Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Expansion

Members
  • Content count

    1,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Expansion

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INtp

Converted

  • Location
    Georgia, US
  • Interests
    learn love laugh nap coffee
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,324 profile views
  1. Thinking more on this, I suspect many men pedestalize women and then have to "hate" them to generate the necessary downward force to have a real relationship with them. The conclusion that despite attraction and fantasy, women can be shitbags just like men seems like one worth reaching, though that may be a ugly process. Perhaps love isn't real or whatever but I've always heard that love persists in spite of flaws, not due to a lack of them. Once one has fallen from the pedestal can you still love them? Is it worthwhile to try? That might be the key moral question for redpillers and the like. Like yeah you hate them for not being what you hoped for but after that dust settles what is a woman worth to you? In my dumb optimism I still reckon most of these guys will "love" again. Yeah, I know, barf.
  2. Perhaps we'll compare the enthusiasm of 30-somethings in the 2030s about today's music with your enthusiasm with 90s music. If it really sucks, they'll remember it less fondly or not at all. Will they treasure their collection and memories like you do? Interesting question. Probably too early to judge now, though, and unfair to use your judgment without their own when they're your age. Then again, I'm approaching this from the assumption that great art stands the test of time. I don't really care what you or anyone thinks of new stuff. It needs time to sink in and be judged across generations and data points. Having a sexy beat and a nice ass won't help it in 50 years.
  3. The path they're on, they should keep going. If you're really about truth, well okay, then keep your eyes open. When people start talking like them, I say keep talking. The worst is when they get comfortable. Looking at their forums, there's much to dislike, but every ten threads or so, a gleam of human frailty shines through and you can see it all within the big picture. See, you really can't let yourself start seeing them as monsters. Not because they're not, but because you're one too. When they say "the truth about x" it's really "the truth about my experience". These people aren't scientists, they want a friend and to be vulnerable with someone who understands them. It's like a modern exhibit of just how isolated men are. A mistake is to blame women. Not that some women haven't wronged them, but it's only half the equation. Everyone has wronged everyone and we're paying for it. I mean, fuck, the lengths these guys go just to feel intimacy and acceptance, all because it seemed impossible to just say "look, there's something I need to talk about, but I'm afraid you'll hate me if I try." So, you have a monster in you and it has to be acknowledged before it can be tamed. If there's a red pill you need to take, I think it's the one that reveals your own monster before the monsters of others. That's the only one you've any hope of taming, and if everyone did that, much of this bitching about "women" and "men" would disappear. Good luck, crazy people.
  4. Another thing to consider is that people tend to overvalue the music they loved when young because, simply put, people tend to be happier and more optimistic when young, and often their bias towards older music is associated with the desire to recapture their youth. Nothing wrong with that, as music has that ability to almost take you back to another time, and it's an understandable bias to have, but still one to keep in mind. It may even turn out that today's music really is worse (which I'd define as: produces less longterm positive effect and meaning for its listeners), but it's likely due to two things (if true at all): record labels no longer investing deeply into the talent to pool to expose more gems (likely due to the massive effect of Internet file sharing), and the simple fact that it's harder to be unique over time. Really, the music industry has changed so massively since the 90s that I'd look there before I'd look to marxism. I mean, even if people are plagued by the "marxist" notion that all things are of equal value, people would still make great art you'd likely appreciate (as well as crap you don't, as always), though perhaps evaluation standards would differ. I get the sense it's the publicity and promotion of art you have more issue with than the art that actually exists, but marxism caught on in the early 20th century, and yet somehow your precious 90s still managed to have great music that was popular and easy to find. Apparently the commies weren't keeping it from you, but come 2000, decided enough was enough, just as the accessibility of online music exploded. The latter would've been enough though.
  5. I made a Sim keep ordering pizzas over and over and then place them all over the house and yard. Musta smelled awful but he didn't seem to mind. Eventually the entire yard was covered with rotten pizzas. I invited some Sims over for a "party" only to set the house on fire and then trap them in the party room. Then their ghosts were trapped in there. I made a couple consisting of an obese black woman with green hair and an old skinny mr. Rogers type guy and then made her just abuse that guy constantly. They quickly became "enemies" but stayed together anyway.
