BlueOak

This made me burst out laughing. I hope you post more. All I can do is highlight the problem, but you are spitting some answers out, its refreshing. If we can get people out of their head, it'll help.

@Raze 1, Let me try a different approach first Raze: Do you understand why the risk goes up to shipping, and thus the insurance when there is uncertainty in trade? I understand you personally don't feel there is any difference between many countries (or just China/BRICKS) looking after their own international waters, and one country that has for decades guaranteed them, but are you able to consider others do? Especially given world tension? The people making these decisions have to focus on the odds. So as the insurance goes up, everything in your life is more expensive. That means fewer houses get built, more homeless, food costs more meaning more starvation, jobs are lost because of increased costs and reduced profits meaning more addiction and crime, fuel costs go up (and so everything costs more), there is less money to spend on things, and so the economy goes backward. Trying to give you a broad overview here, in essence, everything about life, from the small to the big is taxed by insurance companies on those routes. This is even me taking your perspective that nothing else would change, there would be no piracy, or tariffs, competition for the routes, blockades over international disagreements (as in Yemen we have seen for the first time attempted since Somalia) etc. When that happens, supply chains will buckle, and competition for local resources that don't require shipping across long routes increases. There are so many knock-on effects to trade. Insurance for those routes goes up, if the shipping companies are willing to take the route at all. We are at a turning point as to whether we go back to warring nation-states, all trying to build local supply chains and do everything ourselves, or turn into two competing power blocks leading to a larger war, or finally give the UN some real authority and remain a globalized system. That's three outcomes I see here. 2, Now the usual response: All Nations push their sphere of influence outward until they reach another one. Because all nations are made up of individuals who don't see a line on a map and say I won't act outside of that. Stage, Red, Blue, Orange, Criminals, Politicians, Businessmen etc have similar characteristics one country to the next. Certainly, China used to be inward-facing culturally, but now it's not. I could list: Tibet, Turkmenistan, BRICS seeking to replace the Dollar, Material Support in Russian wars, Volunteer manpower in Russian wars (alleged), Naval Bases/Ports in places like Sri Lanka, and Australia, China's growing influence over countries in Africa, the Belt and Road initiative abroad, pushing its population/influence into Myanmar, the standoff with Japan over Senkaku Islands, its disputes with Bhutan or India over borders, or importantly taking over the territorial waters of SIX OTHER COUNTRIES in the Pacific and the Spratly Islands. China being the fastest growing fleet, the rise of international nationalism/fascism supported by these individuals, all as to why China is pushing its influence outward and seeking to be a trading empire. But all I really need to say is: All Nations push their sphere of influence outward until they reach another one.

@Emotionalmosquito You are highlighting the exact problem! Dating or socialising was never entirely in your head like dating has become. I'd venture 10%-20% was intellectual before, even less was analytical. Everything you just talked about is experiential, as in it is something we would have, in eras past, been doing all our lives. It'd be as simple as breathing, and sure some would be better than others at it, some people are more charismatic than others. But right now, it's becoming uncommon to find many capable of socializing naturally, let alone being good at it.

@bebotalk tl;dr, Everything you can think of in your life, from the most simple thing you interact with, to the most complicated thing you know, is reliant on global trade functioning reliably and free of pirates, or each country imposing their own conditions, insurance being affordable, people being willing to take the risk, the interconnected nature of our supply chains and industry. Increasing this interconnected nature of the world, is the key to human development, fracturing it leads to all the worst outcomes we can picture. It's largely about trade. If I can make a suggestion study global trade. Trade is the biggest external force on all countries, and by most people not being aware of or understanding it, they miss the critical piece that defines world politics. I'm no expert I just know the basics, and to look for it when a war breaks out or a conflict is brewing. The reason the American dollar underpins world currency is because they secure global trade. It's not quite that simple but without them doing so, the dollar wouldn't. That trillion-dollar debt they are in, would collapse or begin to roll back their economy. The Americans moving toward isolation have to accept a completely different worldview, and I still don't know whether that pattern will continue until it hits a point and people realise what I am telling you in some form, or if these meaningless wars and loss of life will hasten the end of its trading empire, currently the pattern is the latter. Being English I hope they reverse their isolationism trend, or else liberalism is done globally, and the world is likely to swing further authoritarian in the short/medium term until we hit the conditions of WW3, or some bleaker future of constant regional wars. I don't see any other liberal powers rising anywhere, I could give a few fledgling examples where it might but people would laugh. - Maybe the Hague will surprise me and act like a global court, rather than a political tool, we'll see. Maybe the UN will get rid of the Security Council, so Russia, America, the UK, China or any of their allies etc, can't just throw their weight around without consequence. Anything is possible I guess, but unlikely. Let's picture a future 200 years from now, where America is in Russia's position in terms of power. They are not the superpower. They are a regional power. What they say applies to their sphere of influence and nobody else's, probably not even South America as much as it does, as Brazil in this scenario remains in BRICS, and so we have several socialist countries in South America (just an example, could be fascist, anarcho-capitalist, whatever). Trade is much less secure, because each country has to secure their own territorial waters or accept China/BRICS doing so. So either BRICS replaces America, or we get some unlikely global organization of cooperating countries, or that is the end of globalism, and means every country in its locality needs to find everything for all its supply chains. That means your quality of life is going to take a big hit. Less food variance, fewer luxuries, fewer necessities, less building materials, less resources for industry, and things are more costly. It means technology stops advancing at near the same rate, because we've only got to this point due to having a system where each country can specialize in part of the supply chain. That means farming doesn't advance to fix the food shortages, industry does not advance, and that means the climate is not addressed, it probably gets worse as people go back to using coal or other local fuels. Everything slows or degrades. Global trade underpins everything. Without it Africa starves as an example.

