Jacobsrw

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    884

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jacobsrw

  1. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    35 minutes ago, Origins said:

     

    Very entertaining xD

    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.

  2. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    37 minutes ago, Origins said:

    @Jacobsrw

     

    God you sound like a cuck!

    You have zero fucking understanding of the human condition.

    Grab your dick and learn how to use it.

    But first grab your squirmy wormy mind and flush all the fucking shit out of it then go after that pussy that needs your nice black dick inside and your sweet lovin. Give her the fucking of her life every god damn time. Release the universe son, release it. Just don't get pregs but which belly would the baby end up in yours or his? I mean hers.

    I mean what the fuck. No. Just no. You're not prepared for this topic AT ALL.

    I'm doing you a favour.

     

     

     

    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.

  3. Posted

    3 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

    Ive had multiple "awakenings" where that voice seems just a thought, and that's it. Like a colour you see, or a sound you hear.

    BUT, most of the time, like 99.99% of the time, that voice seems a self. (And it's me, obviously).

    But this voice actually started contemplating itself just a few seconds ago. It accepted that it feels very real. "How this is not a self?" The voice said.

    Why does it feel so real? It seems very real that THAT is a self and it's me.

     

    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.

  4. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    No one deserves anything.

    You will get whatever you work and fight for. And even then, you might get a bullet to the head or brain cancer.

    Welcome to life.

    No one deserves hot girls, and most people will not get them by definition -- because of how you define hotness.

    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.

  5. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    54 minutes ago, Striving for more said:

    1. Well done for making a futile thread about a stereotype with no evidence, based on your biased worldview, probably driven by a sense of bitterness 

    2. Why the fuck do you care? 

    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.

    54 minutes ago, Striving for more said:

    Do you realise how many women exist bro ? 

    ... There's Hundreds of millions of hot women or whatever a lot .. 

    so there's a wide variance of personality types & standards across these women. 

    So chill out & stop making foolish generalizations & enjoy your life. Go fuck some hot women that value intelligence. Remember >  there's hundreds of millions of hot women. You''ll find all types. 

     

    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.

  6. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    7 hours ago, Preety_India said:

    Guys complain how pretty women want men with power. But they don't see how they reject average girls for those same pretty women. 

    So guy complains that average guy doesn't have a chance but doesn't see a problem with average girls not even considered worth looking at. They think that women reject when they approach the best looking women. But in approaching these women, they have already rejected millions of average women, meanwhile being average men themselves, the irony. 

    So the ironic conclusion of such a mindset is - 

    A man who is average but wants the best looking woman is completely right. He should always want the best no matter how he is. 

    But a woman who is actually better looking wanting a better above average guy is absolutely not okay. She must settle for an average man because she owes him. 

    If you are an average guy, your fate should be the same as the fate of an average girl. Why should you be privileged? 

    Both sexes are dealt the same hand. 

    If I am an average girl I'm supposed to be with an average guy. I don't approach and I won't approach millionaires and billionaires. Because I'm not in their league. 

    But some men want to fit themselves in the league of women who deserve to be with high earning men. 

    Not able to deal with your own league is the inability to accept the reality of who you are. 

    I accept who I am and I don't complain about being an average girl. 

    I'm not sitting here crying why Brad Pitt isn't dating me but dating some hot model. 

    It's about accepting realities and loving yourself for who you are and not leeching others value when they are out of the league. 

    I wouldn't want a millionaire to be happy with me if he can be happy with a much better woman and of course he would deserve it. 

    I should be happy with the guy I'm able to get for myself rather than rationalizing why I should get Brad Pitt to be my husband. 

    This is like Kanye West wanting Kim Kardashian. Of course he got divorced now. That's what happens when a woman marries a man below her worth. 

     

    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.

  7. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Nope

    But if you expect high sexual value an offer none in return, guess what that makes you? A leech. And leeches tend to get killed.

    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.

  8. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    15 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

    @Jacobsrw I see. No, I actually feel in a similar way as you do, actually, about current stance of society. I sort of made a vow with myself that I won't date a stage orange girl for any meaningful amount of time. So in a sense, I share your frustration a lot.

    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.

    15 minutes ago, Hello from Russia said:

    I'm just disagreeing that billionaires have the same standards as the rest of a society. These guys are actually way more smart than that from what I found. And they prefer more smart and wise women too as partners. 

