MMX2010

Useful for whom? I assume that it's useful for the person saying it, otherwise he wouldn't say it. Do you disagree?

The point is that the person saying it believes it to be true. You are free to aesthetically react in either (or both) of those ways, but your reaction is a choice - not an inevitability. There are other possibilities that you didn't name, such as: (1) The person saying it is frustrated because his argument is correct, but the other person's inability to research the topic before developing strong (and wrong) opinions about it makes the listener impervious to reason. OR (2) The person is actually smarter, and is non-emotionally stating a fact that the listener should accept. You are free to behave this way, but no one is required to behave this way. Refusing to behave this way is a choice, not an inevitability. And there are multiple reasons for refusing, only some of which make the refuser aesthetically ugly.

People don't say "I'm smarter than you" in order to get other people to self-reflect. They say it because they sincerely believe it's true. People don't have the positive obligation to help others self-reflect. That never happens, though. What always happens is that someone gives at least one argument, which is rejected by the other person. In frustration, the original arguer says, "I'm smarter than you."

By self-reflecting and being open to the possibility that they are, indeed, smarter than you.

My argument is that the bickering happens because you think it's always offensive to remind someone that you're smarter than them - even when it is true, you're saying this statement is offensive.

It's offensive just using those two examples, or offensive using every possible example?

Of course. The Last Psychiatrist has two brilliant articles on doing just that. ----------------------- Here's the first one: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/06/amy_schumer_offers_you_a_look.html The most important part of the first one is this: ------------------ Here's the second one: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html The most important part of the second one is this: ----------------------------------- The third thing you can do is carefully study this diagram of what it means to be a great man. Without fail, I get two very extreme reactions whenever I show men that diagram. Extreme pleasure, as in, "Oh wow! That diagram is a god-send! Now I know what to do!" - (and they go to work, day after day, month after month, year after year - building their bodies, their fashion sense, their finances, and their ability to flirt). Extreme displeasure, as in, "Oh my god! That diagram is wrong! I'm already a good person! Fashion!?!? That's unimportant aesthetic nonsense!" - (and they refuse to go to work - day after day, month after month, year after year - they do not change; and nothing really changes). ---------------------------- On a personal note, you have an excellent grasp of why you have the difficulties that you have. But The Last Psychiatrist warns against focusing on why you are the way you are. He, instead, encourages you to replace the question of "Why" with the question, "Now What?" I hope those articles and that diagram help you know "Now What". Lastly, TheLastPsychiatrist is quite difficult to read, so if you'd like to Skype about his articles (or anything else), you can reach me by adding [email protected] into the Add A Contact window.

For the same reason that you cannot replace a superstar 60-goal scorer with three forwards who scored 20 goals each last year. People with heavily r-selected personalities are inherently lazy and entitled, so five-of-them-added-together DO NOT equal one highly successful individual with K-selected personalities. Furthermore, among the polyamorous scene, the men are (by and large) not physically attractive, not well-versed in Pick-Up Artistry, and are between 22 and 29 (ages where their Sexual Market Value, as men, is comparably low). The women are (naturally) dissatisfied with these men but don't want to dump them - (because the traits that make them un-sexy make them good prospective fathers and providers later on in life) - and use the "I'm polyamorous!" argument to keep those men around. In the dating market, as a man, you compete with: (1) Every boyfriend / lover that your woman has ever had, (2) Every fantasy relationship she can develop - (whether involving men, women, or men-and-women simultaneously), and (3) Every fantasy-of-you that she can develop - (for example, you-with-bigger-muscles, you-with-more-empathy, you-with-more-money). Your emotional perception of what women want and how they feel when looking for boyfriends and lovers is way, way, way off.

Good for you. Hope it works out. MMD, are you willing to share contact information so that this can happen? (After all, it's not 100% guaranteed that the caller is part of the message board.)

