smarterthanone

Didn't read thread but grouping is a function of math which is a human quality and is subjective. Why group by race when you can group by eye color, location, height, ... IQ. Why is everyone so anal about race? The group of the top 5% of africans by IQ is intelligently superior to all asians as a whole. So what? Obsessing over grouping by race is very stupid. Why do people even bother to identify with race? Personally I identify with intelligent people.

You had an overbearing mother, probably who complained to you about your father.

Well shouldn't all men strive to be so valuable? But societies value is all screwed up. There are excellent women who are complete failures at working in say an office and never went to college that live at home with parents. Lots of men overlook them as bad but why do I care if she never figured out how to have a successful career? In fact its a strength. So she is valued by society as low but really is not. And with all the beta cuck male feminists, there is a huge shortage of men.

Don't do drugs or drink excessively. If the man you are seeing says hey lets get shitfaced friday or smoke a joint ok, thats one thing but to be known as someone who does that stuff is not good and will scare decent guys away. Don't sleep with anyone you wouldn't be happy to marry and have a child with. Don't hang out with losers. Your best friend who does drugs and goes to the club every weekend... she isn't your best friend any more. Learn to cook, give good massages, clean properly (dust fans, clean grout etc.) Be respectful. Please thank you. Say "Yes Sir, No Sir" to any man you are dating. I am serious. Career wise: - Do not go into debt. If the right man comes along and wants to start a family soon, your $50k in college debt will price you out of consideration. - Do continue forward, keep a job, continue with school providing you can pay it off as you go. This is good for backup while you wait and also shows you aren't lazy. - Let men you date know you do not want a career. Tell them point blank you want to be a stay at home mom. Guys who are losers will run away, real winners will love it. I would suggest only dating men who are 5+ years older. This is a good way to see PROOF he is doing the right things in life. He will also be more likely to know exactly what he wants (ie. this kind of woman, this kind of lifestyle, kids etc.). Stef would probably disagree but food for thought. Lastly, you are starting to get older. You aren't old by any means but note you are well into your prime years, half way (18-29)! Sure most women waste the first half of the prime years so you are on par with everyone else but if everyone jumps off a bridge should you do it too? Don't waste any more of your time. If a guy tries to talk to you, don't be busy, don't shut guys down (unless you already know they aren't good). Be approachable, smile at every half decent looking guy so that he knows if he comes and says Hi it would be welcomed. Nobody will think you are too old now, but at 25 every year you will be too old for some portion of men. On the outside edge is me for example, I want 6-10 kids. I won't date someone older than 25 and put a premium on younger than that (mostly for family planning reasons) but you will still find decent guys up to I think 28 about before your strategy for dating will need to start changing.

I believe polygamy is acceptable and would work well. Good luck to the other weird formations.

1. Is the rough motorcycle riding guy who occasionally gets into a fight a bad boy or a bad guy? Would a bad boy who had control of an army still be a bad boy or do you think he would now behave in such a way that he is a bad guy? 2. Why game women? Personally I tell them what I want. You don't need to trick them or lie to them at all. Everyone knows me as a player YET nobody talks bad on me like I mistreat people or anything like that. Its because I do not play games. Regarding the girls, you will never stop being a bad boy until you want something different. I sleep around a ton. But I never wanted to get married. Now I want to get married I am more interested in getting to know a woman instead of just hooking up. I still am a huge whore but the priority changed. When I find someone I think is awesome for me, it will probably change further.

I actually used to act and help produce porn when I was in college. None of you know what you are talking about. Nobody was on drugs or pressured or anything, nobody got any stds. Just because that is what you saw in a movie about porn doesn't make it true. Porn is not morally wrong or morally right, its indifferent. Like is eating ice cream a morally good activity or bad? When in excess it could be bad. But nobody is talking about doing something in excess. Most things in excess are bad. So the fact some people become addicted to porn is irrelevant. Simply watching porn once in awhile when you have nothing better to do... heck getting a quick nut off before going to sleep every night when you don't have a partner, whats the harm? What is the harm in having a scoop of ice cream sometimes? In fact, I think porn was very beneficial to my life, I learned how to have sex from porn and most women love how I have sex with them. Glad I didn't have to figure it out on my own or I wouldn't be such a good lover today.

