Consept

I found this study very interesting and relevant to this topic

I'm an introvert but I've had great nights at clubs. The key for me was just enjoying the night girls or no girls, make sure I like the music, I have a couple good friends with me, I talk to lots of people not just girls I'm attracted to. If I get into that state it's really an amazing feeling and I'm just giving off good vibes and having fun, then girls are just kinda drawn to you. For me it feels like some transcendent experience, I don't know if day game is the same as I haven't really done it but I guess it could be.

Just to correct you, hes not saying dont approach, a woman will most likely not approach you so that wouldnt work. What hes saying is wait until you get some indication that the woman is interested and then approach. Choosing signal could be just looking at you for a second or two or playing with their hair or whatever but some kind of signal. The alternative would be a numbers game in that you have no clue whether the girl is interested but youre going to attempt to make her interested by saying something, more than likely if she was attracted she wouldve noticed you. Im not saying cold approach wouldnt work but its similar to sales, if you go knocking door to door you will get some sales but itll be tough, if you go to people that you know are already interested in your product your hit rate will be much higher. You can rationalise it and say 'yeah just hustle no excuses' but ultimately the best sales people dont go door to door their skill is sensing when someone is interested and letting that person almost sell themselves.

Theres a guy on youtube Alpha Male Strategies, his whole thing is be on your purpose and be the best you can be and the women will give you choosing signals, but never put chasing a woman first above your purpose and never play the numbers game of cold approach. hes a bit hardcore with the delivery but i think the core message makes sense -

Its a fine balance, if the girl finds you attractive and isnt threatened by you she will of course be open to an approach, so you need good level social skills to be able to work out if thats the case. If youre unsure you can still approach and read if theres any attraction, again you need good social skills for this. Its also important to not go into any interaction expecting something from it, you can go in just to have a conversation but there cant be any overt pressure from your side. Basically women will find you creepy if you have no social skills, you may get away with it if youre attractive but even then if your social skills are poor it will still come across creepy. Being needy in anyway is another way to come off creepy, if the woman feels threatened then its going to be very uncomfortable for both of you. Its understandable that women would have to be on guard in this way, considering men generally are physically stronger.

Didnt watch all of it, but in some ways i agree, i think one think thats definite is Trump has shaken up the system. For as long as i can remember there has not been a clear choice between candidates and they are able to carry a fake persona to get them into office and have been controlled by the funders. I always thought this needed to change and i think by having such an extreme president in Trump it can actually make getting someone like Bernie or AOC a possibility. Having said that I dont believe Trump is aware of this in any way, hes a Red level president and is about his personal power and wealth, thats quite obvious in his actions. The outcome wouldve been the same if any Red level person became president, so you can take whatever narrative you want, it could be that Trump is a light worker whatever that means, or it could be that peoples consciousness dropped to a certain level where they could be manipulated and now seeing that manipulation they can learn from that for the future, as many ex-Trump voters have learnt. Hopefully everyone takes on the lessons that this situation has brought up though.

Theres papers of him gagging people so its not a mainstream lie, it would be dumb not to look at both sides honestly. If youre saying employees shouldnt say bad stuff about their boss (in this case its them disagreeing with trump on issues) it means you believe in freedom of speech with regulations, if you believe in regulations who should set out these regulations? Like i said if Biden gagged those who spoke out against him youd say he isnt for freedom of speech, so whats the difference with Trump doing it? This seems to be a bit of a block for you

Do you see how even though you admit yourself you havent got the full picture you still have a strong stance for Trump, in fact you also say if you were to do research it would be explicitly to see where the media is lying. This is no where near being impartial or looking for the truth in the situation, if it was you would consider where Trump has lied as well but instead youre looking to reinforce whatever your original position was. Despite the fact that its completely contradictory ie Trump has demonised others for doing exactly what he has done himself, case in point banning governement employees from speaking on twitter while complaining that twitter is banning him, it literally makes no sense and you would need a lot of cognitive dissonance to make it make sense. Try to really see this from an objective view, if you take Trump out of the equation and lets say Biden was doing exactly the same thing, would you make the same argument for Biden and say its all lies?

Just to sum up @--George-- view of freedom of speech - Freedom of speech is a right and everyone should have 100% freedom of speech. The only exception is if someone is trying to smear your name and ruin your life, regardless if what theyre saying is true or not this should not be allowed and they should be gagged from doing so. However if you want to smear someones name this should be allowed because of freedom of speech, if they complain that you shouldnt be allowed to smear them or talk negatively about them you can claim that theyre trying to cancel you because cancel culture is a big problem. Also if youre the president, specifically Trump not any other president, you can gag your own employees if they speak out against you. Hope this is clear for everyone

Well most of the book is an opinion, her saying he wouldnt pass an intelligence test is an opinion, so are you saying that if the opinion is negative about someone it should rightfully be banned? How does that line up with freedom of speech? I can steelman you and say that shes trying to smear his name, so if thats the case and it would have to be proven, hasnt Trump done this with Obama with the birther situation? Hes also followed this by claiming Kamala Harris may not have been born in the US, these are both provably false, should Trump be banned from saying these types of things if its ok that his niece could be banned for saying an opinion? And again is preventing government employees from talking on twitter for or against freedom of speech?