No, it isn't. Having boundaries over trivial incidents indicates a strong desire to be viewed favorably by a crowd of individuals, which is the surest sign of lack of self-worth. A man of self-worth can walk away from internet-squabbles, because they've nothing to do with his own worth, whereas a man without self-worth must secure all forms of admiration, all the time. No, it's not a false-dichotomy to say, "either you want modern society or you want to be a prehistoric hunter-gatherer". Societies which are comprised of heavily r-selected individuals have all the pros and cons of hunter-gatherer societies, while societies which are comprised of heavily K-selected individuals have all the pros and cons of modern societies. Either state which societies you prefer, state why, and indicate your plan to get there. Or don't mention alternative societies at all. Passive-aggressively asking, "What if I prefer the bronze age or the Renaissance?" doesn't add to this discussion. You cannot have modern technology and modern standards of living without: (1) inculcating a strong desire in children to compete with each other, (2) inculcating in men to avoid sexual contact and/or unwanted pregnancies in their teens and twenties, (3) inculcating in women a strong sense of self-blaming shame over having sex with a man and being immediately dumped, and (4) inculcating in all citizens a sense of pride over their technological accomplishments. Without these four things, the majority of people twiddle away their youths on either: (1) actual sexual activity - that doesn't lead to stable family units or (2) pining away in self-doubt because they're not engaging in that form of sexual activity.

Well I finally understand what the real problem is. The real problem is that I've said, multiple times, that "r/K is not a binary scale; it's a sliding scale best applied to groups of human beings." - but your highlighted language above only discusses human beings as if they were a part of one group. To understand r/K, you must separate human beings into small groups and then make aesthetic judgments as to which group of humans is best. (And, yes, you have to define for yourself what the word "best" means!) Alan Chapman tried to get you to do that with this post - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44515-youtube-the-truth-about-gene-wars-rk-selection-theory/page-2#entry407471 - about his experiences living in Southern California, but you never emotionally connected to what he was saying and you never made an aesthetic judgment over which society is better: (1) The old one that Alan Chapman describes or (2) the new one that Alan Chapman describes. It doesn't. However, I've predicted that Stefan will argue that the state is bad because it encourages r-selected reproduction in a way that bankrupts us all. And I've predicted many MGTOWs will agree with this argument and declare, "Women are naturally tyrannical, because they always use the state to secure resources from men!" I'm telling you that the MGTOW argument isn't true. Women will not always use the state to secure resources from men, but they will do so whenever men collectively stop striving to satisfy women's hypergamy. In other words, the welfare state doesn't exist because women want it; it exists because men are lazy. If men were less lazy, women wouldn't seek the power of the state to secure resources, they'd secure the charmed attention of men.

How many times do I have to say, "r/K is a non-binary scale best applied to groups of individuals, rather than a binary scale best applied to one person" before you all accept this? Is the human species smart and stupid at the same time? (Of course it is.) Is that a contradiction? (Of course not.) So can the human species be r-selected and K-selected at the same time? (Yes!) Is that a contradiction? (No!) Yes. But I've a much deeper understanding of human sexual dynamics than Stefan does, and I disagree with his usage of r/K to lambast the welfare state. Yes, the welfare state is bad; no, the abolition of the welfare state WILL NOT automatically lead to a monogamous paradise. Instead, the majority of men will still be unfit to satisfy a woman's hypergamy - (and I know this, because in this current system men have never possessed more freedom, more knowledge, more time, and therefore more opportunity to satisfy a woman's hypergamy - but the majority of men resist the knowledge required to do so). Women won't "settle" for crappy men in the new system; they'll become career-focused women instead. Their career-focus, coupled with their bitterness at being along, will produce the need for scapegoats (which will always be male), which will give rise to the welfare state all over again. The welfare state doesn't exist because women are tyrannical. It exists because men are lazy and entitled. Having "boundaries" over what happened doesn't display the strong, independence-of-will that a K-selected individual possesses. It reflects the overwhelming need for maximum emotional comfort and the quick-escalation of minor quibbles into full-blown conflicts that a weak r-selected individual possesses. Assuming that your arguments are correct, despite your knowing that you haven't been studying r/K for very long. (One month, tops.), compared to men like The Anonymous Conservative who has been studying this for years is emblematic of the r-selected need to be seen as "an intelligent person" despite having not putting in the required effort to be well-informed about r/K. You aren't K-selected competitive. You are r-selected competitive. And I can make a host of predictions about your body type, your childhood history, your adolescent history, your relationships with the opposite sex, and how you spend your time. Naturally, making such predictions is a scientific endeavor - but you've already disqualified that as being "immature" - (r-selected individuals always poison the well with emotional language) - without realizing that your very emotionality over trivial events makes me predict that you'll lie about my predictions about you.