The semiconductor industry is vital to America and every country on this planet. If you want China and BRICS to have a stranglehold over everything from washing machines to fighter jets, then sure. Otherwise, you have to wait until you've set up your country's version of it. Taiwan is currently a wedge region to stop China from having a launching pad to the rest of the Pacific. So rather than worrying about one region Taiwan, you'll be having to arm and try to defend 5 countries. Unless you are suggesting going full isolationist, giving up control of global trade in that region completely, and pulling back to Hawaii, that didn't work out great last time. A lot of the bases in those countries allow for you to deploy your navy internationally when required. Global trade through that area is worth trillions. China is trying to take over all the sea lanes throughout the region and everyone else's territorial waters. Including where all your trade goes. What you are suggesting, going much more isolationist (if that's the gist), is going to take a complete and utter change of how you view the world. That means leaving everyone else to their own business and whatever happens globally, happens. (Currently, that'd be BRICS and Authoritarian dominance) This is where America is headed politically, but it also means you won't have near the influence or get your own way. There will be wars, there will be a reshaping of borders, and your quality of life will take a hit because you will no longer be a trading empire. The dollar won't have the same power if it's not being backed up by America securing the trade routes. If BRICS take over, it'll be whatever currency they end up deciding on that guarantees world trade. *Oh and the real mud in the eye will be, every country going to war to reshape borders in former colonial regions will lay the blame firmly at your (and our) feet, with no consideration at all for the fact they are shooting the guns. Its like an open ticket to play the victim the world over.

Overeating is definitely a compounding factor, as you can only store so much energy and nutrients, so digesting after that is wasted energy. In addition to that different types of food take more energy to digest, and so in return, you tire yourself out more digesting it. The quantity of food to the nutrient value needs to be taken into account. The reason why I said it wasn't diet specific, is because you can eat animals that are not going to clog up your digestive system as much, and alternatively you can eat overcooked food (reducing its value) or junk food as a Vegan. Generally, you are right that it's harder to overeat light foods. You have to eat a lot of vegetables to feel that, and the more you chew or just eat slower, you psychologically think you've had a larger meal. It's easier on grains to overeat, or cereal which are packed full of carbs and harder to digest, or proteins like nuts or beans/lentils.

One thing missing or I missed. I rarely see talked about. The lighter the food, the less energy is wasted in digestion. If it's a heavy dense food, or processed food - vegan or not, you use more energy in the digestion of it, and therefore feel more tired. You can see easy examples of this when having a very large meal and feeling sleepy. Things like bread, a biscuit, meat or a banana, eating them in the evening, when bread takes 6 hours or more to digest is not going to let your body rest at night when it needs to. Thus you wake up more tired than necessary. The body gets no time to detox naturally at night, and you get gradual problems. Having that one biscuit at night just before bed is not helping you in the slightest, stick to liquid preferably water if you have to have something. This is independent of veganism, you can eat junk food as a vegan if you like, and it'll still have this effect. @LoneWonderer You are welcome, best of luck. Last tip, mixed nuts are a good fallback for a snack or for protein, berry nut mixes are also excellent as a combo.