  6. Instead of strict dependence on men, you could look at it as, overall, general dependence on others, of which men are included. Even then, the "best" (however you define it -- I'd say the most helpful) men will have advantages, which would likely extend to mating opportunities.
  7. Generally speaking, helpful people have more social value, which spills over into mating value (though it's clearly more complicated than that). The more difficult life is, the more is demanded of people, and mating decisions have likely had some degree of practicality, even if only in a roundabout way. It's not like you're gonna keep fucking someone who continually slacks off and leaves you in danger. Modern life simply allows more margin of "error", so to speak, because life is easier. Regarding gender, I don't think you can disregard the impact of pregnancy on the mating decisions of women. Even when they had tribal women helping them, men were needed, and you obviously want the most helpful close to you. I'd think being helpful/useful ("status") has often correlated with mating success. Obviously there are other factors, and they can vary depending on circumstances. I agree with seablue that it's hard to pin down what "status" exactly is. You could say that any positive quality that's appreciated by many gives you status. I tend to see it as "has options", or at least has known value to a specific social group... social proof comes to mind. Mating decisions often happen quickly because life is busy... better to go with known value. Trust is very important. Status could just as easily mean trusted. I think people often think rockstars and biker gangs when they hear "status", but perhaps a trusted no-bullshit guy who's a good friend to many has status, too. That said, people tend to marry within the same socioeconomic group, and women rarely marry down. There could be many reasons for this, but you can't just ignore it. Wealth strongly correlates with number of sexual partners for men, too. Also can't be ignored, though the reasons for this could also vary. I tend think it's somewhat chicken-egg : what came first, the confidence/comfort or the attraction? An important question to ask when examining these patterns.
  8. I get sleep paralysis pretty often, probably at least twice a month, but I rarely see anything until I regain use of my body, and all I see then are random moving figures that are neither threatening nor meaningful. They are sometimes funny though, like dancing cartoon characters. Never seen a shadow man or haggard woman. I assume my eyes stay closed until I can move. Maybe because I don't want to see? I do remember hearing things a few times. When I was maybe 14 I heard what I imagined to be the voice of God trying to reassure me. It was like a benevolent father figure and was actually a nice experience, not scary at all.
  9. Everyone dies. Not everyone gets raped. We accept death because it's inevitable. Rape is not inevitable. Ideally one would live a life of dignity never having been raped. Rape ruins that story, or so many believe. That said, I don't see how a "sad" response implies something is less "bad" than an "angry" response. The latter seeks retribution. Not all deaths represent a violation, but all rapes, by definition, do. I'm unsure, however, if we're comparing murder to rape, or simply death in general to rape. How someone dies tends to matter to us.
  10. It's funny, I'm an ATL fan but I find myself more impressed by the Pats than anything. Their ability to keep fielding championship contenders in an era where most teams have at least one bad year every five or so, you have to respect that. A bad year for them is barely losing in the AFC championship. Or maybe I'm so salty that my team choked that I'm all the more impressed by those who actually get the job done. Then again, all their SB wins are a little flukey. You have the tuck rule the first year, then two more 3 pt wins, then that insane end zone INT, then whatever the fuck happened last week. There's really not a signature win there, but 16 years of being really good can't be ignored.
  11. I don't necessarily have a problem with throwing in that situation, but that particular play left Ryan with virtually no way to throw it away without a grounding call, unless he wants to risk an INT, which is obviously not an option. Seriously, watch it again, everyone goes deep and there's no one underneath to throw to. Pressure comes immediately and he's fucked. Really though, if you're gonna be aggressive, do it on first, not second down. That way a sack isn't as devastating as you have an extra play to work with. I agree the last drive needed to be deep shots to Julio, since he's a beast who nearly saved them with what should've gone down as one of the greatest catches in SB history. Another miracle grab was pretty much their only shot at that point. Really though, I knew it was over when they punted up 28-20. Knew exactly what would happen and it did. Smh. Regarding FGs, yeah they're not gimmes, but neither is anything else. Bryant has consistently been a top kicker for years and I'm willing to trust him, given the situation. If you're not willing to trust the kicker, I understand. Part of my calculus is the fact that the o-line was beat up (center playing with a broken leg!) and our offense was generally ineffective at that point. I say, you got the miracle Julio