You havent really answered the question, ill try again, Is preventing a book being published for or against universal free speech? Is preventing government employees from speaking on twitter for or against free speech?

Stick to the point though, would you say Donald Trump gagging and trying to prevent the Mary Trump book being published is indicative of someone who 100% believes in freedom of speech? Add to that hes tried to prevent many others from speaking out including government employees - https://news.sky.com/story/us-government-workers-defy-president-trump-gagging-order-on-twitter-10743813 https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-white-house-gags-three-us-government-agencies-epa-environmental-protection-agency-a7544781.html This isnt spin theres actual legal papers to this effect, so question is can you be for free speech while at the same time preventing those with differing opinions to you from speaking? Please stick to the question if you actually want to debate this. If you do think hes still for freedom of speech would you Biden also be for freedom of speech of he gagged employees that went against him if he was president?

If Biden dismissed questions that he didnt like from reporters but claimed he was for free speech, would you agree he was for free speech?

Trump is for His freedom of speech but anyone who has speaks against he wants to shut down. Good point is his own niece Mary Trump who wrote a book analysing him and Trump tried every way he could to have it banned, same with others that have written books against him. He sacks anyone who's not 100% loyal to him, he regularly shuts down, dismisses or even doesn't let reporters ask questions if he feels they'll be unfavourable to him. I don't really understand how someone can see these things and think trump is for free speech This modus operendi is very harmful as we're seeing play out with the pandemic

What party doesnt support 'democratic norms'?

Proof doesnt work outside of a materialist paradigm but if we're talking about conspiracy theories they are within the materialist paradigm, so to prove a conspiracy theory you would need proof as you would be the one asserting something not me. In the absence of proof you couldnt say that something is true. There is no arbiter but whatever you count as enough proof to be considered relatively true would then have to be applied to everything, so for example if you say that belief and intuition in the bible is enough to say that creationism is true you would then have to concede that if someone has belief and intuition in the Bhagavad Gita then multiple Gods are also true, obviously this can not hold up. If you are thinking critically and not tied to any belief or bias you will accept that this method of getting to a relative truth will not really work. In general i agree with you on this but i dont see how you can come to believe most conspiracy theories if you follow this method

The truth of Oneness would be that there are no distinctions and everything is one therefore any further discussion past silence is meaningless, however what we're talking about is relative truth, which as you say creating a method that we can come to some consensus about what is relative true as oppose to whats relatively untrue. If i have an undetermined amount of tic-tacs in a packet and i want to find out how many are in there, counting them would be a better method than using intuition. Yes the ultimate truth might be that the seperation of each tic-tac and everything else in the world is an illusion and that we and all matter are just one, but in terms of a relative truth for the material plain that ultimate truth is not practical if im trying to work out how to divide the tic-tacs fairly lets say. So in a sense youre correct in that there is no true or false but in terms of engaging in the world we can create criteria to work out why one thing might be relatively true as compared to another. This doesnt have to be limited to a scientific paradigm but should definitely include it as well as intuition and other things. For me this is the crux of not going down false narratives for example, what good would it do me to become a jehovahs witness based off intuition, many people join because they just feel its true, many people join cults because they feel God is speaking to them, so critical thinking is essential not so much to assert anything is true but to know when something is obviously false. I would disagree, as i said all the people youve mentioned have been demonstrably wrong many times and its not just because their ideas werent accepted as many of their radical ideas were accepted at the time. He himself later admitted he was mistaken, this is the base of scientific investigation, the fact that you can be wrong, the initial intuition is a speculation that then you go about proving whether its right or wrong. For every one theory that breaks through there are 1000s that are proved wrong by the very people who had the initial idea. The idea cant be right just because youve had it. Ive had many business ideas that hit me like a bolt of lightening but then when i started looking into them a realised they werent feasible, if i had just gone with them because of intuition i wouldve lost out. Saying a statement is true because you believe it doesnt really make sense in that 'you' are are tied to a statement being true. Ultimately 'you' dont exist so its your ego that is attaching to a belief. Ultimately all is one is the only truth, but we are talking about relative truths and thus just having a belief in something does not make it relatively true. We would have to come up with a criteria that we can both agree on to say that something can be true otherwise it makes no sense, you might as well say nothing is relatively true, which you can do but i dont see how it furthers our knowledge. You might believe in pizzagate but your evidence is not really enough, thats fine but you cant say that its true just because you believe it (circular logic). You may say potentially it could be true but thats about it.