True as well. However I am not so sure nuclear would take off as much or as quickly as you think due to nobody is going to tolerate a nuclear facility next door, I think operators would have to own vast lands or cause vast ghettos (ie all housing in a 20 mi radius is low cost housing because of the nuclear facility). Right now people tolerate it because the government sanctions the existing ones. But you think if 10 people on my block get a rare eye cancer that specifically forms from nuclear power generation waste a year after a nuclear facility opens we arent going to shoot those people in voluntaryism you crazy. And that stuff happens all the time with these places.

Bad boys and bad guys, its all a grey area. On one end you have an 18 year old senior football QB who is a player on the other end you have Hitler (ya happy now?), obviously very different but they do the same thing, they are confident. "Nice guys" are not confident, both the foot ball player and Hitler walk over nice guys (each at the level according to their ability) because they know they can. How can you pretend to be confident over a period of time? Like if you pretend confidence a few times, then don't you become confident that those actions worked and have actual confidence in whatever you are doing? The whole fake it till you make it, didn't just become a saying for no reason.

Then why are there so many feminine men and masculine women if its so strongly correlated? I am not saying there its not a factor but its nowhere near being able to provide a full explanation. Any man (sex) can be any amount of feminine (gender), any woman (sex) can be any amount of masculine (gender). All the way would be a fully transitioned person.

I skipped a whole bunch but the problem is most men are weak and not deserving of women. Gang leaders, barbarian war lords, Genghis Khan, conquering Kings, all have power and resources and are able to be great providers. Thus they are attractive to women, even more so than just a smart nice guy because they will kill the smart nice guy and take her away. So evolutionary and biologically speaking it makes sense. But the things they like about those guys are limited, the confidence, that is really the biggest show the bad guys have. Luckily, nice smart guys can be confident too, and in our modern society really get ahead of the bad boys. For whatever reason they don't, im not quite sure why.

These discussions go nowhere fast because everyone confuses gender and sex. In some instances sex is the important factor and in others gender. So to use you as an example, you are male sex, feminine gender. Biologically you are a male, I am talking about born with presumable working male parts and genetics. No amount of surgery or feeling can change this. Gender though is not male female but masculine and feminine (or some mix of). It is essentially irrelevant in terms of biology. So you would be feminine gender. A very feminine man and a very feminine woman have much more in common than a very feminine man and a very masculine man in terms of gender. But both men have penises so in terms of sex, the men have more in common. There is no specific amount of masculinity or femininity that defines which bathroom you should use, its extremely subjective. How much facial hair is masculine enough to override a persons preference for wearing a dress? That's an impossible question. So one side tends to view this is a gender issue (let the person decide), while the other major side views bathrooms being separated by sex and nothing to do with gender (penises go to urinals, vaginas sit on toilets). When you mix up sex and gender, that is when you get all these outrageous situations and arguments that make no sense.

If people have certain inalienable rights, someone from a principled position could have made the constitution and bill of rights in such a way there was no need to ever change it, and thus no need for a congress or president etc. ie. 1. Do not murder. 2. Do not steal. etc. Anyone who violates these laws will be held to account in zyx. Anyone who tries to change this document will be open to murder by ANYONE immediately and forever with no consequences. Why do we need to update laws? I am thinking about all the new technology, and? Still don't murder, still don't steal etc all still apply, what is right and just has not changed.

Just take the test. The math isn't like algebra, you didn't need to do well in high school math to do well on an IQ test, its mostly recognizing patterns, stuff like this: 0,2,5,7,10,12,15,17,___ (Fill in the blank) 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21,___ Its also not designed that you need to get a 100% accurate on it. I am not sure how its scored exactly although I should look into it but it has some kind of weighting or something I believe.