No, you can prefer civilization and hate competition, and compete in very specific ways. The Anonymous Conservative calls such people "rabbits" - and he has an extensive number of posts about them, their competitive tactics, and their brain structures. When I compare his articles to your comments in this thread, I find yours to be severely lacking. His assertions have more detail, more depth, and have been made over a series of articles for more than a year. Yours are just shallow, and laced with emotional language - exactly the way a "rabbit" would behave. If you'd like to explore the material in depth, check out anonymousconservative.com/blog.

I make the prediction that you prefer civilization because you're sending these messages over the internet. If you truly didn't prefer civilization, you'd be living in a place where there is no internet. This is far from "making things up as I go along".

This was posted on the Roosh V Forum. ----------------------- In recent years I have done my own research on the causes of gender dysphoria and male-to-female transsexualism from a scientific and medical perspective and so I would like to add my two cents to this discussion. First and foremost, I would like to make it clear that there is an evident distinction between transsexualism and transgenderism. They are not the same phenomenon in any way. Authentic transsexualism is a congenital condition in which the patient from a very young age identifies as female and displays all the natural traits of a feminine psyche. As recent studies show, these true transsexuals seem to possess a brain structure more akin to that of the opposite sex. On the other hand, transgender is a leftist-inspired bullshit umbrella term invented to lump together various groups of "gender-variant" people such as effeminate cross-dressers, fetishistic non-op shemales and any other kind of gender-bending individuals. Unfortunately authentic transsexuals who really wish to be complete women are often forced into this bogus social construct as part of the LGBT Social Justice Warrior agenda. Here I will reveal a truth that most of the so-called transgender activists don't want you to know. The reality is that modern psychiatric research has demonstrated that there are actually two distinct etiologies behind the transsexual condition, namely, homosexual/early onset transsexualism and autogynephilic/late onset transsexualism. I recommend that you read the academic and medical works of Dr. Ray Blanchard for more information. According to Blanchard's observations, homosexual/early onset transsexuals tend to be attracted exclusively to men, are very feminine both physically and psychologically from childhood to such a degree that it is obvious to everyone around them that something is odd about them, display a slighter physique than typical males and usually have an average IQ in the range of a regular genetic female (around 99-102). These are the male-to-female transsexuals who display cerebral structures similar to those of genetic women. They tend to experience major gender dysphoria from a very young age, are unable to hide their condition or adapt to the social expectations of masculinity and tend to be very passable as females when they transition. Full sex change surgery is almost always desired. In contrast, autogynephilic/late onset transsexuals tend to live as mostly regular guys for most of their lives, are typically attracted to women (some may be bisexual), experience prolonged stints of autogynephilia or sexual arousal by imagining themselves as females and tend to transition well into adulthood or even during middle age. They usually have the same body dimensions as average males, possess typical male brain structures and typically have a high IQ of around 127. Many of them were once married to women and have even fathered children. It is only later in life that they feel determined to become women and "come out" so to speak. Few of these transsexuals are passable and many are openly trans and don't seem to care much for passing. Early onset transsexuals are genuinely born that way. They are best described as "women trapped in male bodies". They cannot help the way they are and can only function within a female paradigm. Nothing can cure them and transition is the only viable option for them. Autogynephilic/late onset transsexuals, however, seem to be influenced more by their surrounding environment. They all have some kind of innate predisposition towards autogynephilic ideation, but these transsexuals will only choose to act on their feminine desires and transition when their environmental conditions favor such behavior, otherwise they continue to live as regular males and keep their autogynephilic fantasies and cross-dressing escapades to themselves. They tend to arise in sexually liberal and progressive cultures and in prosperous middle class communities where "coming out" is seen as socially acceptable and hormonal and surgical transition is financially feasable. They are much rarer in traditional societies and third-world regions where the first type, namely early onset transsexuals, tend to be more numerous. Today, many transgender activists go beserk whenever anyone mentions Dr. Blanchard's model of transsexualism. They oppose it with a certain religious fervor despite the fact that it is based on solid empirical observation and scientific evidence. Instead they prefer to peddle their own subjective "Female Essence Narrative" model by which they arbitrarily define a transsexual as anyone who has experienced feminine feelings in their life. That way anybody can easily define himself as a "genuine transsexual". Autogynephilic/late onset transsexuals are the ones who especially oppose Blanchard's dual etiology research. This comes from their own insecurity. They feel that the model invalidates them as genuine transsexuals and so they do all they can to attack it. This kind of transsexual is the one who is more likely to be involved in SJW trans-activism and the LBGT movement. Feminists and LBGT activists don't really care about genuine transsexuals at all. Some feminists even haterize against transsexuals because they fear that the notion that a male human being can be born with an innate inclination towards femininity would destroy their ideological dogma that femininity and masculinity are social constructs. LBGT activists only use genuine transsexuals for their own political agenda, the promotion of gender-fluid "transgenderism" and other non-mainstream behaviors. My conclusion is that a certain percentage of the transsexual population is genuinely feminine. However, unfortunately it is the queer "transgender" community who tends to be the most vocal and adversely shapes the popular image of transsexualism. I personally hold a libertarian worldview and believe that people should be allowed to live their lives as they choose. I think that transsexual people should be respected as human beings without discrimination. Discriminating against gays and transsexuals only gives ammo to the SJW's who constantly seek to validate their oppressed victim status. It is my belief that we should adopt a "live and let live" attitude and stop feeding the SJW oppression olympics racket.

