Emerald

I don't know if your comment is directed at me. But the way that people have reliably grown their investments by an average of 10% per year (7% if you factor in inflation) is by investing in a diversified index fund and leaving it in the market for decades. The S&P 500 (and its predecessor before the S&P launched in the 1950s) has reliably returned an average of between 10-12% on investment over the past 100 years. And that 10-12% average includes the '08 crash. So, even if there is some kind of bubble from AI, it's still a great idea to invest in a diversified index fund and just leave the money in there. Time in the market beats timing the market. So, it's not a matter of "trust the experts". It's more of a "Trust that what has been reliably happening for 100 years will continue to happen, even if there are downturns. And trust it enough to keep your money in the market even when there's a dip so that you can get compound interest." And in the unlikely event that the stock market NEVER recovers from a downturn and the historical 10% average return pattern breaks... you'll have a lot more to worry about than losing your investment income. Here's a calculator to show you why it's important to invest in a diversified index fund for retirement... https://www.ramseysolutions.com/retirement/investment-calculator?srsltid=AU7gw4VnkvHOxoD4qesTszrD5JYQNN-5bTAC9dyD-uuFdfPsj8U-3RDm Type in the amount of money you'd like to invest, the number of years before you retire, and assume a 7% return (which factors in inflation), and you'll understand why it's a good idea to invest that way.

Same to you!

Honestly, if I were in your position I would just put the majority of that money in a diversified index fund (like a target date fund) at Charles Schwab or Vanguard. The market tends to reliably return a 7% on investment each year (and that's with inflation factored in). And if you put your money in a diversified index fund or target-date fund now, in 30 years you'll have a ton of compound interest built up... such that your initial investment will only account of like 10% of the money that's in the fund. Then, my understanding is that 4% per year can be taken out to live on it during retirement. So, I'd be careful doing anything risky because that's just a gamble. Of course, if you want to further diversify your investments, you can also put a bit of that money into gold or property or other assets like that as well. But if it's me in that position... I'd put 90% into a diversified target date fund for my retirement.

Of course, I'm a woman... so I'll just share what I've experienced. What I've experienced most often is that the men who have seen me cry have typically responded in two ways... Way #1: They offer a listening ear and ask questions and give me space to feel and vent (which is what I need in those moments). These are the men that I know who are more in touch with their own feelings and who have developed a high degree of emotional intelligence. Way #2: They get a bit overwhelmed and feel like they need to solve the problem. And they tend to get anxious and want to do something to make it stop. These are guys who are more up in the mind who may not feel comfortable with feelings in general. Of course, both of these examples are well-intentioned guys who want to be supportive... it's just that the guy in the first example is more emotionally skillful than the second guy. But that's the only types of guys that I'd feel comfortable being vulnerable with and crying in front of... so my experience of crying in front of men has mostly been positive with few exceptions. That said, I've also met many men who I'd never share any of my feelings with... because they would likely react with contempt, anger, blame, judgment, disgust, condescension, stonewalling, punishment, or other similar responses. And it's usually pretty easy to sense who's going to handle vulnerability poorly. So, I haven't had very many experiences of one of those kind of guys witnessing me crying.

As a woman, it's very easy to sense in a man's vibe if he has an issue with insecurity around women and misogyny that stems from that insecurity. So, I have always steered clear of men who give off those vibes. And most women do the same. And guys who are into red pill (or any other manosphere stuff) always (without exception) give off those vibes to some degree or another. It's pretty easy to sense in a man's energy what his feelings about women are and what kinds of internet rabbit holes he's been drawn into. The issue is that many men believe that red pill is a solution to their issues with women, when it's really just aggravates a man's shame and teaches him to project his anger and shame onto women. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because it repels women. Think of it like an energetic cologne that a man wears because he learned that it would make him more protected from women and/or better with women. But when most women smell that cologne, they stay away. The number one takeaway here is... "That which you learned is the cure has been the poison all along."

If you've met two women that this describes recently... My question is... 'Where are you going to meet women?' and 'Do you tend to be attracted to and/or feel more comfortable around women who might be predisposed to having messy lives or choosing partners that are bad for them?' Like, in the area that I lived as a teenager, it was really common to know people who had family/friends/partners in jail or prison... or people who had been to jail themselves. It was a working class area with many working poor people. And it was kind of a rednecky trailer park kind of place. And standards of behavior were quite low for many people in my hometown, in my neighborhood. Though it was on a spectrum. There were people who kept their lives together. But there were plenty of people who had low standards morally and otherwise. So, if you've recently met two women who have partners in prison, my thought is that you're interacting with women who are from an area with a lot of poverty where standards and expectations are low... or who are naive and inexperienced... or who are chaotic themselves... or even just women who have low self-esteem. If there's a pattern of meeting women with partners in prison, you may be fishing in a pond that leads you to meeting women whose lives have been difficult and chaotic.

