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

    1,241
  • 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

4,435 profile views
  1. The setup is convincing the public that identity is more tied to what you consume than what you do. Once accepted, many tactics become much easier. I tend to think much of it is a consequence of larger social group awareness than can possibly be managed through real interaction. Today, we're aware of more people than most humans ever. Our social instincts drive us to somehow negotiate a place within this social hierarchy, but we can't possibly know the vast majority, so shallow symbols of identity are most of what we have to offer the world. Also consider that country folks rate as happier than city dwellers. Being around too many people can be disorienting. A strong sense of family and community might be the best answer. People continuously looking for their tribe must consider themselves "kinda" a part of every potential tribe and may be motivated to mitigate all possible realities by attempting to maximize their mass appeal. This can make one quite susceptible to marketing tricks.
  2. I know but they could possibly trade their pick (+ some bench contracts, prolly) for someone like love and also sign Hayward. iirc, love's contract is for two more years. But yeah, it wouldn't make sense to trade for George if you're signing Hayward (can't afford both). Hypothetical starting five: Thomas, Bradley/Brown, Hayward, Love, Horford. Could give the cavs a good series, at least. I think they'll keep the pick, though, unless they think there's no future all-star in this draft. I still suspect the cavs don't acquire George without a third team involved. See who wants love and see what they can offer indy -- prolly young players with upside or high pick(s). You want to get good when LeBron gets old / goes to LA, lol. No use being good now unless you're gonna be great.
  3. Would Indy want to make that trade though? If they're certain to lose george, maybe, but they may prefer a high draft pick(s) to basically becoming the 13-14 timberwolves. If Boston is set on giving IT the max next summer (which I'm not assuming they will or should) then I could see them trading their pick (likely Fultz) to Indy in a 3-team deal that sends George to clev and love to boston. Not sure the cavs want to help Boston get better (or vice versa) though. Can't Boston afford (if they want, if he wants) to give George the max? Plus they'd love to screw the cavs. Lots of scenarios to consider. Cavs also need to improve their bench, and losing love would cause a rebounding problem. Not sure they have the resources even if they score a george/butler/melo.
  4. Regarding gender, though it's obviously unfair, there's something about the (often) high-pitched voice of women that makes their verbal outbursts more annoying than men, even when the content is identical. It's likely sexism, but I've had a tendency, at times, to assume that when a feminine looking and sounding woman complains, she's using her wiles (or, the social acceptability of female helplessness) to get special treatment, while I make no assumption of intent when a man does it. As for men, their hostility will tend to seem more threatening, in part due to physical size and in part due to societal expectation. I dunno though, most of the shitty traits my parents had were shared by both (they deserved eachother, heh), but I do tend to think that your experience of each parent will affect how you perceive men and women. If your mother always did some annoying thing, you're gonna have a special distaste for it when other women do it. There's a kind of thinking... that since society is/has been thought of as a patriarchy, that tyrannical behavior in men is perceived as an extension of the tyrannical tendencies of the state, while it perhaps doesn't elicit the same associations from women (though, with that, you may get the "devouring mother" or even "the old hag" associations -- but even then, it tends to be more psychological than physical/violent).
  5. The "most important" language is weird, but kids should obviously learn respect for their caretakers and not be smothered. Ideally, you want "I'm needy/helpless and so can get unlimited attention from people who merely exist to serve me" to change to "I want to be less helpless so I and my parents can be more free" as soon as reasonably possible. I suppose the fear, for some, is a child content on remaining in helpless mode because it's just too rewarding, so some people suggest you cap the rewards by not letting it be all about the kid(s). But really, if you're changing strategy to benefit the kids (longterm) then they're still "important" obviously, otherwise you'd just say fuck it and not care about a strategy (which may even work best considering the negative impact of stress from parents who worry too much).