catch, don't push your luck 'cause you're hanging by a thread at this point. If I thought their offense was in its regular season condition, I might think differently. If you run it, they either use up their timeouts, or they only have 2-3 minutes left needing 2 scores. Great chance to win. Onside kicks are flukey. Also, looking back, at 28-9 the Pats failed an onside kick (which looks stupid now, lol) giving ATL the ball at NE's 41 and the Falcons only moved backwards from there. Yet another massive failure to get game-clinching points. Being a falcons fan is bad for my health. Probably one of the few franchises I could see this happening to, seems appropriate I guess, like yeah, that makes sense. I wasn't even shocked. Bengals might be another one, with all their playoff chokes. These things always seem to happen to certain franchises/cities.
  12. I find that I remember roughly half of my dreams, though I think I used to remember more when younger (I'm 30 now). I often wake up with a general feel of the dream, devoid of content or narrative. I'll sometimes feel some pretty intense emotions during the first couple hours of the day, without really knowing why, with a strong suspicion it's dream related. Some of them are incredibly vivid and I could recount many details. I also still have a "greatest hits" of past dreams I occasionally recall. I still remember the bear trying to get into the house from the roof and me running next door for help. I suspect that bear now lives there with its family and is actually an okay guy now that he's calmed down and stopped busting into people's houses (it helps that he has his own house now). I hope to visit him tonight, catch up a bit, maybe bring some fish. Dreams are nice.
  13. This is a good explanation of the market forces of modeling but it doesn't explain the thread's premise of hetero men's supposed preference for thin women. Runway models probably aren't the best example anyway, but the general trend of thin being hot (to the extent it's even true) must be sourced somewhere. I'm not sure it's neoteny either, but perhaps a cultural signal of health and/or general athleticism mixed with a desire (in some males) to dominate and feeling more comfortable with someone frail looking. Overall though, once you can hijack the arousal system, almost anything can be sexy. Men need not prefer thin women in a "pure state" (which doesn't exist) to act as if they prefer them (or begin to prefer them). Considering my idea of sexy was probably formed before puberty, it's debatable how many of my preferences are "mine" and how many are learned. Though, fwiw, skinny was never my favorite. I also think it's interesting where we draw our descriptive lines. Many models, to me, seem underweight, while others considered "thin" look quite differently to me, yet many lump those together as the same phenomenon of thin preference. I suspect that small differences register more (or differently?) with those attracted to the gender in question. For example, straight women just don't see women the same way I do, or at least they don't describe/categorize them the same way. Something related: the hair color I prefer in women is usually just that of my last crush. Preference doesn't seem to be static at all.
  14. Has anyone considered that high/low quality might refer to one's character? Poor character has to be the only thing, if anything, that's inspired me to think of someone as low quality. I might find someone sexually unattractive, but their quality as a person (or my perception of it) isn't affected by that. People do sometimes use those terms to describe subjective attraction, though. After thinking on it a bit, I figure it's likely anyone who uses such terms for that purpose is seeing things as a social hierarchy they'd like to climb. I can see the distaste of that. (though perhaps some have their own personal hierarchy based on their preferences, not keeping up with jonses or whatever) I also figure that anyone who dates someone with a purely selfish mindset, won't get much longterm beneficial experience that way. You would only get good at dating by practicing having good dates, which would be mutually beneficial ones. If you only take and don't give, you won't get good at giving. Your future relationships will be doomed. Even if you figure it's just a casual thing that won't last, seek to make it good for them, keeping in mind you're just a stop in their journey too. Let them know your thoughts and intentions. No shame in seeking practice when you're clueless (like me, lol). You should have gratitude for anyone who spends time and attention on you. They could be doing literally anything else. I suspect this whole thing is often a confidence issue, and further down the rabbit hole, a fear issue. That's the dark side, at least.
  15. I agree with the first paragraph, obviously you should respect who you're involved with. Full stop. On the second though, what if by "better" one meant a better connection and/or a better understanding of how to relate or how to be in a relationship? With a better understanding, you'd likely pick more suitable partners in the future. You're just not gonna know what you're doing right away and are more likely to pick someone you don't click with. The idea that you get better at something with practice (and yield better results) holds true. I get what people mean though, about judging people's "quality" as if it even matters beyond how they appeal to you.