Jacobsrw

@Origins What a story my friend. You seem to desirably go on irrelevant tangents to entertain topics with no relatability to the subject matter. Personally I disagree with your assessment of culture. You have it completely backwards in my view. Genetics is an emerging property of culture. How can you not see this? Your mind is right now doing such an act. Genetics is a theoretical proposition stemmed by the metaphors of language and concept which cultures have collectively created. These theoretical positions you so firmly revere are founded by the minds of scientists assuming the objectivity of a material reality, which is an illusory hallucination at work. The materialistic paradigm is a fabricated mental presupposition one then conveniently applies to reality. I feel you undermine the metaphysics of language, culture and the mind, thereby, fortifying materialistic aspects of human society to fit a naive realist view of the world. They are but one factor to explain life and do very little to explain the very core existential domains of self and existence. Fundamentally, they are ambiguous abstractions from reality. Yes the other factors you mentioned are important (class, attachment, historical predispositions etc.) I agree. However, I was using a general schema to asses the dating culture between that age group. Which seems far more enduring than you are giving it credit. This was not intended to be an encyclopaedia analysis for which a thread could never account for. For that we would need much more breathing room. Also I never spoke of other countries, my critique was directed toward developed western societies specifically. Please refrain from incessant insults, it’s not a good look on a forum of this type nor the integrity nor maturity of your responses.

Again you are making groundless ad-hominem attacks. Stick to the topic instead of the speaker from which it comes, clearly intellectual integrity is of no importance. I don’t agree with your scientific assessment. I am aware of those functions of the brain you mentioned within the biology of a human. However, I do not agree with your proposition that simply they constitute the basis of a humans drive regarding attraction. You’ve missed the most important part of this dilemma which is culture and transmuted conditioning, something I first mentioned to begin with. That is by far more influential than merely ones neurological make up. Epigenetic's attests to such a claim. One basis attraction toward another according to the society from which they live within and the standards it purports. You weren’t innately born attracted to a particular type of appearance, you learnt to be. I made my argument based on demographics between ages 20-30 which you also seemingly overlooked. Above this age, attraction disperses into other more elaborate areas. Before this it’s premature and quite crude. You should be able to evidently observe this just simply by assessing spiral dynamics stage orange. And no you have misunderstood my argument. I stated women who fit the stereotypical attractiveness veer toward males deemed more shallow in their personality and interests. Refer to my character types above. If you have not observed this along a spiral dynamic lineage than you have undermined earlier discussions on ego development. I never stated prettier women have a lower IQ or intellectual capacity, that is your input you have masked over my thread. I was referring to males and their value systems, interests and personality which pretty women seem to be attracted. That is merely a reptilian explanation.

Very entertaining But seriously dude you need to find something more productive with your time than misrepresenting people to whom you have never personally met. You have completely diverted the topic once again, provided no reasonable opposing views and deployed a groundless motive of disfranchising and insulting a speaker. You appear to be what we would call an ultracrepidarian. It seems you are projecting quite a lot, but I am aware this will be again deflected to someone else irrelevant in attempt to divorce yourself from such an idea. @Leo Gura I think we have another troll here. I recommend blocking this individual since no good discussion has been made apart from fruitless insult.

Nice ad-hominem attack and complete aversion of the topic at hand. Reactive ego mechanism much? I hope you aren’t one to fit in this category. Clearly you lack the both the maturity and coherency in your interpretive capacity as I was making an argument about observable factors if you care to look. This has nothing to do with my personal life it’s to do with society and it’s current state in which we exist. Ps. This post also had nothing to do with sexual intimacy. I’m glad you threw that in their as an attempt to validate the redundant absurdity of your post. Come back when ready to entertain a proper discussion worthy of response, like others within this thread.

Because much of what you consider yourself is based on thought, if not all of it. So seemingly, it appears easy to confuse yourself with the nature of thought since your apparent existence is made up of them. But really you should be able to notice that your thoughts interchange, much like that of an ocean. Oscillating, flowing and crashing but your awareness of them still remains. All your thoughts about yesterday change instantly but the you aware of them stands maintained. Make a conscious effort to observe this.