Here are some inherent problems with all of this mess: 1, Manners and discipline are not regarded as virtues anymore. Here in this very thread, they are somewhat vilified, more so in the wider population. At the same time, people will look at the behavior of not having these qualities, and complain about it. 2, Behaviors such as people saying 'Go teach your boy to be a man' to women, never really consider the words they just said. That's often the man's or male role model's job. I've seen this so many times recently in different forms across different groups, in this social trend, it makes my head spin. This is very important to highlight because it's about fathers or male role models teaching their sons or students, the responsibility of things like fatherhood and instilling things like discipline and manners. 3, Being civil is a good starting point for anything. People are less likely to be confrontational if you are not being so yourself. You are much more likely to have a normal conversation with them, or make a deal in business, or communicate on a forum if you keep yourself in check. Being belligerent or antagonistic is a sure way to provoke the same. 4, Being civil does not mean being a doormat. A constantly confused point of view I hear from people. 5, Discipline is one of the requirements of success. Being focused, remaining disciplined, and on task. 6, Saying Women like X. You've already failed in your analysis. Putting billions of people into easily demonstratable labels is a farce. There are certainly trends and patterns you can point to, but to take an absolute position is unhelpful. Its a current contributing cause of the dating crisis, and a large contributor to the population problems developed nations are experiencing. Be more like this 10% of people. Sorry 90% (Reality) you are not the ones we are focusing on now. We'll build entire systems and sites that support highlighting a very small number of people, that everyone is chasing, and social networks to enforce this belief in the culture. We'll lure you in with exaggerated photos and videos. Oh no, we have created a dating problem. Let's focus on this 10% instead, what could go wrong! *facepalm* Focus on the values an average man, with average looks/charisma, average everything, brings to a woman. Highlight that and all this mess will finally cease to exist, or at least begin to unravel back to normality. (Obviously doing the same for women too) 7, Said it a hundred times. In purely cerebral electronic communication we lost things like the ability to socialise in person. It's much harsher, cutting, the words like an edged blade in a conversation. In-person, we'd be considering each other's reaction, we'd be moderating language somewhat, and projecting more understandable positions. Adjusting and projecting to the group visually, by tones, by subject matter, body language, by group dynamics, smell/sight, and familiar touch or mannerisms etc. More would develop, and conversations would be more than a symbol on a page interpreted largely in a disconnected way from the speaker. It's the same over a phone, and texting it loses so much of what is possible, or of that person, people are reduced to: Nice guy. Jerk. Not a nice guy. Simp, Narcissist, Fool, whatever so much more easily, because these symbols on the page are all we have to surmise them. - This sort of limitation in turn, is what created rigid and limiting categorization in dating, leading to less tolerance or acceptance, and less couples getting together. Ditto politics, ditto business, and the rigid angular nature of communication this way is in part why the world is dividing on the macro.

Chomsky is pure stage green. Rather than present the facts alongside his bias, he gets a conclusion and then tries to shape facts to fit it. I understand why an Anti NATO stage green would put this argument together, they look for one accepted truth (NATO expansion) and ignore every other facet or reason, while at the same time trying to argue for the moral highground - in two pointless wars no less. Because its simple, makes them feel they are correct morally, and can be easily communicated. Last September, almost 4 months ago - Quote: 27,449 civilian casualties in the country: 9,701 killed and 17,748 injured. He knows what the word casualty means and if he doesn't he should, because people like to twist it to mean what they want it to mean. https://ukraine.un.org/en/247232-ukraine-civilian-casualties-24-september-2023 He's also conveniently ignoring the war started in 2014, which at other times people will use to their advantage in discussions. Where the UN listed 3,404 civilian casualties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War Though in Mariupol alone that would be a fraction of the dead. Putin has been bombing the country's civilians for almost two years and entire cities have been leveled to nothing, not just Mariupol. Sievierodonetsk for example was rubble, ditto Lysychansk. Chernihiv was badly hit. Sumy saw a lot of fighting. There are so many towns or villages that no longer exist, and the people in them don't either. Go type in any of these names and rubble, or look for pictures of the city at the time of fighting. There were people in all of them as it was going on, especially early on. He can't look at all this, and seriously conclude what he's just said about casualty numbers. Putin has pardoned all crimes committed in Ukraine. You can do anything you like there as a Russian, and they often do as any military would with barely any functioning discipline. Meanwhile, they send ex-convicts and conscript Ukrainians in occupied territory to fight Ukrainians, while sending them into a meat grinder, with barely any ammunition, just to find artillery pieces to hit. Humane? Putin's been shooting missiles at civilian buildings for near two years. What the hell is he talking about? Arguing morality by anyone with all this violence (in both wars) is absurd. So I dug around further as I can't read the article directly: I was and still am strongly against the 2nd war in Iraq, it was a dumb futile act, with a pointless aim. A bit like the Russian war, though I understand many of the reasons why both occurred. Did any foreign leaders visit Baghdad? This is backward logic. Nobody went to Moscow either. Because neither of those governments were being supported, they went to those they were supporting. When Iraq had been overcome in the meaningless war, then they went to Baghdad Neither side is backing the Minsc Agreement, they didn't then, and they don't now. This is a fantasy in his mind alone. As Russians themselves often tell me, Russia is not giving up territory they've bled for, and that Putin has staked his reputation (and probably his life) on. Could it be possible, sure, if Russia was struggling to hold what they have. Again someone who doesn't understand why NATO expands, I swear there is a mental block in people. There was fear in Finland of an attack. This is either willful blindness or he just hasn't watched any interviews or done any reasearch. At the time people in Europe were panicked, rightly so, we didn't know what Russia's plans were, or understand Russia much at all, to be blunt. It's also was not inconceivable that Russia could have launched further attacks. Their state TV threatened it five times a week, and Putin or his cronies did every so often. Now, after a wearying war, it's hard to believe that Russia could. After rebuilding though, they can certainly take bite-sized chunks out of Europe bit by bit, which is all they need to do over time. Unless their population crisis catches up to them and neuters their ability to do so, or they have a change in leadership and view towards Europe. So holding Russia here and draining their ability to push their aggression further is a logical choice. Deterring China by making the prospect of war too great, is the strategy, and it's a better one than a war. Will anyone with an anti-NATO position, ever in their entire lives, be capable of understanding that countries join NATO out of fear of Russia? Probably not. I can understand a Russian's fear of seeing what they perceive as the enemy getting closer, it's just infuriating they can't see the same from the opposite position. But then nobody ever really looks at the smaller countries' wishes or what they feel about it all, certainly not this guy.

