhetoric he may have come across which adds backing to his theory about Jews controlling him, so i think confirmation bias comes in here, hes essentially looking for a simple reason hes been treated unfairly. I would say hes also quite narcissistic, so this bleeds into it as well, with narcissism, theres an incredibly high level of insecurity underneath the hood and with him he wants to be special or seen as such and so he will always go against what is expected of him. When he said "George Bush doesnt care about black people" it went against the mainstream messaging, now with twitter someone will say something along these lines daily, so to really stand out, something like a black man supporting trump will give that same shock effect. I actually dont think this is marketing on his part, I dont think its that thought through, I just believe he has a drive to be unique and special, if the whole world is saying one thing he will say the opposite. Whats interesting is that very few people agree with what he saying but the platform and attention he gets is incredible, so really its peoples reaction to Kanye that makes him who he is, thats what he lives off. Saying all that, i think musically and artistically he is a genius and im not sure that could exist without the crazy, narcissistic thought process he has. When he dies i think he will go down as very interesting character who left a lot of beautiful art in the world.

Great questions, this is something i always struggled with, however i feel like i have turned a corner with it after therapy and just generally working on myself. I think a key thing for me was accepting myself when i wasnt exactly who i wanted to be in the moment. I would struggle with anxiety and hate myself for feeling this and try and think my way out of the feeling, at some point i realised that it is a feeling and that side of me can be loved as well. There was also a lot about loving my inner child and giving him what he didnt get as a child, almost self parenting. How it shows up is just doing things for myself, making sure im healthy, doing things i genuinely enjoy, spending time with people who want to spend time with me and i want to spend time with them etc.

I think its the same as any skill youre trying to master ie lets say you want to learn chess, yes the best way to get good is to play 1000 games, most of which you'll probably lose, but you will start to see patterns and get to know what works and what doesnt and slowly youll start to get better. However, youll hit a wall where you'll plateu if you dont start having a better understanding of the game holistically through theory and learning about why certain things work. I think you can replace theory for inner game in this case. If you just had the theory though, youd also get stuck when you actually play a game because you wouldnt be comfortable in a game situation and all the little basic things wouldnt come natural to you. So both are essential, personally i go more on the action side when learning new things and sometimes i feel my learning could even be speeded up if i could just sit down and do theory. But you have to see where that balance lies for you and if its all theory and no action you need to balance that out and step up your action.

I honestly don't get the virgin thing, I'd probably go for the 20 body count out of the 2. More experience, she knows what she likes, you don't have to teach her etc. If she had a crazy body count, in the 100s I probably wouldn't go there, not on moral grounds but just because I would get the impression she's in the habit of multiple partners so it would be a red flag for a serious relationship

@AuroraDream Again and respectfully, i dont think a company saying our highest priorty is to achieve something is the same as saying they have achieved something, especially in this situation where things were moving so fast. Think whether this would hold up in court if youre accusing them of lying, your evidence is basically 'they said they wanted to stop transmission, but they didn't test for it'. The truth is if you look into testing for transmission it's actually very difficult to do and can probably only be done once it's given out en masse. Your issue should be more with the government who I agree did overstate how effective I was on transmission. "Dr. Walter Orenstein, associate director of the vaccine center at Emory University, told the AP that the fact that Pfizer did not address the vaccine’s impact on transmission during clinical trials is not unusual, because transmission is a complex metric to measure. “It’s much more difficult to evaluate impact on transmission,” Orenstein, a professor of infectious diseases at the Emory School of Medicine, wrote in an email. “What is usually done is a randomized placebo controlled study, in which the recipients are ‘blinded (i.e., do not know whether they received placebo or vaccine.’” https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-pfizer-transmission-european-parliament-950413863226

Your claim is that Pfizer were deceitful in that they stated that they tested for transmission, but actually they didn't and just said they did. The quote I posted along with the link show that there was never such a claim made by Pfizer, in fact the actual clinical trial papers have been available since Nov 2020 and they do not state anything to do with testing for transmission efficacy. Therefore if you were to take them to court let's say and you say, 'hey you lied about how effective this is at stopping transmission' all they would have to say is 'no we have our official clinical trials papers which have been available for nearly 2 years, that clearly say we were not testing for transmission'. Your case would definitely get thrown out. You could maybe point at governments or media if they misrepresented the efficacy on transmission, but you'd have to pull up specific comments. Either way your post was specifically about Pfizer and I don't think the position is correct.

"Pfizer did not claim that a clinical trial for its COVID-19 vaccine was testing whether the vaccine prevented transmission of the coronavirus to other people. The aim of the drug trial was to study whether the vaccine was safe and if it prevented disease from SARS-CoV-2. Details of Pfizer’s clinical trial for its COVID-19 vaccine have been available online since November 2020. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in December 2020 its emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, the agency said there was no data available on whether the shot prevented transmission from person to person." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/13/instagram-posts/alleged-revelation-about-pfizer-vaccine-trial-noth/

I'm from the UK, same as Piers, and being for gun control or in fact outright banning of guns is a pretty mainstream position here even amongst conservatives. The upper class might argue that rifles should be allowed for fox hunting or shooting birds but it's not really a massive issue. British people actually think Americans fighting for their guns is pretty crazy. So this is more of a cultural difference. Piers is very slippery to pin down in terms of political stance but he's 100% not green. I'd say he's orange but right leaning, I disagree with Leo that he's mainstream orange as he got kicked off of mainstream channels, after some issues around racism and megham markle, which is why he's on this new talk TV channel that not many people watch.

Piers is in no way green, green actually triggers him a lot, theres numerous clips of him using the same tactics he used against Tate against greens. In reality i think hes actually got a lot of common ground with Tate its just Tate had a few points that could be considered extreme and Piers laboured those points as thats what would work entertainment wise. Tate actually tried to sugar coat the world view he normally projects, which i dont get, he might as well've doubled down on it as hes not got much to lose. But as they were both trying to 'win', Piers definitely won as he framed it exactly how he wanted to and got Tate flustered.