While true I feel you are over looking relativity here. Pardon my criticism but your view appears very nihilistic in such a case. These things are not merely a function of life, they’re a function of human greed, delusion and narcissism. Humans do not accord to the same laws of nature. When humans make decisions to kill another or nurture them, that very dichotomy is based on their level of development not the natural will of existing. A rapist may rape a child by virtue he is an unstable manic needing help, that does not justify the inhumanity in it. Not all actions should be equated the same treatment. Women can select a shallow guy but should not be so foolish as to complain after finding out he is holds little value in fulfilling her.

Why even bother posting such a redundant view if it aims to depict such naivety? I clearly stated this was my view and the evidence is derived from my observations and direct experience. Clearly you have jumped the gun in your effort and claims to denounce what has been said by any means. I implore you to contribute more fruitful responses when taking part in such a conversation opposed to being reactive to it. I care because many of these people I know personally, are either friends or those I previously met, and are completely lost in this particular culture. I care about the state of human psychology, thus, felt the urge to share my views as I have before. Ps. Bias is inescapable, just the very fact you posted a response is an act of bias on behalf of the very perspective you hold. While I agree with your bottom statements. From experience, I typically do not find the prettiest women to be the slightest attractive in either the cosmetics of the looks or the nature of their personality. For now, I am far more interested in my career and life itself, along with networking with friends of both sexes. I made this post on behalf of my observation of friends and deep interest in psychology. Please don’t make blanket assumptions regarding my personal life.

I’m not sure I completely agree with you here. You seem to making this argument on the basis all average guys expect the prettiest women. I would say the argument is more that average males would like to be afforded similar opportunities in relationship as that of a shallow douchey guy, from which women seem to gravitate. A stereotypically attractive woman would also do best to refrain from complaint once realising the typical shallow male doesn’t fulfil her, another thing I commonly observe. But I often see a repeated cycle of the same dating strategy in this circle, which really renders loss for both parties. Not all average men expect the prettiest girl to fall on their lap. They expect their character to be considered equally as that of a male shallower and less grounded than them whom fail to even fulfil a woman to begin with. Most of them I suspect desire a decent relationship with someone they find attractive. The problem is many of these people are in toxic relationships ages 20-30. But I do agree that both women and men deserve the same expected treatment in relationships. The problem is who they enter them with.

True. But what do you have to say about the hard working small business owner or conventional civilian who earns their share? Should they not deserve the same opportunity? Rarely do they receive it.

Yeah I feel you. Its disappointing right because many of these women have immense potential but settle for the superficial values fed to them by mainstream culture. Right now I'm focusing on my business and career and if a genuine relationships transpires from my social interactions so be it but I wont be seeking for it that's for sure haha. Hope that area of life is going well for you equally. No I am not completely doubting that. But there's a massive difference between Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos's, Bill Gates and the head chairman of Mc Donald's or Wall street. This distinction must be drawn. Elon Musk cares more about the development of human society than he does an attractive woman id say. However, wall street brokers are often materialistic and shallow in what they value which seems to attract them women who enjoy the superficialities of success opposed to human connection. These women, in particular are stereotypically supermodels. Ps. Just as aside not I do not often find super models attractive, they seem too fabricated personally. Agreed, there are plenty of decent women out there but they aren't as pronounced nor visible in the most common areas one could find them. The woman one would seek on a forum such as this would not be hanging on tinder or at a club I suspect, from my observations that is.

That was never stated in this thread. The argument was stated as a probabilistic statistic that seems more common than not. I would not deem it entirely true, which I previously stated, there are anomalies. But to the main point, which was that this particular trend is pervasive in society that's the main area of concern. One must be careful not to deem all earth on which they walk upon rich in gold after finding just one nugget.

That maybe true but you seem to forgetting that these women make up a very small proportion of those who end up with millionaires and billionaires. A far sum of millionaires date models and public figures those of whom they also deem successful. If you assume success is the metric of a decent woman or that of what you attract I argue that would be a poor criterion for analysis. Plenty of simple living people are far deserving of relationships that do not receive them. Must they accumulate ridiculous success and wealth? I argue that the metrics by which dictate a pretty woman’s attraction to a man is generally shallow. That is my main argument. You seem to picking out anomalies to dismiss this.