I am an ENTP-A

Do you buy cheap food from factory farms or do you buy more expensive ethically raised free range organic chicken type meats? Why do some people buy one and some people buy the other? Well some people think its WORTH the extra price to buy the ethical (and often higher quality) meat. Some people do not think its WORTH it to pay the extra price. Is one group of consumers wrong? Why are you qualified to make that decision for them? Should a starving man with a family of 4 to feed be forced to pay extra for the meat and go with less? If you were to ban factory farms, you know all that would happen is the poorer people who are buying the cheapest food will have a skyrocketing grocery bill. Banning factory farms has great human costs, its not as simple as just be good to animals. There is one reason why there is no open source drugs. It's illegal. See government. Pharma as we know it would not exist in the absence of government. Pharma invests a lot of money into producing drugs. A large amount of it is complying with federal regulations. A lot of the drugs are also "waste" and I mean for example marijuana is proven to help people with anxiety. However since it has been illegal, Pharma has a reason to create anti anxiety medications. If marijuana was legal from the get go, Pharma would have much less incentives to create anti anxiety medications and would instead have to move on to the next thing... maybe cancer cure or something else. Private prisons in a government are bad. You are right. I completely agree with what you said. HOWEVER, the US has by far more prison population than any other country. Why? Because the US government has made many things illegal and many of the crimes with sentencing requirements. If the government did not exist, we would probably still have issues with prison systems HOWEVER there would be far less people in prison. So the overall harm would be greatly reduced. There is a difference between me saying Hey Joe you can't stay on my couch any more... and Joe now faces homelessness. VS me aiming a gun at Joe and saying You are not allowed to have a home, be homeless or die. You are considering both as coercion. That's fine. But lets agree we are talking about both scenarios. Coercion, when used in the manner you are using it, is the natural state of man and introduced by non human elements. One human, alone on the entire planet would be coerced into working like a slave because of natural scarcity and the elements. This same problem is passed on from human to human to human. It is impossible to have no coercion, as you are defining it. Regarding robots. I don't see why you have a right to not have a robot do your job. Why don't we get rid of computers because so many people lost jobs doing math and keeping records by hand? Well sure we lost a bunch of people doing those jobs but guess what? Look at the value of the computer industry? It far surpasses the jobs and value produced by paper makers and professional page filers. UBI will not do anything except make the super rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer. Its basically just additional inflation. Part is they are getting squished by taxes and part is a segment that is not evolving career wise. I will talk taxes first. As an example, I make say $200,000 pre tax as a single man. This is generated by 33 rental units each paying $505 a month each. I pay a high tax rate, lets just say 40%. So after taxes I make $120,000. This is a good life for me. I feel I deserve to maintain this lifestyle and my business as is. So next year taxes go up to pay for Obamacare or free college or some other new program whatever, doesn't matter. Now I pay 50% taxes. So the same $200,000 now only nets me $100,000. I have my own mortgage, car payments, life and I work just as hard as I did last year, I deserve to make at least what I made last year. So what do I do? I now need to make $240,000 pretax to net the same $120,000. So I raise rents, they now go up $101 PER MONTH! I still make my $120,000 per year after tax buying power BUT all the renters now are paying an extra ~$1200 per year for housing. The other part is if you stacked bricks in 1850 you made a living. You stack bricks today, its minimum wage work. When we live in the future Star Trek like land, how valuable will stacking bricks be? It will be useless. We will just have the bricks created in the place they need to be or something like that. So if you think you can just do one thing forever, and your kids can do the same thing, and their kids kids etc... wrong. Even higher paying jobs become obsolete. That is just how it works. Always has, always will be... UNLESS we halt all further technological development. Thats dumb. You aren't looking at the big picture. Yes it can make traffic worse on that road. But its taking from other roads. Traffic isnt unlimited, everything has a natural stop. I can't think of a single example where this is a bad thing. The more people who sign up for Facebook the more valuable the platform is to people and thus even the skeptics are like well now its useful enough for me to join. So what? The more people use it that just means they want to use it. Whys it matter to you? Same with kids. If there are so many people food is scarce, food prices will go up and people will have less kids.... then when the population is lower food will be super abundant and people will have more kids. Capitalism is self correcting like that. Same as previous with the kids. As farm land decreases, profit from farming will increase and the incentive to save or bring back bad land will go up and up and up until its corrected. Whole point of capitalism. Ecosystems and the earth are the "best" if humans were extinct? Right? Everything here is a "so what", species have gone extinct since before humans existed, and new ones are forming constantly. So what. Regarding bees specifically. In the past nobody cared about bees. Now since there is a shortage, professional bee keepers will bring bees on a truck to where they are needed and they charge for the service. An example of capitalism incentives at work. I agree this is an issue. But when its not valuable nothing happens, when its valuable, everything happens right? So right now, nobody is actually in the ocean. Right? I mean I am standing on land, you? But say NYC is about to be swallowed whole, well then capitalism says that the people of NYC would be willing to pay lots of money to save their property, so the incentive to solve the problem increases. If the whole world was about to burn up because it was so hot, I would imagine half the worlds wealth would be the reward for solving it at that point. So as it gets worse, people want a solution more, the reward/incentive increases. Just because everyone isn't tireless working today on the problem doesn't mean it won't get solved. I would trust people standing to make $10 trillion dollars as a reward to solve the problem in the final hours over a bunch of hippies trying to solve it now who are living on a $30,000 salary. Incentives are powerful.