Is your female friend with a guy who's a killer? Or did he do something else to get into prison? I'm just saying that the woman you know might have gotten with the guy before he got into trouble. And if she's devoted to him and loves him, she may be overlooking his problems in the same way I was overlooking the problems with my boyfriend from my teens. And it's easy to see the positive parts of someone... even if they have really terrible facets to themselves as well. But it often comes from inexperience and naiveté. When I was 16, I could see the good parts in my then-boyfriend. And I didn't realize the real consequences to being in a partnership with ANYONE... let alone someone who's reckless in their life. From how you understand it, you seem to be under the impression that this woman started dating a prisoner who was already incarcerated. And that would be very unlikely.

From the age of 16 to 20, I had a boyfriend that I loved very much. But he couldn't do right by himself. So, he was always in and out of jail for driving on a suspended license and other small "can't keep his life together" things. But I started dating him before he'd ever gone to jail. So, I was just sticking with him in the ups and downs because I was really attached to the idea that he was my forever partner. And it was soul crushing for me during the times that I had to talk to him behind glass. Staying with him was a bad idea, of course. His chaotic life would have dragged my life down. But I wasn't attracted to him and in a relationship with him because he was in and out of jail. I was initially attracted to his Devil May Care ways that he operated when we worked together as teenagers... as he would do all kinds of zany outrageous things. And he also had a lot of great qualities... though he was always threatening to bust random dudes' kneecaps out, if they got on his bad side. It was a bit of a catchphrase for him. So, I was just really devoted to trying to make a bad relationship work with a guy who was running his own life into the gutter. And I eventually had to break it off. But it was hard, because I was with him for 4 years... which was 20% of my life at that time. And I really cared about him and saw the good parts of him... which were definitely there as well. That's what I suspect is the case in 9 out of the 10 situations where a woman is with a guy in prison: They met before he went to prison and she stuck with him during his incarceration. So, in most cases, the woman probably isn't like "Yay! A jailbird! So sexy!"... unless she is equally likely to be a chaotic jailbird herself. But with the lady you brought up... she probably got with the guy before he went to prison. And then, she stuck with him. And while that may or may not be a good decision (depending on how likely it is that he repeats this problem), it tracks with the level of devotion that many women have towards their partners. Then, the other thing of "women falling in love with serial killers"... that's TOTALLY different. Those are just crazy women. And they hear about a high profile court case and decide they want to be Mrs. Jeffrey Dahmer. Also, women liking true crime does not mean they're attracted to criminals. I have friend who LOVES true crime. But she's more interested in it from a figure out who the killer is and bring justice perspective.

Yes, that's exactly what I see too. There's a lot of asynchronous development, where there's high development on some topics but below-average development with regard to certain domains of maturity and day-to-day life. And unfortunately, being the "guy who's transcended social needs" is something that increases social capital in this culture. So, it creates a personal development culture that stunts personal development in many domains.

Nevermind. I misread it as, "Can you have your philosophies and your pride?" as an answer back. And I thought you were doing the thing you often do where you just make the same remark back... or you say some quippy snarky deflection thing that adds no value. What I meant is that, you can have pride in "being above relationships" or you can have philosophies like "men don't need relationships." But neither your pride nor your philosophies will prevent you from feeling the sting of being a lonely old man... if you don't start making friendships and having relationships. Many of the men on this forum have philosophies they're very proud of that make them believe they're above relationships. And they go into denial of that need. So, when you said "It's different for dudes"... that was your philosophy and your pride about 'being a man and not needing relationships' operating in a way that may one day culminate in you being a lonely old man. And I was trying to dispossess you of that notion.

I don't know why I even bother attempting to have a conversation with you. I'll remember not to reply in the future.

Very well said. The issue is that this space creates a culture of ego blustering and grand-standing... and not admitting to needs and vulnerabilities. So, it's more likely to get applause when there's a young guy who speaks of "transcending" relationships. It's like, "Good job! You are WAY better than the sheep." But it really just allows him to reframe an issue and unmet need as a strength of character. And that stunts growth their... whilst believing that he's already gotten to a very high level that no average person can touch. It's a very insidious issue in this forum's culture... because anti-social values can stunt growth while convincing you you're growing.

It's arguably even more urgent for men... as I've noticed that many men can tend to convince themselves that they can just be independent and need no relationships. You're a young person now, and you can have your philosophies and your pride. But you don't want to one day be an old man that nobody knows.