It’s my disappointment in the culture of relationships, not my success in them. I don’t see many of them between ages 20-30 stemming from a genuine place. I am saddened by this state affairs more than I am in reaction to it. To see what drives the typical relationship in modern culture is far from inspiring, that is my point. If you are inspired by this that’s cool but personally I would say I am not, call that what you will. I am inspired to shift it into new realms opposed to sit by and watch it recede. Which my work in business and personal development I wish to do. To be honest with you, I would deem myself fairly proficient in dating. My communication and conversational skills are great and I have confidence in my appearance and what I have to offer. Previously I have attracted good looking women and as such found the fair sum of them work by the metric I previously mentioned, go figure. For this reason and others, I lack interest in the world of dating. It seems to have an untenable toxicity within it, filled with excessive hedonism and materialism. I value intrinsic things in life that are far simpler such as art, nature, creativity, long term projects, reading and study. Yet I fail to see such interests very pronounced in the dating world. Hence, my disinterest in voyaging out into it. I’d rather socialise purposely and meet people in places i am more likely to hang with opposed any woman I simply find attractive on the street. That’s not to say every person fits into this category but it seems to be quite consistent and common.

I’m not sure I would say it’s projection. You could say that, but I am merely stating what is seemingly evident in culture. It’s both observable and testimonial. Please explore this and see for yourself if it holds true. I make that assumption based on the culture from which these women derive themselves. That being, internet culture, public figures and celebrity influencers. This culture is wrought with materialistic and shallow interests. Explore the demographic of millionaires and you will see most of their partners are models, celebrities or media influencers. Neither of these domains provide deep value, if you think otherwise that is a view I fail to concur with. I don’t completely agree with your last statement. Many of these men are just not found to be attractive to women I have described. A man with a purpose may seem attractive due to his motivation for success. However, to a woman so involved in her appearance she cares more about the time you have to validate her opposed to the time spent on your career. A super creative male in the zone with his career is not going to appear attractive if he isn’t emotionally available. Hence a woman is less likely to be attracted.

Fair point. Except you’re forgetting the billionaires who apparently the “smarts” which then pulls extremely shallow women. They of course are anomalies. My aim was to identify enduring personality characteristics not box people into them. Anyone can grow. Hahaha not to be rude, but I don’t find a girl of such standards holistically attractive anymore. They tend to be as shallow as the men they pursue, so I’d rather not. Previously when I was working out and shallow myself I would attract prettier women but undesirable as of now. If you are as attractive as Scarlett Johansson and as deep thinking as a brick I’ll be looking elsewhere. Attractiveness is important but that which lies behind it is far more. Ps. I never said I was smart, I would say I am far more conscientious. Take that as you will

Thats true. However, your second statement is quite the naive assumption. Previously I would be completely egocentric and concerned with these matters but nowadays I have become the complete inverse. Self-development, study and spirituality tends to lead one to new terrain. I would say I am grateful for my situation but also passionate to change this dynamic. Hence, my post here and my current involvement in the field of healthcare and Human Resources. These delusional notions need to be seen for what they are, not untenably criticised. If you but read with an open mind I was simply making an observation not a judgment.

That’s probably a better way to put it. However, I’d argue many men whom fall into these categories are extremely needy. For example, I man driven by status and appearance is completely dependent on the opinions of others to maintain him. Thus, he will deploy all energy in effort to achieve receiving them. Perfect example are public figures and influencers. Another example is the party goer or hedonist type still exercises neediness by virtue of requiring material objects and others to validate their activities and participate in them. In fact, you could argue that these characteristics “appear” non-needy but in fact are.

Very true. It’s frightening to see though. I was aware of this many years prior but to see it action on the day to day is something else. Yeah my hope is this is just a stage for most people

Soul I haven’t seen it but apparently it’s quite eye opening in regards to life purpose. Looks quite good

That’s true. Excepted it depends on what you mean by genes. There’s the ideological theory of genes or the apparent reality of genes which may be nothing more than a hologram.