  6. There's probably a common mindset where you know/suspect your approach to something is wrong but aren't (yet) ready/willing to make the likely inconvenient and painful necessary changes but are willing to test the waters by throwing your awful ideas out there to be ripped to shreds, knowing it's just a little forum and you don't actually have to change anything if you don't want to. It's a safe way, perhaps, of moving towards a solution. I've come to realize that many INTJs have this idea that simply recognizing the superiority of an idea is all that's needed for one to immediately act upon it. Humans don't seem to work that way though. Even people who know they're wrong, often take years to start acting like it. The full acceptance of an idea can be a long process, because it's not just about logic, there's a beast underlying the problem, and that beast must feed. You can convince your mind, but you're more than just a mind, you're a monster. And really, you're better off learning to tame monsters than you are learning how to identify good arguments (if you could choose only one), at least when it comes to this topic. You know when you're dealing with someone who's controlled by a monster -- they don't listen to reason anyway, so going there is useless.
  7. I just think that likely there's an enthusiasm gap. Annoying breederism aside, parents tend to see having kids as a life-changing event, because for them it was. The decision not to breed, however, might just mean your life stays relatively the same -- that may even be the point: you love your childfree life so much you'd like it to continue. There's less specific to the topic to get excited about because you're already excited about your life. Deciding not to breed, for you, is just a logical consequence of preferring life how it already is. I also think it's inevitable that a thread about not doing something becomes, in part, a thread about the pros and cons of that thing. It's a discussion/debate forum, so when you go "here's my perspective on x" eventually someone will go "what about this perspective, though?" That said, I see four things indeed worth discussing here (you clued me in on one): 1. The social pressure to breed and how it colors the decision of the undecided and annoys those who've decided against kids (this was discussed somewhat). 2. The increased freedom for those without kids (something parents know about too, since they once were childfree, so this one is less potent, as parents don't need to be told what it's like to lack children -- they have memory). 3. The challenge posed by needing companionship in a world that expects you to have kids, complicated by things like divorce and what you might call a culture of isolation (I suspect things like childfree support groups exist to meet this). 4. How the decision to become sterile can effect one's sex life. 5. How to do Love Math -- which love formulas are supported by leading mathematicians and which ones are bunk, as well as cutting-edge apps that can sense love around you and give you a love score along with timely love alerts when your score is dangerously low (this was discussed extensively and has been figured out forever, no need for further discussion though do feel free to post your numbers).
  8. Okay, this might be the best thread summary I've seen on this forum.
  9. Right, relationship comes next. To be fair though, for anything to happen, you must get your foot in the door, and to the extent that men are more visual (which isn't very controversial) women will have an advantage compared to men of "equal looks" (which I'll admit is hard to quantify). Now I'm not here to defend TRP or any other "system" -- I figure people will gravitate towards what works for them and the ethics of the specific behaviors will inform my opinion from there -- but I certainly can't fault men (or women) for trying to find ways to get their feet in more doors, so to speak. Sure, some of them are just looking to count conquests for their ego, but others realize you increase your odds of landing on 'jackpot' the more spins of the wheel you get. Again, the specifics will affect my opinion from there. Some guys systematically misrepresent themselves until they forget what truth is, some are persistent to the point of being creepy, but then, others work out fervently, change their look and try out new approaches. I've noticed a wide range of reported behaviors from men under various umbrellas, trp included. I've stopped paying attention to the umbrella, it's a distraction. (long rant incoming...) I think I don't tend to approach this subject by simply looking at what trp (or whatever new fad is going on) currently is in a "technical" sense. Yes, the culture of it is largely misogynistic and is not worth being a "member" of. You should, of course, reject any association with it and just about anything else, for that matter. But, in a big picture sense, it's just a thread in a larger cloth in the study of human dynamics. Perhaps this particular thread is a failure, time will tell, but I can't say the goals are all unworthy. I can also say many of them are disasterous. I'm curious about its evolution and what value could spring from it. Like, the old saying is "90% of everything is crap", so trp dudes are largely full of crap and it attracts horrible human tendencies, and it's not even surprising. But, I wouldn't want to ignore the general thread it represents in my haste to reject its horrible contents. There's too much information you can get if you just observe behavior without any preconceptions. And I wouldn't assume the stream of information will be all black-and-white. Sometimes they'll be right, sometimes they'll be wrong. Sometimes they'll be right and still be wrong. Sometimes you gain information at the expense of others. The biggest mistake might be thinking you're all that different from them. All this identification with a group (which is horribly lame) drives an unnecessary wedge between people. The defensiveness and need to "win" are off the charts in these topics. I still don't know exactly what a redpiller is because they won't speak from the heart, and we don't tend to extend the invitation to them anyway. I mean, it's obvious we're a doomed species, right? (okay that's enough)
  10. Who determines what "success" is? "Capital" may be a misleading term, as I don't mean it as something you can spend on everything like cash. I mean that, in the aggregate, it will be easier for women to generate *initial* interest, meaning they do have more they can "cash in" in the shortterm. It's basically a fancy way of saying women have more men who would f them only based on appearance than is true for men. Meaning that when they first meet, she appears to have the "power" for that small sliver of time that it's "just looks". The thing is, what someone does with that info is another matter entirely, as well as whether they even care. I say men should own their desire and accept that it creates the very imbalance many complain about. Not to mention, what's wrong with women having a little power anyway? Especially when it basically just means "can get a gross stranger to fuck you any night if you wanted". Wow, such privilege.