Foregoing relationships will only make you less conscious. I really dislike the culture that gets set up in this social group... to look down on the tendency to exist in a social group... whilst spending a lot of time interacting on the social group. It's like the blindspot of this forum. It's a social group of people of whom many are putting on horse-blinders and engaging in group think about, "I am above social groups and group think." or "I have transcended the need for romantic relationships." Just let yourself be human and meet your social needs (romantically and platonically)... without making it about transcending your humanity (or pretending to, in order to convince yourself that you're on a higher level). And this is not specifically geared towards you. Your post is just one example of a pattern that I see all the time. It's a pattern that I see like 75% of this forum engaging in... and it's unhealthy. But it's also a form of social virtue signaling in a social context that's in deep denial that it is a social context. It's like many of the people here have to create an illusion that this isn't just a social club, in order to allow themselves to meet their social needs here. So honestly, if you care about personal development, your best bet for growing and maturing and learning is to engage in relationships and friendships.

Many women tend to be attracted to men who have a bit of Femininity to them... as long as those men are attracted to women. Think about guys from boy bands, many famous actors, make-up wearing 80s hair metal band guys in their heyday, Tom Holland dancing around the Umbrella song like a hot woman, etc. Also... case in point...

@Kalki Avatar It's important to understand this. Pay attention, and you'll see it all the time. Your perspective is a self-fulfilling prophecy... The man who believes most/all women are terrible will meet mostly terrible women. The man who believes many women are wonderful will meet mostly wonderful women. The woman who believes most/all men are terrible will meet mostly terrible men. The woman who believes many men are wonderful will meet mostly wonderful men.

Personally, I really get a lot out of monogamy because it concentrates all my sexual and romantic energy all into one person... and it becomes a closed intimate loop without any energetic "leakage". And it's a lot more intense than if I were to have multiple partners because all the energy is concentrated. During times where I had leakier sexual energy or I was with someone else who had leakier sexual energy, it just didn't feel like sex was very meaningful or interesting. And things feel kind of "meh". So for me, the narrower my focus is (like a laser-beam) the more transformative and deep things are. But if I keep my romantic and sexual energy open and going out to more than one person, it just feels like it gets too diluted and not as meaningful. And I'm even working on creating even firmer boundaries around my sexual energy in day to day life, as it makes life a lot more spicy for me. So, I don't think monogamy would ever become obsolete because a lot of people get a lot out of devoting themselves to a deep and narrow path with a partner... and sending all their sexual and romantic energy in one direction. Though, when I was in my teen years, I still had a lot of sexual experimentation and self-discovery that I wanted to do... which conflicted with my desire for monogamous intensity with one partner. So, I can see a lot of young people being resistant to monogamy. And that might be where the impression that monogamy will become outmoded or obsolete comes from. But there will always be people who want to take the deep and narrow path with one partner... even in a world with no religious rules or sexual shame. And that's because limitation increases depth, intensity, and meaning... in a variety of contexts. So for me, this desire for the deep and narrow path expresses itself as a monogamous orientation in relationships. And it also expresses itself in my tendency to choose one North Star for my career.... and to devote myself to my one singular craft. (I always admired that my dad has been a mechanic since he was 10 years old. And he's still a mechanic today at age 66. And I decided I wanted to be a teacher when I was 5 years old... and that craft has always stayed with me.) And it also expresses itself in small ways. Like, I don't multi-task. I want to focus on one task until it's complete. And I hate being interrupted when I'm in the middle of bringing a single task to completion. So, that might help you see what people get out of monogamy outside of cultural and religious expectations. But if you feel like you can truly devote yourself fully to 5 women even when things are boring and your wives are familiar to you... and all the sexy hormones have died down because of old age, then that's also a deep and narrow path of sorts. So, if you can be with each of them... and hold their hand on their deathbeds if they die before you, then that's okay. But will you still want it if it's not sexy and exciting anymore? Or will you leak your energy from these 5 marriages and look to seek more novelty... dreaming of a different castle with different wives? And to be clear, I'm fine with polyamory. That tends to be people who thrive spreading their energy around in a breadthy way. Truly polyamorous people are like bees in this way... very communal and social. I have a close friend who's this type of person, and polyamory is perfect for her and her husband. They're definitely bees. But whenever a guy states a preference to have multiple wives, it reads as a fantasy and novelty-seeking. And I suspect that most men wouldn't actually be interested in the reality... because, if 1 wife gets boring and isn't enough.... 5 wives will also get boring and won't be enough. That said, it may really be your preference. And if you can find women who are interested in that lifestyle... who all also get along with one another, then that's no problem. Just don't be under the impression that monogamy isn't a genuine preference.

I'm trying to get a sense of how much it's a fantasy... and how much of it is a decisions being made with the reality in mind. Most men would fantasize about it... and most of those same men would get fed up with it quickly because it isn't the idyllic vision they had in their head. Edit: Also... a marriage isn't meant to be something you do when you're young and not when you're old. If you marry someone, you marry every age they are thereafter. So, if he's not okay with being an 80 year old with 5 wives in their 70s and 80s, then he's just operating from a fantasy.

