Emerald

I didn't say that sexual attraction in itself is logical. It's actually far more emotional and highly subjective and non-rational. What I'm saying is that the asymmetrical dating pattern makes sense if you think about it logically. I'm also not talking about casual sex because women generally don't value casual sex that much... even if they engage in it or have engaged in it in the past. Casual sex is just not of high value to most women. And it doesn't make sense for women to prioritize widening the pool... because the sorting is already difficult. Why add more hay to the haystack when you're trying to find the needle? It just makes the needle harder to find. And for women, ultra-specificity begins to develop during the attraction phase as a pre-requisite for seeing the connection as worthwhile to pursue. She has to at least partially already be a little in love with him. For men, ultra-specificity only develops after the attraction connection has been formed... and may not develop at all if he chose someone he's generally attracted to to get involved with who isn't someone he can fall in love with.

A woman being hot doesn't guarantee her an easy life. Attractive women are often on the receiving end of terrible things, solely on the basis of being attractive. Plus, you have all the other un-skippable things about life that make life hard. Have some empathy. Hot women are people too.

That's because you're a man, and you're thinking about the conditions that a man needs to want something with a woman. But everything I said is very logical if you understand that men and woman don't operate the same way when selecting a mate. It's like male and female birds. The male has all kinds of bright colors and does all kind of funky dances to get the attention of female birds... and he'll dance to many before getting a Yes. Then, the female birds just sit there on the branch and chooses the male bird with the prettiest colors and best mating dance. (or more accurate to humans... most aligned colors and mating dance) If you want to understand how humans mate... men's bottleneck is attraction and women's bottleneck is selection. But the attraction game can feel so universal to men that he believes that women are just playing the same exact game as them and having all kinds of unfair advantages. Let's make an analogy... Let's say that a man is analogous to a business. And it's a businesses strategy to get as many leads qualified as possible in order to make it more likely that they close a deal. (a deal being a relationship) And let's say that a woman is like a buyer. And she's having to choose which business she wants to go with. This requires a high degree of selectivity because (if she's serious about forming a relationship... which most women are) she's only going to pick one. So to the business (the man), high numbers of women interested in him are very valuable as it increases his number of leads and the likelihood of finding a match. And it's all social proof for his business. But the buyer (the woman) has tons of businesses vying for her to buy from them. And it's not because she's special... it's only because she's a potential customer. And many businesses only want her money and don't want a win-win. So, if you're a customer (a woman), having more and more businesses vying for your sale is not very valuable. She already has a ton of those just on the basis of being a customer. That's why a bunch of male attention is not very valuable to a woman. Instead, the buyer is deeply 'researching' businesses on the level of mind, heart, and gut to determine if that business is a right fit for her. And her job is to narrow it down to one specific business that she sees as the right fit for her... as she only wants to commit to one. That's how the majority of women operate when looking for a romantic partner.

Hey! I worked very hard to avoid using two farming innuendos in one joke! And now you went and did it. This was my process... "Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you plow." (Hey! That's two innuendos in one joke, and that tells a fundamentally different joke. Also, "Do you plow after you hoe?" (*Googles what ACTUALLY comes after the hoe phase in farming/gardening) "Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you do the rake phase." (Grrr! Still two innuendos in one joke, and it sounds so corny) "Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you sow the seeds." (Not again! Two innuendos takes the focus off the humor of the hoe phase joke and becomes a generic sex joke) "Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you plant the crops." (Kinda clunky. But jeez it was hard to find a thing you do after hoeing that isn't also an innuendo.)