I do not agree with Stef. If you are a man, you are retarded if you marry before 30 (probably better around 35) AND you are retarded if you marry someone over 25. Why? Well you can have slim pickings when you are young, or you can increase you SMV high and have a huge selection. And if you have a huge selection, why would you choose someone over 25? I am just turning 31 and I am casually dating a few girls 18, 19, 22 and 22. I would be retarded to date a 29 year old who is ruined mentally. And I am not even talking about the casual sex as much but that can ruin some women for sure, I think a woman being forced to work and fend for herself like a man is far more ruinous. Giving them big ambitions for dreams that are the opposite of being a good partner ie being head lawyer at firm, getting a phd etc. She should dream about having a family, not working 80 hours a week and competing against men for the corner office.

You have to understand money is not an actual thing, its a way to measure value which is just a kind of subjective nebula for the most part. The reason we are so much better off now than a long time ago is because of technology. Imaging there is an alternate universe. There is a huge economic collapse and everyone makes half what they make now. So the average Joe instead of making $28k per year now only makes $14k per year... BUUUUTTTT also in this alternate universe technology is advanced about 200 years. So while Joe only makes $14k, a computer for home use is a 20 core, super computer by todays standards and only costs $50. So Joe is still better off, why? because of technology. Technology is really just how to get more value for less costs. This is why poor schmucks today have cell phones and flat screen tvs and an old jalopy to drive, in many ways they live better than Kings of ancient times!!!!! The other thing to think about is as technology increases, robots and automation will take over. In the short term yes there are displacement issues but forget that for a minute. Imagine there are no more burger flippers, or shit jobs at all. No postmen, no stock workers at the store, cashiers etc. Now every job is going to produce more value because each job like say an engineer is worth more than minimum wage. So in theory, everyone will forget there was such a thing as burger flippers and everyone will assume engineer assistant is the shittiest job available. So everyone produces more value, period, because there is no such job that produces less. Just like there is no such thing as a cotton picker as a job anymore. What do stupid people do? They will do shit jobs still, clean toilets when the toilet cleaner bots break but the repairman didnt get there yet, prostitute, charge for backyard wrestling, rely on charity etc. BUT see the top point, they will still be better off than the poor people are today.