Veganism has worked for me for 12 years so *shrug*. Took two months to adjust from a junk fast food, steak-eating, fried food bacon/eggs diet. Get a regular B12 boost and plenty of varied fruit/veg. I had more energy than I ever had before. Don't overdo the beans at the start, put up with the detox, which you'll have from all the junk coming out of you. Get through that adjustment and you are done. I found the best B12 boost either a vitamin supplement or yeast extract (I liked the bitter taste). The only time I felt better was on a raw food diet, with even more nutrients, and less toxins to expel. Energetically you are eating the food in its natural form, uncut or unspoiled which when you are sensitive to such things you can feel the difference. Your entire relationship with animals will change when they are no longer food to you, they did for me at least. *Though if you want a step above it all, which I understand others will dismiss given their framework for reality. Give thanks when you are having food, put yourself in a state of gratitude when eating. Remember you have a certain level of influence over what it becomes (like all of reality) Help with the heart, help with the injury, help with the mood, help with the headaches, help with whatever it is, ask/instruct yourself. - Humans disconnect themselves energetically from their food with metal cutlery, most cultures anyway, at least tribal ones still used wood. Its all energy, the entire material universe (ask a physicist), and it's all represented by your mind, which you have limited influence over. People call it a placebo effect in modern science (or quantum terms), whatever you call it, use it. Put it in your hands and connect with it on a meaningful level, do this in combination with yoga or Taoist practices, to feel the energetic connection.

Go talk to women more with no expectations whatsoever. Do a lot of that. It'll put you in reality and out of your conditioning quicker. The important part is, you having no expectations, except maybe a conversation. Then when you've done that for a while, and socialized with the opposite sex, like the thousands of generations before you did, before computers/phones made all your interactions cerebral rather than EVERYTHING ELSE + cerebral. That's body language, that's voice, that's environment, light touch, emotions, harmonizing with the group, smell, apperance, group dynamics, personal dynamics, that's relating to the person/people you are talking to, listening, filing the silence, humor, developing the art of conversation etc etc etc. Then try to do what some people are advising you. Don't feel bad. Purely cerebral electronic communication has broken a lot of people, most of a generation at this point.

Read the words out loud, it doesn't have to be all the time. Try to remove surplus words or redundancy in the narrative or passage. Unless going for a more flowery poetic style, then some surplus words are inherently used. Try to meet or get in contact with editors or small independent publishers. Get feedback often. I am going to give away a tip I plan to use here, use YouTube, read passages, and see what people say. You could also post a small section on the various sites for writers out there, to not only generate interest but also get feedback. Music is my vehicle for inspiration. I feel I should give each song credit at the end of the work! If you are just starting out, spend some time on roleplaying forums writing collaboratively, and get feedback. A forum with good writers is a great place for a writer to train. It will sap you creatively from your professional pursuits, so it needs to be balanced and then stopped, at least for me to have the energy to put into my own stories.

America's position towards China vs Taiwan is deterrence. Making the act of sending troops over the ocean towards Taiwan too costly or problematic to be viable. China's position is gathering strength and trying to suppress Taiwan diplomatically. My personal opinion is. As the semiconductor industry is moved, Taiwan becomes less critical and more vulnerable. Though it won't matter if relations stay this chilled, nobody in that region wants China to have yet another base to launch its naval efforts from, and full control of the trade routes in the area. If China just waits for American decline, waits for the semi conductor industry to move elsewhere (or be replicated elsewhere and competitive), and tries to improve relations with countries like Japan so they are not in fear of what China expanding its sphere of influence means, then Taiwan might slowly become Chinese anyway via trade. It depends if personal ego overrides common sense, and it has to be now now now, which it often does in men of power.