This blog lets you know whether you're dressing well or not; start with the Staples articles. www.masculine-style.com/ It's related because, when you tell her about philosophy, she's grading you on your aesthetics as much as (or even more than) on the quality of your arguments. So if you're not physically fit and dressing well and financially sound and eternally optimistic / happy, those aesthetic qualities detract from your arguments. You are making this way too complicated. Why not continue to see this girl and pursue Len's theory on how your lack of self-knowledge ties you to this woman and pursue other women all at once? (It's not even that difficult to do all three at once. It's harder to convince yourself that you're allowed to do these things than it is to actually do these things.)

Meanwhile, I asked Nathan Diehl to identify the "behavior" he keeps referring to, but he refuses to clarify it. I've also pointed out that people who Skype with me directly get a completely different opinion of me than those who downvote me from a distance. I then asked, "Which group is being more philosophically rigorous? Those who interact with me more personally and form their opinions OR those who refuse to interact with me personally and form their opinions?" I'll also add that I'm part of the Best NYC FDR Meet-Up Group. Last week, we had four new members, one of whom instantly knew who I was even though I never identified myself. After a lovely five hour meeting, all four new members thanked me for my contribution. And one of them even suggested out loud that he might want me to coach him in how to understand women and Pick-Up Artistry. So, Nathan, you accurately point out that the reputation system is broken. But you're trying to elevate your own method of interacting with me - (presumptive and impersonal) - over other peoples' methods of interacting with me - (non-presumptive, personal). And that argument is soooooo bad that you can't possibly advance it without impugning yourself and everyone who supports your argument.

I hear Jupiter is lovely this time of year. Maybe Saturn? Expecting an 18 year old girl to have self-knowledge shows an immense non-understanding of how women think and are raised. Girls don't develop self-knowledge on their own, but rather through their relationships. So how is an 18 year old girl going to have a sufficiently large pool of relationships from which she can draw self-knowledge? (Pro-tip: She can't.)