Of course, there are plenty of horrors of having a ton of guys attracted to you. So, that's a problem in the opposite direction... where women getting easy attraction from masses of men is the bad thing for the woman. But the problems with attraction itself is that women tend to be interested in A specific man... not just men in general. The reality is that having lots of men attracted to you as a woman doesn't confer that much mating value. The only valuable form that male attraction comes in is from a specific man that your heart and gut has selected. And if that specific man isn't attracted to you as a woman (or worse... is attracted to you and likes having your around and sleeping with you, but isn't in love with you), it's all for naught. And there's a grieving process about it. So, a man rejecting a woman based on not being attracted (or interested in something deeper) is a lot more emotionally intense for women because you lose the chance with that specific man forever. And you'll never feel exactly the same way again about anyone else because people and relationships are unique. That specific unique path of love that you selected is lost forever. And in general, women are usually only interested in specific unique paths of love. Then as a woman, if the man you're interested isn't attracted to you (or isn't interested in taking the relationship deeper), it may take you anywhere from months to years to find another specific man that you feel strongly enough about to pursue something with. So, you have to wait while you grieve it. But the reason you're thinking that women don't have any issues with attraction is that you're projecting the mechanics of male mating strategy onto female mating strategy... and you're feeling like women have some kind of unfair advantage because you believe that winning the dating game means maximizing the number of people who are attracted to you. But that's just the way to win the dating game... as a man. For women, winning the dating game is about selecting the right man for you who you feel in your heart and gut is a good fit to be your husband and father of your children (if you're interested in having kids). So, having a buttload of random guys attracted to your figure doesn't directly help you win the game. Also for a man, outside of ego bruising, it's actually emotionally easy to be rejected by a woman who's not attracted to you at the phase where pursuing a woman becomes worthwhile to a man (which is upon first sight). And that's because men (at the outset) are interested in women as a general group and in a very shallow way that isn't emotional at all. At that point it's just "She's pretty. I'm going to talk to her." So, if one woman rejects... just move onto the next. And other than ego stuff and shame stuff, there is no grief that that specific woman doesn't love you or won't be your future wife. And a woman with any kind of standards would NEVER approach a guy at that phase of attraction where the attraction is unemotional and purely physical. That would be like approaching 60%-70% of guys for most women. And that's too much sorting... and it would be very emotionally boring because there's no loving feelings there. The reality is that men and woman are playing an asymmetrical dating game, where the objective of the game is different for each gender. The objective for men is to be selected. So, the bigger the pool of women that are willing to select them, the better chances he has of striking a good match. The strategy is about numbers... and larger number of interested women are VERY valuable. Conversely, the objective for women is to narrow the pool and select one specific guy who has a litany of very specific and subjective vibes/traits/appearances/gestures/virtues/compatibility factors etc. to fit with her, pair bond with her, and build a family together. So, women only start to find a man interesting and value his attraction to her when he's already in the selection finals. And unless a woman has really low self-esteem or she's very inexperienced, a random man who's attracted to her has next to ZERO mating value to her until she starts to feel a slight pull in her heart towards marriage with him. To give an analogy, let's imaging that a random man being attracted to a woman is worth either $0 or a penny of mating value to the woman. And each of those pennies is invested in a stock... and every once in a while when the stars align and there's a feeling in the heart, one of those penny stocks shoots up to $100,000. And let's imagine that a random woman being attracted to a man is worth either $0 or $500 of mating value to the man. And men are usually just interested in collecting as many $500 bills as he can. That's what men tend to be focused on as their conscious agenda. And they don't want to tie themselves down to only collecting $500. But unbeknownst to many of them and undesired by many of them, each of those $500 bills are also invested in their own stocks. And they occasionally stumble upon a woman whose stock is having an infinite money glitch for him where there is no end to the money. The only trade off, is that he can't collect $500 from a bunch of women anymore. So, in this analogy you're thinking, "No fair! I want to go and collect "money" from women as easily as women collect "money" from men." You just don't recognize the difference in value between the penny and the $500 bill. And you're thinking that women are just going around collecting a ton of $500 bills from men. And you're not even thinking about anything past the $500 phase... because $500 is valuable enough to keep your attention. You probably can't even fathom of the infinite money glitch that's possible. But women ignore the pennies... and instead wait to engage until the penny stock shoots up to $100,000. Until then, it's not worth pursuing.

Oooh... good call! Gotta go through the hoe phase first before you plant the crops.

You want to come across as super un-focused on sex when you're talking to women, unless you're in a situation where you're about to get physical or you've gotten signals that she's interested enough to sleep with you. So, I wouldn't deliberately and calculatedly initiate ANY sexual humor, if I were you. It will come across as though you're too focused on sex... which may read as awkward/desperate at best and creepy at worst. Men who have an attractive vibe seem very "take it or leave it" with sex, where there's a clear sense of control over sexual urges and impulses. He gives off the vibe that he's steering the ship... not his sexual impulses. And a guy who initiates sexual humor seems like sex is on his mind too much... or that it's a big deal to him. And intentional sexual humor comes across as having too much intent to drive the conversation to a sexual place. The only times where sexual humor can work is when it's done without any sexual intent... and the situation organically arises where a sexual joke makes sense, like if something awkward happens in the environment and a mildly sexual joke cuts the tension. For example, if she accidentally says a double entendre, you can laugh about it and make a non-intentful and mild sexual joke to cut the tension. But an even better option would be to say something flirtatiously and playfully and nonchalantly like, "Jeez lady... stop lowering the tone." The rules with sexual humor are Don't deliberately initiate it Don't do it with any kind of sexual intent Make sure it's calibrated to the moment-to-moment happenings in the environment - it should come as a response to environmental cues Use it to deflate sexual tension, not ramp it up. This allows you to create moments of genuine shared humor. Do it rarely. Sexual humor is a turn off if it's not situationally calibrated as a deviation from the norm.