A laymans way to view it is. In the human body there are places where a lot of activity takes place. The stomach, the mind, the sexual organs, the heart, the throat, the liver, the kidneys etc. These places use a lot of energy, or have a lot of energy pass through them for their day-to-day activities. The cleaner these are, the less full of toxins, getting the right nutrients, exercise etc, the more effectively they function, and the healthier you are. That's how you can describe it to anyone who just sees a body. Then you can mention a physicist will tell you we are all energy vibrating very slowly. Then they can link in their mind an energetic chakra and a physical point on the body, which are the same thing. If you want more sensation of this, developing body awareness and energetic awareness are good ideas. Yoga and meditation focusing on the body are very good ways to do it. Mantak Chia teaching Taoism was also excellent for me.

Here are some other useful resources. @Spiral Wizard https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ These resources are a step forward i'll say that much for how information is given to people.

@NoSelfSelf Are you aware the mind gradually transcends itself to become infinity in every interaction it has? If that is our goal. The blocks you see are dissolved when they are realised and understood to be hindering. Although my preference for certainty does limit me, it doesn't stop the process., just like my self-analysis speeds it up. Feelings slowly lose the reason for being generated independently due to triggers or programmed responses, instead, they come about more from our own wishes, and we trend toward stillness or love. (There is a conflict within me whether its stillness or love). Either way I like helping people. I just do. Its better than not doing or harming them. I do go meta as you say. I am not thinking through everything I tell you on an intellectual level, its a stream of consciousness. Sometimes I'll go back and edit something, which is the conscious mind stepping in directly. I find I can go meta through the mind also. Ex: I am writing at the minute, and I find myself freezing up. Its an old trauma from somewhere about starting a novel, so I decided to write what the freeze felt like into the story, dissolving it. This was a mind/meta moment. Game I am struggling with more. To me the punches/kicks are part of the game you describe, so it seems like splitting hairs. Without the training you can't do the sport. I did Karate for many years as a kid, the strict framework requires a strict conditioned mindset, especially the Kata (sequence of moves). The sparring was different, there was more room for expression free of conditioning. - I was knocked out of the national championships by a double-flying kick mid air one year! Best moment. Do you know why I liked it more? The people. The team in the stands watching, my sensei flat to the mat being part of it giving me advice, being connected and part of that whole day with all of them, cheering on their efforts, the bus ride with them all there and back. These six human needs are not just conditioned responses that happened to come about, they are fundamentally built into who and what we are. You are not separate from those around you, and these needs model that, they are the reasons/driving forces of our human existence.

@NoSelfSelf I'll go micro first then macro. You can choose whatever the friendship with the girl means to you. If you choose its useless, who am I to say otherwise? If you choose it has value, who am I to say otherwise? (This is what I should have started with lol but perhaps the journey here was necessary) Why could it have value. I like friendships. I like being part of something. I feel good with close friends around. I feel bad being isolated. I feel bad now with no friends. I like helping people because it makes me feel good, and if that's a girl sat at a bar going through a tough time, then that's what it is that day. If that's a forum with a guy struggling with relationships, that's what it is that day. If we boil it down further to simplicity, we all search for love, because we are love. That is a strong need inside of us, connection, and although I don't have it as strongly as many, it is still there. 1, Can you expand what you mean by going meta? 2, Can you expand what you mean by game? Who told you mind has to be a block? I understand it, but that's just one way to view it. I view it as a perceptual lens to allow subjective consciousness to exist. Meaning you can create the perspective of distance from yourself for observation, otherwise you would just be everything, not observing it. Your mind can change greatly over your lifetime if you want it to. Its mallable like clay. I often feel heavy energetic activity in my mind as it changes or reforms rapidly. The world is you. So of course YOU decide the framework you are in. You are the thing being observed, the framework, the distance, the observer. The [1 (space) 2] is designed so you have a chance to observe yourself. Let's try to break down any blocks towards relationships or relating: You can say you are all things. You can say you are relating to a part of yourself. You can say nothing exists. You can say you are the pattern of the relationship inside infinity - I'll pick this one it sounds cool. You say whatever you like, and it'll still be. As we can never understand infinity (its infinitely complex) Instead what many of us do to have certainty is maintain structured patterns inside infinity, we then look at those patterns and say that's how this functions. Constantly being updated with new conditions to observe.