You can train a woman but you have to start with wet clay and not something already out of the kiln. Things to look for: Younger Moderate self image/esteem (Ignore the "I deserve it all" women unless you know your game and can knock them down a peg hard and fast) Feminine Then you follow these basic steps: 1. Immediately throw out you are "more conservative" (don't push political) and give an example like "I think a strong man needs to be head of the household." 2. If she sticks around, then take the lead, prove you can be the leader. Decide where to go. Grab her hand at a bar or club if you go out so she knows you are close and lead her where to go. Little things that show you can make decisions. When she says I am going to order the xyz salad. When the waitress comes over order the xyz salad for her. Be a damn man! 3. Never act desperate ever. Everyone makes mistakes, especially young women. If she messes up, don't ever say its OK. You need to hold her to standards just like a man. She blows you off, tell her you are losing interest because she comes off as rude. She flirts with someone else past a reasonable level and tell her that is not acceptable. DO NOT ARGUE. Just state a fact. ie I felt you were being inappropriate and I will not tolerate that. If she starts whining and moaning and does not accept your lead on the issue, just walk away. This is where you show your power and expose her weakness. I had a girl blow me off recently because she was out partying late and missed our early morning hiking plans. I just said, I am not going to tolerate this my time is valuable and you are rude. What she is used to is men saying oh sorry its ok because they just want to dive into her bed. 4. Sexualize motherhood. When you get it on, tell her how you want to make her pregnant. When they feel like they can still be a sexy young woman even when they have children, they will be more open to it. A big hesitation for them is ruining their body and cleaning boogers and puke and sex going out the window. Tell them that isn't true and mean it. Tell them how turned on you will be by them being a mother. 5. On the opposite side, tell them how irrelevant a career is. Personally I make a lot of money so I just say "I don't date women who work outside the home, period." If I hear one peep about college or work or something out a woman's face I am over her in 2 seconds. They learn quick. The girl I am talking to now I told her I expect a woman to be basically pregnant non stop, like 10 kids type scenario and she was just all like melty and hearts for eyes. She responded saying "I only wear two kinds of shoes. Heels and barefoot." And she was serious. You don't know, many women know what they want but no men proposition them like this so they just keep going down the rabbit hole of college -> career -> cats/settling for some chump. Regarding the makeup preferences and stuff, you are being way to picky. For every new aspect you miss out on higher quality women. Like you want a woman who doesnt wear lots of makeup... but wouldn't a woman who wears makeup but say has a 140 IQ be a more attractive partner? Try to just pick like 3 things at most and then judge a woman on the whole package. I mean I prefer brilliant green eyes but I certainly would not include that on my requirements or I would never find a good woman and when I did it would be settling because statistically I will have a pool of one so I can't select the one with the best IQ or the sexiest body, or shares the interests or values I prefer to a higher degree. Hope that makes sense. And if you really are looking for the woman who meets all your criteria exactly you better be like private jet flying, 6'3" GQ cover Einstein. LOL