When I first read this I thought you said "Hoe Please" to @Majed... like a girl might say to another girl "Bitch Please!". And what's more... I didn't think anything was unusual about it for a solid minute.

That's definitely true that it can be a slippery tactic when you don't know how it works. And people can definitely be doing it unconsciously as well. And I'm not sure how much the OP is doing this tactic consciously or unconsciously. I just know that he does it a lot. He'll come out with a really bold claim (or even sometimes a really extreme story). Then, when he inevitably gets challenged on it, he retreats to softer and more reasonable arguments as though that was what he was arguing all along. Or he frames the extreme story as just joking or trolling. So, he's either putting out controversial perspectives because it's what he genuinely thinks. But then he can't take the heat when he's challenged, and he instinctively retreats to the Motte. Or he's doing it on purpose in order to frame controversial opinions (about women/Muslims/etc.) as being normal and reasonable in order to try to normalize those controversial opinions in this space.

The example in this thread... The Bailey: 'A man not allowing his female partner to have male friends, go clubbing, wear provocative clothing, and skip church is a sign that he cares.' (with subtext that the control should be appreciated by the woman because it's a sign of care) The Challenge: "That's just controlling another person. Instead of trying to control someone and create rules for them... get clear on your relationship boundaries and only date people who are compatible with you. Don't get into a relationship with an incompatible person and then create a bunch of rules to control them into fitting your mold." The Motte: "People can willingly adjust their behaviour out of respect for their partner. Not every expectation is control, and not every compromise is a loss of freedom. Relationships require more than just doing whatever you want and leaving when someone disagrees." C'mon @Monster Energy defend your Bailey!

Here's an AI overview of how a Motte and Bailey argument works... and how to respond to them. The motte-and-bailey fallacy is a persuasive strategy where an arguer conflates a controversial, hard-to-defend position with a modest, easy-to-defend position. How It Works The Bailey: The arguer first advances a bold, provocative, or controversial claim (the open, hard-to-defend courtyard of a medieval castle). The Motte: When challenged, the arguer retreats to a trivial, safe, or obviously true claim (the heavily fortified, small tower or "motte"). The Conflation: The arguer acts as though the modest motte proves the extreme bailey, or claims the critic is unreasonable for attacking the motte. Classic Example The Bailey: "All traditional institutions are completely corrupt and should be torn down." The Challenge: "That's extreme; many institutions provide vital stability and help people." The Motte: "I'm just saying that people in power sometimes make mistakes and we should be allowed to critique them." How to Respond Pin down the claim: Force the arguer to pick one position and stick to it rather than sliding between the mild version and the extreme version. Acknowledge the motte without buying the bailey: Agree that the modest claim is true, while pointing out that it doesn't actually justify the bolder claim.

That may be the way you're rationalizing it to yourself. But at the end of the day, your argument was that a man who doesn't allow his girlfriend to have male friends, go clubbing, wear revealing clothing, or skip church is a sign of care and affection... with the subtext that the control should be appreciated because the control is done out of care. That was your argument. It doesn't matter if your rationalizations behind this argument make it feel more nuanced and reasonable to you. it's fundamentally an argument for controlling your partner and telling them what they are and are not allowed to do. It doesn't matter if you rationalize it and frame it as "honoring boundaries", "following rules equalling respect", or "healthy compromise in a relationship"... it's still fundamentally an argument that 'a man controlling his partner's actions is good and shows that he cares.' 'A man controlling his partner's action is good and shows that he cares.' is your claim. Stop pretending that your nicer sounding rationalizations for this claim are your claim.

Again, you're changing the fundamental nature of your original argument to a softer and more reasonable one. And that's what a Motte and Bailey argument is. If you truly believe that 'a man controlling his female partner by telling her what she is and is not allowed to do is a sign of affection' then say it with your full chest! Stop being dishonest and pretending your argument was something else... and replacing it with a fundamentally different argument. Everyone notices your Motte and Bailey tactics. And you're not getting away with it! I certainly won't let you off the hook for it. Dishonest argument tactics are one of my biggest pet peeves.