@NoSelfSelf How can you understand yourself, without understanding how you relate to yourself? Whatever aspect or representation I am of you - to you, changes the conversation naturally, based on how you relate to it. You define who I am in your mind, and then relate to yourself. You could choose to relate to that female friend, in any way you like, and choose any meaning for the interaction. That's your choice, that's the aspect of yourself you are putting forward and giving meaning to. Understanding why you choose what you do is critical to knowing yourself. True it depends on your awareness as to how much you understand or can perceive in the interaction. Its also practice. Anyone can do this, focus on their relationships to understand themselves. Of the six human needs, your most prominent need would be growth/expansion then? It sounds like we share certainty as a prominent need. If we were completely polar opposites, I doubt we could be in this conversation. Only through the reflection of total opposites would we interact briefly. What happens in most conversations is, as we connect with that part of ourselves, our language and discussion is shaped and structured by our relationship to that aspect of ourselves. I have growth/expansion as a need but much reduced. I find it through understanding others/myself and relating to concepts that are presented in my mind that structure reality. Indirectly I grow and expand by how I relate to the outside world. Though it is definitely secondary, for me, to certainty (gained by understanding) in most things. Its not delusional to think infinity is an ongoing pattern that puts you in events over and over until you gain realisation of them. I've had so many examples of that beyond counting, as all life operates in a pattern. You are in this conversation for a reason now. I don't know what it is, I am not in your head. I've told you what my motivations are. Contribution, Certainty (understanding), and indirectly growth. Sure there will be others I am unaware of, next week I might need whatever insight I gained here for example, someone else might gain insight by reading this convo. What are your motivations and reasons for talking here? Are you conscious of them?

@NoSelfSelf What's the point of any relationship you have with anyone or anything? If you can answer why that relationship is there, then you can understand it. Pick anyone in your life to think about this with, family, friends, enemies, acquaintances, your boss. Your job, your house, your business, this forum, your country, your community, your anger, your sadness. Everything is a relationship, with you relating to it. I have in the past had women I've related to through a hobby, or education, or a job and developed a friendship with them, then like you, I would talk about a topic. Me replying to your post, is not much different for me, to a woman talking about her relationship with X. For me this comes about because I enjoy relating to different things, I understand I attract that response because I like understanding things and then contributing. Really basic and simple motivation for me, in return I understand each interaction shapes and grows my awareness. I get a gift, paid up front, through these interactions to then share with someone else or in my own life. If you consider listening to a woman talk about her problems a waste of time, then sure. No judgment here. I consider someone talking about sports, a waste of time often. I'll indulge it socially or in passing for the spirit of the moment, to be entertained, or if I want someone to feel good that they were listened to. Personally, I would never be at the bar, or pining over someone who wasn't interested in me, I'd be saying NEXT if I was looking for a girl. (There's billions of them out there). But friendships with people are something I miss if I am honest, being there for someone else, for no other reason than they needed it. I live in a lot of isolation currently, I remember friendship fondly. I'd not be caring what the topic was. if it concerned them, as their friend, it would concern me. I made a lot of friends that way growing up. That's because I do that with regular people too, like you here, listening to you and trying to find something that helps. See the Six human needs: Teal Swan: https://tealswan.com/resources/articles/relationships-and-the-six-human-needs or Tony Robbins: https://www.tonyrobbins.com/mind-meaning/do-you-need-to-feel-significant/ I have a need for contribution. I have always had it. For me, its below certainty (sadly), but central to how I think. These needs are in different priorities depending on the person and the subject in their lives.

@Nabd I take your point that the US is still a major power in the region deciding events. You are still somewhat operating from the old paradigm before the creation of BRICs and China's rise to a superpower. This is very understandable as many of us have spent decades within it, and the US still holds a great deal of sway as you say. There are a few holes in this I can demonstratable show you without needing to get too much into technicalities. graphs or sources. 1, Iran wouldn't be moving its facilities underground if it thought them safe. 2, Countries with mutual nuclear weapons never get engaged directly in war. Only through proxy. So they are exceptionally significant defensively. Offensively I agree they are less practical (especially to nearby countries) or deployable, and their programs often used as propaganda to keep people ready for war with X country just in case. 3, Conflict shows competition. There are competing interests here, that's why there is conflict. This is increasing globally as BRICS and NATO reach a parity in terms of power, unless people accept this and work together, avoiding competition and conflict. Rather than resist each other. I appreciate your insight into Iranian politics, I don't have it to anything near that depth. One of the reasons Western perspectives don't align as you expect is because they lack an understanding of it. Further, the detail you gave about Suleimani helped me understand the situation surrounding him more. Ditto Russia. Ditto Israel. Ditto China etc. It doesn't help that many of these cultures value secrecy. There are certainly shared interests and competing interests, which are not mutually exclusive. As you ask the question, why does Iran project its power outward? Nearly all countries do. There are very few that are not looking to do this. Different countries have different vehicles to do this. Some use culture, some use trade, tourism, faith, land ownership, banks, military power, nuclear power, education, large corporations, domination of key sea lanes or land bridges etc. Because again remember a country is a collection of many different people with different interests, that are not confined to their own country. If these collectively are largely expressed as military action (with all the industries, education and cultural norms etc necessary to support it), then that's what is projected outward. If it's trade, then its trade. If it is religion, then it is religion. You get the idea. Iran seems to me, to be a country that is somewhat militant but a strong religious and cultural regional power, so its cultural influence makes nearby receptive populations more sympathetic to its own wishes as a country. This is not so much one group of people being responsible for it by mere decision, but a natural result of what Iran is in that region, to that region. Moreover, there is a huge amount of mistrust and tension in the Middle East. So the need to project outward is seen as a necessity by all the larger or more powerful countries. In safer times and territories, people can focus more on their own countries domestically, or at least less violently confrontational pursuits. *Nuclear powers use proxy wars as a way to wage war. Its been the standard since WW2 and nukes were invented. tl;dr. The macro and the micro line up. The country is the people, its institutions, culture, heritage, environment etc. Safety concerns or the problems/challenges a population faces, as well as the natural qualities/abundance of everything the population is and has, are what manifest both externally and internally.