I've read more about r/K than you. The blogger who introduced me to it is The Anonymous Conservative, who has a much better grasp of r/K than does Stefan. AC uses r/K selection to generalize about people with heavily r-selected personalities versus people with heavily K-selected personalities. I just picked up on your form-of-argumentation and find you to be a very r-selected individual. Based on that, I made a prediction. If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's wrong - but calling it "immature" to make those predictions is a very r-selected personality trait. This current one, wherein women have maximum sexual, economic, and personal freedom to maximally satisfy their own hypergamy. MGTOWs are against such a society, because they're on the short end of satisfying a woman's hypergamy - so they're actually against a free and voluntary society in practice, even though they claim to be for a free and voluntary society in principle. Too many MGTOWs have a secret (or not-so-secret) desire to see the entire world economy collapse so that women will behave better. But if the entire world economy were to collapse, only around 30% of men would be able to procreate; the rest would die in war or live a long, genetic death as slaves because they're not muscular / aggressive enough to defeat the warlord men who would arise during a massive economic collapse. To summarize, the best possible society is one that is r-selected in sexuality but K-selected in reproduction. Naturally, in such a society, the women behave like hypocrites - but they behave like hypocrites in a very predictable manner, so the wise man just comports himself along women's hypocritical expectations. No! In polyamorous societies, the majority of people are lazy, because r-selected societies eschew competition. Which of these would a child rather have: (1) five "father figures" and five "mother figures" all of whom are slothful, or (2) Stefan as a father and Christina as a mother? Stefan is Stefan chiefly because of his K-selected competitiveness and welfare queens are welfare queens because of their relative lack of K-selected competitiveness. The desire to defeat other people in competition is what makes a person r-selected or K-selected. And most people in modern society are r-selected due to their unwillingness to directly face competitors in win/lose interactions, preferring instead to "out-compete" other individuals through indirect gossip and outright slander. Twitter wars and outrage culture are for fat, lazy, non-competitive people - and their ubiquity tells you all you need to know about modern America's character and toughness. An r-selected society is one comprised of r-selected individuals: (whiny, self-centered, arrogant, entitled, lazy, constantly over-rating both their personal skills and ability to control others, status seeking rather than accomplishment driven), while a K-selected society is comprised of K-selected individuals: (ruthlessly competitive but honest, physically fit, willing to fight, hard-working, resourceful, intelligent, and accomplishment-seeking over status-seeking).

My own sense of women is that the ideal sequence is: Humor, Daily Life, Their Own Childhood, Your Own Childhood, Your Parents, Their Parents, Peaceful Parenting, Religion, Politics, Economy. If you hit her with too many topics at once, she gets confused. Very rarely, you can find a woman genuinely interested in politics who isn't a feminist, but don't expect that. Also, this may sound unrelated but it's not. Are you physically fit? Do you dress well?

I can guess. And if I'm wrong. you can tell me that I'm wrong. In my experience, only MGTOWs are uncertain whether they prefer civilization or natural, primitive, paleolithic living.

You don't know whether you'll never love her. You just feel, right now, that you won't. Have you tried discussing philosophy with her, and if so, what's the first topic you mentioned?

Google "sperm wars".

Stef isn't the only one who prefers civilization. You prefer it, too. If you didn't you'd live among a hunter gatherer tribe and/or have sex according to bonobo rules. As for the researchers who aren't quite sure whether they prefer civilization, they're free to live among hunter-gatherers and/or to have sex according to bonobo rules, but they'll be competed against by those who prefer civilization. I didn't say that Stefan has made that argument, I'm predicting that he'll eventually make it in parts two or three, probably part three.

K-selection isn't about investing resources into your children; it's whether you "indoctrinate" them to be competitive (K) or cooperative ®. The more nuanced (and accurate) argument that Stefan (I think) is leading to in his r/K arguments is, "Civilization needs competitive-based behaviors, and civilization is better than any primitive egalitarian society (the bonobos), therefore monogamy."