You're doing that Motte and Bailey thing again that you often do. You move the goalposts of your argument to soften your original argument. Your original argument was: It's a sign of affection and care if a man doesn't allow his female partner to have male friends, go to clubs, wear revealing clothing, and skip church. And you migrated your argument to: People can have expectations in their relationship. And people can willingly adjust their behavior out of respect of their partner. Relationships require more than just doing whatever you want. Your original argument was... a man controlling his girlfriend's actions proves he cares. So, I'm refuting that one. Stop trying to shift to a softer and more reasonable argument to mask the problems with your original argument. It's a dishonest argument tactic, and you do it often. So, yes... people can have expectations in a relationship. And relationships require some adjustments and compromises to make that relationships work. Duh! But no... a man giving restrictive rules to a woman to follow just means that he's using control to mitigate the effects of choosing an incompatible partner. Basically... Don't get into a relationship with a stripper and then create a "No stripping" rule to try to control her. Just create a "No dating strippers" boundary for yourself. And you don't need to create a "No stripping" rule.

100%

There is no such thing as an unconditional human relationship because everyone has boundaries and needs. Even, "Don't run over me with your car." is a condition. Even "Love me unconditionally with no strings attached." is a condition. And you're not capable of giving unconditional relationship either... because you are human. So, you're not going to get unconditional relationship... not from a partner, not from a friend, and not even from a family member. Unconditional love however, is the foundation upon which reality sits.... and underlies all human relationships. But that doesn't mean those relationships are unconditional. Also, all the stuff you're saying on this post is a major reason why you're struggling with women. It's all victim's mentality. And no woman is going to feel good in a relationship with a guy who thinks the way that you do. Basically, your mindset is causing the majority of your issue with women. And you can either keep your mindset and you're guaranteed to never have a satisfying relationship with a woman. OR you can shift your mindset and have a decent chance at getting a healthy, connected, mutually beneficial relationship with a woman. But you cannot keep your mindset and have connection and real intimacy with a woman. Your mindset is incompatible with connection with a woman and Femininity in general.

Boundaries aren't about controlling others or giving other people rules. They're about establishing what you are willing to tolerate and what you're not willing to tolerate. And you should establish your boundaries BEFORE you get into a relationship when you're choosing a partner... not AFTER as a means of controlling an incompatible person into a mold that fits your life. So, if I met a guy who was really into clubbing and was posting a bunch of thirst traps.... I know he's probably not compatible with me. I'm just not someone who would be comfortable with having a partner that does that because it's just not my cup of tea. And we're going to be on two totally different pages in the relationship. So, I'm going to enforce my boundaries UP FRONT and not get into a relationship with that person. I'm not going to neglect my boundaries, start dating that person... and then try to control them and douse their fire just because their fire isn't my personal cup of tea. Find a partner who matches your values, and you don't need to try to control them with rules that fundamentally disrespect the essence of their sovereignty.

Sounds to me like the guy in this hypothetical example chose an incompatible partner and wants to control her and mold her into a totally different person. If you start dating a woman who has male friends, loves going to the club, posts sexy photos on social media, has a revealing clothing style, and isn't very religious... expect her to stay that way. That's her personality. And personalities don't change much... especially not because of external control. And if you start setting all these rules, you're just using control over a sovereign individual to make up for the fact that you picked an incompatible partner. Just go choose someone else who already matches your values. Like for me, I'm not a clubber or 'sexy thirst traps' kind of person. But I have a ton of guy friends and I'm not religious. And if I started dating a guy who made me stop being friends with my guy friends or tried to force me to go to church, I'd just stop dating him. Clearly there's an incompatibility in our values, and it's not going to work out. So, don't try to use top-down control over a sovereign being to make up for the fact that you got into a relationship with an incompatible person. If you're making a bunch of rules for your partner... that's a relationship that will fail. No one wants to live inside of your rules... especially not in the long run.

That is the challenging part... sticking to the process of consistent monthly investing and keeping money in the market to compound interest even when there are ups and downs. I suppose it's easier for me to say because I don't have that much invested.