    I found there are actually plenty of nice, deep women out there, quite a lot of them. In a sense it's our scarcity mindset that is stopping us from seeing them, but they are there!

    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.

  9. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    2 hours ago, Peter Miklis said:

    Seriously though, saying that ALL young women go for shallow guys is massive generalization, carefull about that. You may turn down women who are not shallow just because they are young.

    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.

  10. Posted

    2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Billionaires pull shallow women? Says who? Billionaires are pulling whoever they want, basically, and I tend to see them with quality women.

    Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos -- they aren't exactly dating bimbo supermodels or pornstars. They find wife-material ladies with some depth.

    But basically, when you are a billionaire, you have enough value and leverage to find a woman optimized in all dimensions you care about.

    Power and status are the ultimate game. If you want quality women, don't go to the club, become a multi-millionaire somebody and women will come to you. The wise hunter does not stalk rabbits one-by-one in the freezing cold, he lays a trap and rests easy by the cozy fire back home.

    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.

  11. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    4 hours ago, Hello from Russia said:

    @Jacobsrw to be honest I feel there is personal frustration with a subject rather than some truly impartial observations

    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.

    4 hours ago, Hello from Russia said:

    I wonder what's your personal story with women and how are you doing on that front? Can it be that you're just excusing away your own struggles with dating via these lines of reasoning? 

    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.

  12. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    1 hour ago, Hello from Russia said:

    @Jacobsrw dude, ur projecting a lot. How do you know women that millionaires sleep with are shallow? On what basis do you make this assumption? 

    In my own research it is actually quite the opposite. These guys can get any pussy the want with their money and status, so it isn't an issue for them anymore and from that point they focus way more on a deep meaningful connection

    You seem to demonize wealthy people, but they are not as dumb as you think. Usually it's quite the opposite

    With pretties girls it's just they get very popular due to their attractiveness, so a lot of people naturally hit on them. Statistically speaking average extraverts are way dumber than introverts so this is what you see. 

    The problem with girls that are more deep but has less is a marketing. It is the same problem as introverted guys face. In a sense, the "richness" of psyche is as attractive if not more than physical appearance. The problem, however, that to get to know your "deepness", people will need to get to know you first and spend lots of time, while looks work as an instantly apparent metric. So you see this disproportion happening

    I bet many girls actually prefer introverted smart guys way more than your typical socializing extravert. But it's just Leo is right, these more smart deep guys prefer to sit in their basements and it's hard for women to meet them

    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.

  13. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Well, the smartest guys are not out at parties where the hottest girls are, they are locked in a basement doing serious work. So of course the hottest girls tend to get with the party guys. She can't suck your dick if you're locked in a basement doing rocket science.

    But also, be careful with your simplistic and victim-mindset reinforcing stereotypes. If you are so smart and deep, how about you use a bit of those smarts to lure in a hot girl? Maybe you ain't as smart as you think ;)

    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

  14. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    1 hour ago, Heaven said:

    If you live in modern society survival is a crucial part. What you see as egoistical behaviors are just “proof” that one is good in survival.

    If you will notice also your life is driven by that so don’t be too judgmental about it..and if not it’s because you’re lucky so just be grateful with life and compassionate towards the other.

     

     

    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. 

  15. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    4 hours ago, The0Self said:

    The prettier the girl, the less apparently needy the guy selected. Dumb and shallow often means detached and seemingly un-needy. That's not the only way to be (or seem to be) un-needy, it's just the most common way to seem so, which has led you to your incomplete conclusion.

    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.

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

    What you describe is the typical outcome of growing up in a stage Orange society. Both male and female are bombarded with these type of social representation through medias., which turn them into ideals to chase.

    They just don't know better until they figure out that a lot of this is bullshit. It takes a bit of experience to wear off.

    Some can even stay in it for a lifetime, though.

    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

  18. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    As crude and as pictorial as this title appears to be, this metric seems to be generally maintained in western societies. Of course there are outliers but these remain few and far between. I found this with friends of mine that are female as well as past partners.

    Women between ages 20-30 tend to base their attraction on the toxic superficialities of a male.  beyond this age their attraction seems to be derived from places other than purely this. Some of these superficialities include: looks, macho bravado, egotistical, uneducated (or low involvement in education), status driven, hedonistic, daring, bad-boy attitude, party goer, arrogance, obnoxiousness, fashionable, non-emotional, non-reflective or spiritual etc. need I continue. 