100%

@LordFall Why is that the specific vision that you gravitate towards? What does it mean to you (or about you) to be the guy who has a castle and five wives? And how do you imagine that your daily life is going to look like in 10, 20, 30+ years. Will you still want these wives when you're all in your 70s or 80s?

I'm 5'2". And as long as a guy is taller than me, it wouldn't be a dealbreaker. Yet again, I also find Peter Dinklage attractive. So, maybe height is not a dealbreaker at all. I just find that most of the guys I've been romantically attracted to over the years have all happened to be between 5'7" and 5'10... either average or shorter side of average. And I've never specifically tried to avoid dating guys who are over 6ft. I just happened to be interested in specific guys who were average height or a bit shorter. So, even if I aesthetically appreciate height in the abstract... it doesn't seem to draw me that much or motivate me to seek out a romantic connection. Otherwise, I'd have selected for much taller partners and/or have more crushes on taller guys, if it did. So, while height tends to be a more classically handsome quality and most women would find taller guys more attractive than shorter guys in the abstract, I don't find that increase in general attractiveness that tall guys have very compelling as I'm much more tuned into the guy's specific personality and physical appearance. And many women (perhaps most) are probably selecting for other factors that pertain more to personality and facial looks/figure being generally a looks-match to themselves. Really, as long as you don't register to a woman as unattractive facially and figure-wise, you probably don't have to worry that much about physical traits like height being a disqualifier... especially if you are taller than the woman in question. So, if you're worried that there won't be women interested on you because of your height, then I can assure you that's not true. OR if you're worried, "All women always prefer the taller man", that's also not true. As long as you're over a particular woman's "non un-attracted to" threshold (which will be around her level of physical attractiveness... and maybe a degree or two in either direction), your height won't be a dealbreaker... and the focus will be more about your personality.

Well said

God itself doesn't seem to think so... at least not from my experience. What I experienced in my medicine journey is that it loves all games. I'm sure that it just as infinitely loves iterating as a sea barnacle as it does also infinitely love being some guru on a mountain top. But all of those are just story characters.

Yes, that's one of the main issues. Even operating off the notion that there is a higher consciousness over lower consciousness... is to be operating from a relativistic perspective. And because this relative perspective is being conflated with the absolute perspective.... it creates a trap where the person gets stuck in the relative because of ego-attachments to superiority, while believing that they're operating from a higher conscious place. But in the absolute, the consciousness of the chimp and the enlightened guru are one and the same. And there is no hierarchy there, from that perspective. It's all just different iterations of the same consciousness. So, that's why it's important to not get too bogged down in identities of being "Higher consciousness" and judging others as lower consciousness. It's all relative anyway.

That's not anything close to what my argument is. Re-read what I wrote. Leo is definitely talented in the department of consciousness and intellect compared to most. I am also talented in this way. So, are many on this forum. (Though most people on this forum do also have major blindspots that the average person doesn't have, because of the issues that I highlighted) And it's not inherently an issue to acknowledge people's talents/skills on a practical level, as human specialization works that way. The issue is believing that this particular human specialization that Leo has (and many in his audience have) is fundamentally different and superior to other human specializations... and looking down on others who don't possess this specialization and calling them chimps. It would be like a bunch of plumbers getting together and operating under the notion that plumbing is the most important specialization. Then, they call all non-plumbers chimps. The issue is the ego inflation and placing arbitrary hierarchies regarding human specializations on top of reality to justify and maintain that ego inflation. So, sure... Leo is relatively talented/skilled with consciousness and intellect. But it's unwise to create an identity out of it and view other people through that lens... as it creates disconnection. Like, I remember when my son was in 4th grade, he started getting some of the same kinds of ideas. He'd heard online that other Gen Alphas are uniquely stupid compared to other generations on some random YouTube Short. (Of course, that's always been said about every generation of young people) So, he started thinking of himself as the exception to the rule, and like a uniquely non-stupid Gen Alpha kid. So, I had to sit him down to talk to him about it and dispossess him of the notion that Gen Alphas are all uniquely stupid... as it was creating difficulties with socializing with peers... and creating shame about being his own age. (Similar to how people who view themselves as better than other humans can develop shame about being a regular human being) Though he was always trying to hang out with his older sister's teenage friends... who were nice to him. But he couldn't get a true peer relationship with them. Then, the next year over he was able to let go of that superior identity of being "the only non-stupid kid" (similar to "the rare conscious person among chimps"). And that enabled him to make some friends who were on the same wavelength. And I see this same pattern playing out all the time on this forum. So, I'm content to have the same kind of conversation with Leo and anyone else who's caught up in that kind of pattern... as it's just not good to be caught in that trap.