  11. It's more that women have more sexual capital in the visual stage of any (potential) interaction with a man, simply because men are typically more visual when it comes to attraction. This would also mean women can generally generate options more quickly and easily, again, simply because men are easier to attract in the shortterm. Past visuals though, things level out, and men can always say no. Whether any of this actually helps a given woman is debatable, since attracting quick attention may not even be her goal. "...but you could have any man here for a night! ... "so?"
  12. (that was sweet, thanks for sharing) I don't mean that as an absolute. I was thinking that, perhaps, in the aggregate, people with fewer loved ones may value those few more and have more time for them. Regarding Major Chord's math, that may, often, "make up" for the love lost from having fewer loved ones. Just as you may get diminishing returns past a certain number of people, you may be able to maximize returns from one person if there's no one else (more time/energy) but them. Probably wise to differentiate how much you love someone from how much time/energy you realistically have for them. You could have 50 kids and love them all unconditionally, but good luck reading to all of them (extreme example). The relative silence from the childless may be quite simple -- having children is a thing someone does while not having children is simply a negation of an action. A childless person is more likely to talk about the interesting things they *do* than what they don't do, while parents are obviously gonna talk about their kids. It's sort of like atheism. While an atheist might talk about annoying religious folk telling them they're going to hell, on the whole, the religious are going to talk about god more because it's a part of their life they have enthusiasm for. Talking about not doing something is kinda boring. (the childfree bingo was kinda funny though) A thread about not-thing is likely to turn into one about thing. That said, denigration is a waste of effort, for both sides. No one changes anyone's mind anyway, and these decisions are usually made deep down where you either want kids or you don't. Parents would do well not to burn too many bridges with childless folk. With all their free time, be nice to them and they might help babysit so you can have a date or drive them to soccer practice when your car breaks down, or whatever.
  13. They could be making a documentary about narcissism.
  14. If you've been in a very dysfunctional family, you know just how little love that can be. There can also be a lot of hate to go with that. Functional always trumps dysfunctional, because it's actually working. I also wouldn't be shocked if childless couples, since they may need each other more, actually do love eachother more intensely than parents. Either way, I think you increase love in your life by increasing it in your self, which attracts it from others. Simply adding people to your proximity doesn't really add much if you're a spiteful bastard, though I'll concede it gives you more people to rush you to the hospital, feed you, clean your house, etc. Bad family may actually be worse than none at all, at least emotionally, though material concerns may change the math a bit. I will say, though, that you probably want more than just one loved one, ideally. Perhaps that's where the aforementioned childless support groups come in.
  15. I put my results in there. I'm a bit surprised at how high agreeableness is, I would've figured about 50-ish but not that high. The high anger score seems weird since I answered pretty much every question about seeking revenge in the extreme against it (I'm not vengeful at all). Kinda makes me wonder if something is off there. Actually, kinda makes me angry. Though, it may be the "gets annoyed easily" items that scored towards anger, as I responded highly to those.