Both of these theoretical worldviews are equally flawed from my own analyses and reflection. Just as is all theories, beliefs and worldviews. Determinism Determinism argues that ones foreseeable future is predetermined by virtue of where they began. This is a complete fallacy if we accept reality is in constant change and flux. Epigenetic’s, neuroplasticity, quantum physics and the relativity of space and time all debunk this notion. A beginning can not determine an end if the changes in between it manipulate its unfolding process. We can observe this in nature. Whereby all ecosystems are completely different form the beginnings they first sprung. A forest or river morph, grow and deplete according to the surrounding weather and inhabitants that feed it. The earth has evolved and transmutated more times than any other observable part of life. Another good example is one who is born impoverished and maltreated. This person can turn their circumstance around providing they have the resources available. Or they may just choose to respond differently and make use of what they have been dealt. Either way, one is manipulating their forthcoming reality. Freewill Freewill is the inverse of determinism but is just as absurd. It argues one has independent autonomy and control over the outcome of their life and the decisions they conduct. At first this would seem true. However, at a fundamental level almost all functions we operate are autonomous to our conscious choosing. The many thoughts you concoct daily are not of your choosing. You do not choose how many thoughts to have at a given moment. Or which ones will overcome your mind at a given time. They arise at their own will completely dependent upon your state of mind and circumstance. How you respond to the manifestation of thoughts can be chosen by you but not the arising of them. This can be extrapolated to biology as well. Almost all functions of the body operate without your conscious intent. You do not consciously choose how to beat your heart, pump your blood, digest food, or when to be tired etc. It’s accurate to argue one can put forth particular actions and behaviours that influence change upon these functions. Yet it is complete delusion to believe one can independently will them. And finally, both of these theories are conceptual. Which means they are abstracted from reality. There is no determinism or freewill inherently held within the theory determinism and freewill. They are simply abstractions, thought forms taken out of reality to understand through a human lens. Which means they are invariably fragmented and limited, as all theories are. At a metaphysical level both of these belief systems are dependent on mind and hold no objectivity of their own. They imply language, thought and concept. Which renders them unequivocally limited and secondary. Theories and beliefs are predicated on a mind which is it’s self another conceptual belief. Why is all this important? Because many of us act from the presupposition of these paradigms and find ourselves at the mercy of their principles. When just a short analysis reveals how absurd they really are. Figures such as Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, who actively pontificate about these topics, only further compound the problem and delude audiences. We need to reflect upon given theories ourselves and determine the fallibility or truthfulness of them. A better way to consider life is that of the Lao Tszu’s explanations. The Tao Te Ching. “Those who flow as life flows need no other force” – Lao Tzu Life is like an ever changing river that should be moved with. Would love to hear others thoughts on these topics. Especially from those who follow ides of this sort. Fire away.

I completely agree! We invariably move with motions of reality

Yes I would completely agree with what you said. I was just simply pointing out that the finite experience of a self must still be accounted for, hence, our discussion here. Theories and concepts are subsets of the larger picture we call ‘god ‘ or the ‘absolute‘, yet they still play an integral part in the egos development and its transcendence. Sorry if I misquoted you but I was using leap frogging as a figure speech to represent the process of awakening.

That’s very true. Although I never stated determinism claims a single cause determines others or that it strictly concerns its self with beginnings. I stated that determinism argues pre-existing circumstances determine the nature of those forthcoming. I used the term ”began” to analogise my statement. Determinism is concerned with experiences which are influenced by what preceded them. How things came to be what they are now in other words. These questions are born as a function of duality not reality being limited. The mind is limited and thus, applies its limitations upon reality to diminish reality’s infinitude. What else could a limited entity do? I disagree with this comment. Reality is always in flux. Yes particular patterns continue to occur within it but this does not support the argument of determinism. It supports probabilistic occurrences, ones that are more likely to occur than not. However, they are still not guaranteed. This says nothing about a determined reality. It demonstrates a reality that can maintain consistencies and patterns but at anytime can change, which they tend to do. E.g. weather patterns. My comment in no way guaranteed a response. It had nothing to do with determinism, I don’t see the relationship here but the one it seems you have applied. Responses to my post are probable. In fact, I was under the assumption it would render no responses and be ignored due to the lack of interest in philosophy I often see around here. Ironically.

Yes from a absolutist point of view thats very true. However, relativity still exists in the domain of mind and provides utility in exploring. We live in a mind of dualism, thus, should seek to understand the fallacies that lie within it. Leap frogging aspects of reality can be just as delusional as staying asleep.