Intuition will give you a hypothesis, all the people you mentioned wouldve no doubt had 100s of hypothesis that they wouldve believed were true initially but once they looked further into it and tested it etc they wouldve thrown out until it boiled down to a few theories that they were known for. My friend has a strong intuition that the shape of the earth is flat, i have a strong intuition that its not flat. To work out what is true we would have to have some kind of way to figure it out beyond intuition, it doesnt necessarily have to be science but it has to be something other than intuition because many intuitions will be in conflict with each other. Scientific proof is not circular, you may argue that its limited in that it can only measure the material world but in most cases for conspiracy that it was we're talking about and in fact most conspiracies are backed up (insufficiently) using some kind of scientific method. Something like religion is circular in that the bible is true because its the word of God and because its the word of God whatevers in the bible is true. Im sure theres some conspiracies you dont believe but they couldve been reached by the same intuition as others, however your intuition tells you theyre not true. As someone looking at all these different people saying different conspiracies are true and false how would you ever know what is true or false just going off intuition? Heres a good example of what people having different intuitions looks like -

Sorry but I disagree with this, there's a lot of people that believe things, religion, magical thinking, political ideologies etc that they would say 100% gives the peace and its their intuition that has led them there, but their beliefs are provably false or at the very least their beliefs contridict someone else's who also believes in the same way. I think what your not taking into account is how strong confirmation bias and other bias' are. In terms of working out whether something is true not, yes intuition can be a factor but if its the only or main factor I think you'll run into problems. For example if I have an intuition a particular girl likes me, even if she outright rejects me I may do some mental gymnastics in my head and say 'oh maybe she didn't want to seem so easy, I'll keep pursuing in a different way'. Because I'm so invested in the outcome I'm biased in the face of real world data, which was the rejection, I cant let go of my initial intuitive feeling so ill look for and probably find some justification that it could be true but ultimately I'll never get the girl. I think this is the issue with conspiracies, they promote intuition, which should be just a factor to the most important and main factor. I suspect they do this because if they went the purely scientific route it just wouldn't work

@DocWatts Im sorry bro but you havent really had your question answered in this thread. Same thing has happened to me ive had a few friends that have gone down this rabbit hole, what tends to happen is that peoples barrier for asserting something is true or not completely goes out the window once they allow a speculation to be true, then you get a mix of anchoring bias and confirmation bias. All this is brought about by uncertainty which has obviously been exacerbated by the current world events. It is very frustrating to have people around you believe this stuff so i completely sympathise. The best resources ive found include the book 'Escaping the Rabbit Hole' by Mick West, he literally talks you through how to talk to a friend that is lost in the rabbit hole and includes a lot of compassion and understanding so its a really good guide. He also runs the website - https://www.metabunk.org/home/ which actively debunks conspiracy theories and has appeared on Joe Rogan so you can search him out there. Rebel Wisdom have also done a few videos on conspiracy theories looking at them from a meta perspective which ive found quite interesting as well -

I havent read any of her work so you probably know more than me on objectivism, i have a general idea. I know that she believes reality exists independently of consciousness which i guess is the opposite of non-duality. I do kind of get where shes coming from in terms of man having the heroic element and striving for his happiness as a moral purpose. But what ideas do you agree with or think are useful? And i agree i dont think its good to follow anyone dogmatically.

Thats the argument but in practice it doesnt really work. If you look at the current situation in the world there a lot of regulations and taxation on businesses but there is still massive wealth inequality and outright poverty even in western countries, not everyone is suited to being a business person or an entrepreneur. Not only that some have massive advantages over others just on the basis of which family they were born into, there are many reasons but i dont think capitalism leads to good results for everyone. With Rich dad its slightly different because hes giving basic financial advice which is something most lack, so its not necessarily dependent on the government systems. Its information that could be considered useful to a lot of people, but there doesnt seem to be an overall message about how the world should work. So for me its just take whats useful and be aware that some of it is probably bullshit.

Thanks, thats very nice of you to say and im glad you got value from it

I think make the jokes you feel to make, it weeds out the ones that are not on whatever level you're at and that ones that are will appreciate the humour. If everyone likes you you're probably not being true to yourself

You dont necessarily have to choose one or the other ie no sex before marriage or lots of one night stands and casual sex. Just see where life takes you, for most people its probably not so much of an issue or something they think about too much, the reason why youre thinking about it is because of the issues youve mentioned previously, thats why i think the main thing is sorting those issues out and then just seeing where it takes you. Theres lots of people who never get married but have incredibly fulfilling relationships and then theres lots people who get married and have completely unfulfilled relationships and usually take whatever issues they had into the marriage, probably even more disappointed that marriage didnt solve anything. If you want a reference of these type of relationships just look at a couple of posts on this reddit sub - https://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/ But anyway you have been quite open to what people have said so i commend you for that and we're all on a journey so i hope these conversations have helped you in some way