    It seems to work both ways too. The more these superficial features are exhibited in a male, the more he will attract the prettier girl.

    This seems obvious but once you've taken time to observe such a social movement it becomes comical and extremely illuminating. You can almost estimate the oscillation, duration and quality of ones relationships by this very metric. It opens ones eyes to the level of psychology younger adults seems to be operating from in a western demographic. Human behaviour seems to be more predictable of course, but more importantly you also see where you can be of support to those lost within these notions.

    I assume many women will object to such a claim, as it would seem to undermine their dignity. However, I would disagree. I would argue it undermines the deep meaning of sexuality and attraction. Males undervalue what it means to really be a man thus, select the most obnoxious characteristics by which to operate. Females buy into these traits due to sociological shifts and trends that churn through culture. Whats also undermined is our social systems, those which educate and influence prototypical change.

    Without judgement I implore those skeptical to explore this trend. It’s astonishingly pervasive, more so than we’d probably like to admit.

     

  21. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    7 hours ago, Moksha said:

    I wouldn't call it leapfrogging, so much as recognizing that phenomenal reality arises from, and returns to, ultimate reality. God creates and destroys, and is the cause of everything in the cosmos. Would you agree that anything created cannot have free will of its own accord? It must act according to the parameters of its creation.

    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.

  22. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    9 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @Jacobsrw Determinism says nothing about a 'single cause'. It's basically - cause and effect.  That humans can make *fairly accurate* predictions, is evidence for reality being determined in this 'cause and effect' manner.. but predictions are not guaranteed because we can't know all of the causes.. and the further out our predictions, the less probable they become. All it takes is one unknown factor to derail even the most confident prediction. 

    Many people make the assumption that Detetminism is a model of reality that explains how events 'began', but this is a false assumption. It's a failure of logic to assume the Universe 'began' or that it will 'end'. If you get comfortable with infinite regress (and infinite progress) then this assumption goes away. 

    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.

    9 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

    @JacobsrwConsider: how big is reality? How old is it? These questions are born of the assumption that reality is not infinite. 

    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?

    9 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

    We see evidence for a determined reality everywhere we look. Why do you think your comment will get responses? Because you understand that your comment will DETERMINE how others will respond. If determinism were not true, you couldn't predict anything at all. The floor might fall out from underneath you at any moment without cause. Gravity could suddenly fail, without cause. Nothing could be 'determined'. We couldn't predict anything. Events would just be happening 'without cause', and we couldn't say why anything happened. Why did I write this? No reason. Why do bridges stay up? Don't know.. just lucky I guess. Will cutting this tree cause it to fall? Who knows? We can't even guess. 

     

    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.

  23. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    5 hours ago, Moksha said:

    Given this limitation, why look for a conceptual answer?

    Maybe the answer is in the question.

    How can there be free will, or determinism, if there is no I? See the shell game Consciousness plays?

    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.

  24. Posted · Edited by Jacobsrw

    19 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

    1) This is not Determinism. 

    I believe it is. Pre-existing circumstances determine the foreseeable.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/determinism

    E542F156-A3D6-4FD6-B5E0-9550B45B58F4.jpeg

    0C53B174-73D3-4BF0-B970-95D59578976B.jpeg

    19 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

    2) Determinism doesn't 'argue' anything.. determinists do. 

    I’m unsure of your point here, could you please elaborate. If you are proposing determinists are pragmatists I don’t see how that’s relevant to my argument. All determinism is, is an argument. It’s a theoretical proposition one claims upon reality in opposition that of a more freewill or pyrrhonist worldviews.

    19 hours ago, Mason Riggle said:

    3) 'Predetermined' is a redundant term, like 'pre-planned'.. you can't 'determine' something 'prior to' determining it.  You can't plan something prior to planning it.   You don't 'pre-plan' your trip to the beach.. you just plan your trip to the beach.  Things are 'determined' by 'determinants', not 'predetermined'. 

    The very fact that minds can make fairly accurate predictions at all, is excellent evidence for a 'determined' Universe.  

    That isn’t determinism. Determinism is a progressive argument not a preordained one. Determinism argues that from one singular cause other events are determined to precipitate not predetermined to.

    I feel you may be describing a different theoretical perspective.