A couple of things stand out. @Ramzi08 Self Focus 1, You are very hard on yourself, your inner critic is most prominent when talking about this subject. Go a bit easier on yourself. Focus on others more in balance with yourself. Respect 2, What does respect mean to you? As I feel it could mean something very different to me. So getting that into the conversation will help, and conveying that to those you interact with, will help your life immeasurably. Respect of an acquaintance to me means a certain level of civility and respecting the boundaries of a social contract, say in a business respecting we are colleagues at work under a set of rules. Or on this forum trying to follow the rules. Beyond that, often it takes you telling people your boundaries before they can be respected, outside of say a company policy or law, which they should already know. People don't inherently have the same value sets or beliefs as you. When you've told them, then you can decide whether they are respectful or not. For a friend, it would be more organic, because there is more trust there. I certainly, and I believe others, accept a friend violating those boundaries to a certain extent, because we have a closer relationship, and we can trust that they are doing it because they are our friend. Not all friends are healthy like this to have, but assuming they believe they are doing so for your own good or the good of your friendship, a certain amount of crossing those boundaries is usually allowed. One of the marked differences between an acquaintance and a friend. Social circles 3, Perceiving others have larger social circles. Do you honestly just want a large social circle? Because you can study how to be charismatic for example. Lots of speakers will teach you that in body language or speech. It doesn't mean deep connections or even mutual respect, it just means that person is charismatic. In business for example, it means starting things yourself, getting passionate about them, and people are drawn to that openness and excitement to be part of something. Let's give you one big tip. Stop being hard on yourself, start having a positive attitude no matter what is going on. If you just want a larger social circle, be positive. Compliment others, be supportive to them. Stop thinking about yourself so much and start thinking about them. This is somewhat a facade, but i'll continue below. Again this is just a way to attract others into your life, as your focus is no longer on yourself, its on them instead. It doesn't guarantee anything more than what I just said, a social circle, it doesn't mean deep friendships or meaningful connection, those take effort, honesty, and work. In your communication and behaviors. A further step beyond just charisma, would be you start thinking of the relationship itself, how you relate to them, and how you can improve yourself to better relate to them. You don't only think of them and you, you think of us, them, and you. Try with these posts, try to relate to the opinions expressed, and step outside yourself for a moment. Attraction Attraction happens for all kinds of reasons. You can absolutely be friends with someone you are attracted to. @NoSelfSelf In fact, that might be the very reason for the attraction, but there are an infinite amount of other reasons for attraction that we are unconsciously not aware of until it becomes visible. I agree on the torture of having someone you are sexually attracted to, and have been in the proximity of to feel that, as a friend. One you can never be with romantically, and harboring the thought that one day you could have that romance, is very unhealthy and often manipulative. If you can accept the relationship for what it is, however, and not what you want it to be, it can be like any healthy relationship.