Most of your issues come down to well why wouldn't someone just own the whole forest or all of lake superior, or enforce intellectual property. Well they may be ABLE to do it in theory, but in PRACTICE its impossible because of capitalism. Imagine you want to claim the whole forest and lake superior to just be vacant land. Well then go protect it. How would you do that? Well you need probably at least 20 armed men and trucks and guns and security cameras and stuff. Cost in todays USD would be about $400k to pay each man 20k per year. 5 trucks at maybe $100k, 20k in guns and ammo, another 150k in fencing, security cameras and other measures in key areas. Total: $670k PER YEAR and I think I am seriously low balling it. now how much money does a forest and a lake earn you per year..... $0. 1. 99.9% of the population is not capable of actually claiming and enforcing such claim due to the cost. 2. Even if someone did do this, they would receive a poor return even if they get great enjoyment out of it, they would have an incentive to disown, sell, etc the land asap. I know if I made $1 million dollars per year in income I would not spend 670k of it on vast land that is essentially unusable. Now when would someone actually do this AND it be acceptable by NAP and be acceptable by society and there be a return or incentive for someone to do it? Example: If they did this but also invested 100 million dollars in building a giant town and renting it out, then whats the problem? Investment + Work + natural resource is sufficient in claiming such natural resource. For your other example with the intellectual property. You could enforce it only if you are willing to PAY for it. Intellectual property such as a book or music or something of that nature we are talking $10 per unit. So is there a way to pay an enforcer to track down all the end users and travel around with a group of 5 guys and demand payment at each door? Not monetarily feasible. The time it would take your guy to fly from your office in say NY to Michigan and go from one side of town to the other getting people on a list and people not being home and stuff, he would be lucky to collect $50 a day when to hire him plus expenses would be closer to $400 per day. What about a producer? What if in China they produce the same product as a duplicate in a manufacturing plant. Will you hire a whole army to shut down their operation? You could but its still not financially feasible. Will you really hire Blackwater to go over to China and take out 2 thousand people and a factory and an office building? Don't forget they have their own security forces. TLDR Companies do not make nearly as much money as you think they do. Only a government that makes far more money than any company can do such things. So technically it could be done. Financially it would not be feasible or provide any kind of incentive to do such things.

Bribery only works in an absence of all other market forces. - everyone is trying to do visa runs, they all pay the same exact fees etc. so no market forces, the bribe replaces it. Everyone who pays $5 moves to the top of the paperwork stack as if they had just purchased a higher VIP experience from the beginning. - one purchaser picks one supplier for their company, they all offer about the same thing, the one that gives you tickets to the box for the basketball game gets the contract in each example, there are no deciding important market forces any more so it all comes down to personal preference which is a secondary financial gain that has nothing to do with the transaction. In example 1, the government is the direct cause. In example 2, it should be acceptable and moral only if it doesn't harm the company. But, if they chose to advance themselves at the expense of the company they should be fired, so there is definitely an incentive for them to not do it in such a way that it harms. When I had a certain job, we would spend like $10,000 or so on many different companies. The bids would all look the same: $10,000 for 1 million widgets, $10,000 for 1 million widgets etc etc. a big list of that. So whichever company mailed us the most and the best swag gifts got to the top of the list. I don't think I am legally supposed to acknowledge that but whatever.

0.7% isn't the actual number. You would probably want to read the whole report and see how they were figuring the numbers before you decide if you find it accurate. But as it stands the CDC reports will tell you that some vaccines are not as safe as not taking the vaccine. Some of the reasons they push the vaccine anyways would be things like social disease control. ie you cant give vaccine to newborns but they can easily get it so if everyone else gets it, it keeps new borns safe. So they expect the individual to take the risk to save lives of newborns... just one example. So you really should read the reports.

Vaccines are easy. Just look up the CDC reports they put out. Every year they put out reports for each vaccine/disease. An example of the kind of info: 1% without vaccine contracted disease of the 1%: 80% were just a bit sick, 10% were seriously life altering injuries, 10% died of those who took vaccine 0.7% had high vaccine injury such as permanent loss of eyesight, stroke, amputation, death Then you can calculate your risk of non vaccine for permanent injury is 0.2% and risk of vaccine permanent injury is 0.7% so then the decision is easy. Do this for each vaccine, they aren't all the same one way or the other, some are good, some are not.

Cuck. Women actually want their man to be so powerful that he cucks them. He is just confused and sad. Just because he has a business and seems cool doesn't make him not a cuck. Also, its complete bull that women like jealousy and men hate jealousy. No. That is weak. You can condition yourself to react how you want. The cuck is a man whose woman sleeps around and his is a beetch. EXCEPTION a pimp puts his girl or girls out to sleep around and is strong about it, makes that bank, completely controls the situation and I don't think would be considered a cuck. What's the difference? Its their attitude about the whole thing. This guy is crying himself to sleep, he is a cuck.

That all sounds great but then when I go to Amazon why can't I buy a paper copy?