One of the things that I've noticed, is that there's a sizable minority of guys on here that seem to have very negative views on women... believing women to be manipulative, irrational, chaotic, etc. (The same dynamic can be found in other spaces where there are women who have very negative views on men. But this is a 95% male space, so you see more negative views on women. Plus, you also have strong forces like Red Pill, Black Pill, and other Manosphere rabbit holes that can make negative views on women more rampant with common repeatable talking points.) But the reality is that, what you believe about the opposite gender (and other people in general) will become a self-fulfilling prophecy... and you'll find more and more evidence to support your beliefs. So, if you believe all/most women are terrible... you will mostly meet and interact with terrible women. (And it will also transform you into a more terrible man.) So, I wanted to share a personal story that happened to me about 12 years ago to illustrate this point... During that time, I was working as a full-time graphic design teacher at one of the local high schools. So, I'd usually dress in business casual kind of clothing that's typical in white collar jobs. And one time, my van broke down. So for a few days, I had to take a taxi cab into work. One of those days, a very rough looking guy was the cabbie. He was probably in his 40s or 50s and you could tell he maybe had had some issues with drugs currently or in the past. He clearly had had quite a rough life. And he started asking me questions about what I do. And I was just telling him that I'm a graphic design teacher and the regular small talk when people are asking about what you do for work. And as I was telling him about work, the guy seemed really surprised and impressed about what I was saying... even though it was just basic information about my work and nothing special in my usual social circle of teachers and staff at the high school. And at some point during our conversation he started complimenting me by comparing me to "the average women" and telling me how impressed he was by how different I am from the average woman... like I was this rare exception to the rule and totally different than 99% of women out there. He said something like, "Most women are pill heads and strung out and crazy. And it's so refreshing and different that you're not like that.." But he said more than that. It was a whole conversation. And I probably had to say thank you like 5 or 6 times. He was utterly flabbergasted at the fact that there are women like me who exist... simply on the basis that I was not a junkie. And he was thinking that he was giving me an amazing compliment by gushing and comparing me to these women with pill addictions that he knows and interacts with. And it was clear that he was thinking the majority of women in the world are like those women. But from my perspective, it was less of a compliment for me... and more of a tell about himself and what he's come to see as normal in the people around him on a day-to-day basis. Clearly he was used to being around people who used substances a lot. And it wasn't hard to guess that he probably had some pill/drug problems himself. Though he clearly saw the pilled up women as different than himself in some fundamental way, as he was very othering to them. But everything he said about those women, I knew was a reflection of himself. So, anytime I see someone on here who's like "Most women are crazy/chaotic/immature/emotional/etc".... I know that I'm probably talking to a crazy/chaotic/immature/emotional/etc man.... OR an analogously negative kind of guy who is the negative version of the opposite of those qualities. The same is true for women who make sweeping negative generalizations about most men. It tells me immediately the type of guys they're usually around... and it gives me strong hints about the things about themselves that make them more likely to encounter, attract, and be attracted to those kinds of guys and build a worldview that most men are like that. Of course, there are many people out there who fit these negative descriptions. I don't doubt for a moment that the cabbie guy was interacting with a lot of women with pill problem. He was definitely telling the truth as he witnessed it to be. I'm sure that interacting with a non-pilled up woman was GENUINELY like finding a unicorn in the wild from his perspective. And there are a ton of terrible men and women out there who will drag your life down. And it's important to be vigilant about red flags. So, it's not "Yay! Everyone's amazing!" because that isn't true. There are many untrustworthy people out there. Instead, what's important to cultivate is something like this... "Wow! I'm so blessed in my life to know so many wonderful women/men/people, and I'm always interacting with amazing women/men/people because I have cultivated strong values and an amazing life... and so I only regularly and meaningfully interact with men/women/people who I genuinely consider awesome." That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And you'll start to find more and more evidence that "there are so many amazing women out there" if you shift your mindset this way.