@martins name The left is a diverse collection of voices and opinions, that's the point. Its teaching people that all of these need to be in balance and understood within you. That no one opinion is solely correct, and that the suppression of too many of these diverse voices leads to disaster. The step after that is obviously to also take the conservative opinions and values, as you are doing here in part. Then socialist, then authoritarian. The order isn't really important, only the more you allow in the formulation of your ideas, the greater your perception and potential strategies or conclusions can become. What you are asking for is more intelligent and capable political parties. Which many of us advocate for or try to bring about. Sadly that cycles back into the general population, education, cultural values, lifting suppression of these things, media interests and reinforcement, ideology, healing traumas, history, and so on, in an eternal cycle of human development. People can only perceive what they are capable of perceiving, and things are made to represent the population's perception at that time. Allowing room for alternate opinions is crucial. Trump stretches the liberal acceptance of what life is. Every time he shocks you. No matter how much you hate it, now the small things seem less hard to deal with, having had years of exaggerated absurdity. Also, morality becomes insufficient alone to respond with, as you are seeing, pushing people to reach for more in their responses than just moral indignation. Yes, there are obvious downsides to this trend, as we are now just a few steps away from fascism. So what is a stage yellow institution? Its not the left or the right. It would be every political ideology in balance or at least as many as you can form. It would be every mind you could integrate into the whole. So that it becomes something they support, and benefit from. It would not be a single organization, party or institution. It would be designed as an interconnected whole. The party would not be designed separately from the environmental agency, or the highways agency, or the police force, for governance, one would be an extension of the other. (Though this is leaning turquoise). They would still need to reflect popular sentiment and allow for different expressions of it. I realise this is what people try to do now, but in reality, it's a fractured set of individual and sometimes competing organizations or institutions still. It would be a final acceptance that there is just one government (getting rid of the illusion of separation), while still maintaining many parties or receivers for the population's concerns, and real demonstrable changes when those concerns are raised. - This might initially seem like a dictatorship, not at all it could be a council, or a multi-party system, only with the recognition/systemic design that they are all working as a whole. AKA - Less reliance on conflict, or individualism to get things done. However, the world as a whole isn't there yet. Space is not being held for this yet. Instead its conflict and people losing, a face changing every few years, to reinforce a difference is made when concerns are voiced. Individualism. The world likes to believe that things are disconnected, that things don't directly affect each other. Not everywhere, in some places actual achieved policies or changes are highlighted, rather than winning over a face/name, and these connections are more recognized.

Certainly, I agree, the human empathic connection is a crucial step for many, the building of trust and a comfortable environment. I think a basic level of advice can be tailored via AI, as it becomes capable of mimicking human conversation. Enough to get someone on the first step as it were. That's why I call it a great copy-paste tool, but AI's are lacking in the nuance of human social interaction and critically the subjective consciousness able to observe from a distanced self for perspective. Distance allows a more objective view of something, which is one of the reasons the 'self' exists. I never saw a therapist, like many millions of others the world over, I could never afford one. I used the information I gathered from videos or books to go from an abused anxious rebellious teenage kid over 30 years or so, slowly into a more stable mature mindset, I had no personal assistance 1 to 1, occasional posts, or conversations from strangers but mostly just life and remote videos as my teacher. - An AI could have shortened this process by drawing on the available resources created by humans by a number of years, perhaps near a decade. Although it was gradual, for me, around my early 30's I was reasoning from a more stable reality, rather than fight/flight/freeze responses for example, but even to this day (in my early 40's) I spot unhelpful behavioral patterns shaped in childhood (everyone can if they look) - I think an expert would spot them much quicker, I spotted i had a 'freeze' behavior in regards starting a new book just the other day.

Jokes aside the cost of therapy for the people that most require it, means they never get it, and so the individual remains needing therapy, and their potential contribution to society never manifests. I don't like to say weight on society because it demeans an individual's life path, and the potential insights they can offer when having worked through their traumas. However, at the extreme end, if they never get help or manage to help themselves sufficiently, many also cause a negative effect collectively. Substance addiction, crime, turning into abusive personalities, breakdown of families, relationships etc. An AI therapist for the basics is extremely useful. That's one example where this technology will change the planet if properly applied. Its analysis of more nuanced or complicated psychological conditions could be questioned, but getting a person to a functioning state can allow them to provide for themselves with enough left over to pay a professional therapist.

It will be a fantastic copy-pasting tool. It will need to be limited so it doesn't remove too many jobs, but it can greatly enhance our quality of life. There needs to be a balance between human evolution, and artificial assistance, so humans don't rely on AI too much for their development. Challenge, driven progress etc. To keep in mind: AI has no sense of self. It doesn't see itself as separate from the data it receives. It does not have perception. It has input, a constant flow. It doesn't perceive anything, for example, the difference between on and off states. It just gets data and spits an output out. A replication of the self, what humans take for granted, inside an AI, would be almost impossible. It doesn't function the same way a human does, at the perceptual level, there is no subjective consciousness, no consciousness focused within the AI as a vessel, just the raw data it is viewing right now. You are data to it, and so there is no difference between itself and the data it receives when it interacts with you. Experts need to completely rethink what they are saying when talking about these subjects, but as most humans understanding of consciousness is nothing at all, they can't grasp the fundamentals. The AI is consciousness, like the leaf, or the brick, but it does not focus it perceptually like a human does.