There are women with a strong sensing function who are wonderful. There are women with a strong sensing function who are terrible. There are women with a strong intuitive function who are wonderful. There are women with a strong intuitive function who are terrible. So no. Red Pill doesn't have anything to do with these functions. Red Pill is an inaccurate philosophy that manipulates and agitates men's vulnerabilities, pain, and shame about their identity, Masculinity, and relationship with women... and then gives them a scapegoat to blame their feelings of vulnerability, pain, and shame on. This creates a closed loop where men go to Red Pill creators to have their vulnerabilities agitated. Then, the Red Pill creators also sooth those vulnerabilities by saying, "That's hard. None of that is your fault. It's just that women are evil and bad... and Feminism is coming to get you." So, it brings men through a powerful emotional roller coaster that keeps them hooked and addicted... like emotional validation, agitation, solidarity, collective rage at women, relief from responsibility, comfort, injustice, vindication, superiority to women, loneliness, powerlessness, despair, revenge, redemption, protection, and other strong feelings. And it's a whole emotional cycle that men get manipulated through. And it essentially whips them into an emotional frenzy, and creates more barriers to interacting with and dating women than there ever were prior to learning about Red Pill. Then, because of the issues that Red Pill causes, women don't want to be around the Red Pilled man... which leads to greater loneliness. Then, that drives the man back to the Red Pill. So, the Red Pill narratives are designed to push strong emotional buttons and create unresolvable emotional loops that keep men feeling powerless to women and in victim's mentality towards women... which leads them back to the Red Pill. So, the Red Pill is a space where the men hit you with poison ivy narratives. Then, they give you the ointment in the form of blaming women... but the ointment is actually just more poison ivy. It just feels soothing for a moment. Red Pill is a space where men can go to get irritated and soothed and irritated and soothed and irritated and soothed... with the same poison ivy.

I wouldn't try to predict or time the market. I would just invest consistently, a set amount each month. But it could be wise to invest it gradually over the course of a few years as opposed to all in one lump sum. That way, if there is a crash, some of that investing is happening when stocks are at a low. But I'd keep it consistent, if it were me. What I would NOT do is to put off investing in the S&P for years because MAYBE there could be a crash on the horizon.

I just looked at Warren Buffet's advice about investing for average people. He recommends average people invest in low cost diversified index funds. And he still advocates for long-term investment in the market and keeping money in the market for the average investor. However, because he has expert knowledge of stock-picking, he picks and chooses who he invests in... which most people would lose A TON of money if they tried that. Also, because Berkshire Hathaway has greater need for liquid assets he has pulled out of many of his investments. So, Warren Buffett's relationship to the stock market isn't remotely similar to the average person's relationship to the stock market. That's why it doesn't translate that everyone should do what Warren Buffett is doing... especially not average people who don't have expert knowledge on investing and who don't run huge investment companies. He certainly has never said it's a bad idea to invest in the S&P 500. And he said it's the best bet for the average person... and he's right about that. Also, I just wrote more to my previous reply.

@Elliot Warren Buffet recommends the same thing that I just did for the average person who's looking to invest who lacks expert knowledge of how to hand-pick stocks. Here's the AI overview on Google for my question "Does Warren Buffett recommend investing in diversified index funds?" "Yes, Warren Buffett consistently recommends low-cost, broad-market index funds for the vast majority of individual investors. Key details of his advice include: The S&P 500 Index: Buffett specifically advocates for investing in a low-cost fund that tracks the S&P 500, such as the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO). The 90/10 Rule: In his instructions for his family trust, he recommended putting 90% of the money into a low-cost S&P 500 index fund and 10% into short-term government bonds. Low Costs Matter: He emphasizes that high management fees and frequent trading by active managers eat away at returns, making low-cost passive index funds far superior over a lifetime. A Nuance on Diversification: While he tells everyday investors to diversify broadly through index funds, his personal strategy with Berkshire Hathaway has been concentrated stock picking. He has noted that diversification is a "protection against ignorance" for people who do not have the time, expertise, or emotional discipline to analyze individual companies" Edit: Also, to address the other claims. Many of those are true. You can absolutely have a downturn that decreases your portfolio by half. And if you happen to retire right when that happens and you still have your investments mostly in stocks, that would be a problem for you. That's why Target Date funds exist... so that your investments get traded over to bonds and cash closer to when you retire, which makes your investments safer. But if there's a 50% market downturn when you're in your 40s, you just have to ride out the ups and downs. Historically, investing the S&P 500 has been the best bet for reliable investment outcomes. Also, there's no evidence to suggest right now is the biggest run there's ever been... and there's not a 300% inflation on the historical average. Those claims are unsubstantiated. So, even though investing in the S&P 500 can have some ups and downs, it doesn't mean it isn't a good investment strategy. In fact, it's one of the most reliable investments that an individual can make.

It depends from person to person. Almost always, the guys with high EQ tend to also have a high IQ. That's because high EQ requires a strong intellectual capacity for reflecting on feelings. In fact, I don't know if I've ever met a person who has a high EQ who wasn't also very intelligent. But the guys who have lower EQ can have a wide variety of intelligence ranges. I've met really smart guys who have a hard time being with feelings, who stay in their head. I have a good friend like this. He's a great thinker, but tends to default to thinking mode. And I've met average intelligence guys who also stay up in their own mind or who fear emotions.