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

    1,235
  • 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

4,373 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. Okay, this might be the best thread summary I've seen on this forum.
  4. 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)
  5. 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.
  6. 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?"
  7. (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.
  8. They could be making a documentary about narcissism.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Yeah, the response to Imperator's post wasn't a very comprehensive one, and clearly zeroed in on one aspect. There are also assumptions being made about the full picture being painted. After being asked who the female "bottom-feeders" are, he responded with various types of negative male behavior all related to redpillers and then when describing the women they attract, used much softer and more forgiving language, implying they have emotional issues and/or are tricked (which certainly happens, no doubt). I'm assuming icon41grip perceived a double standard from this, one where women aren't seen as conscious agents in who they're attracted to. Or, failing that, conscious agents whose "bad" decisions can be explained by psychology while men's bad decisions just make them bad guys, end of discussion. Comes down to the specifics I guess. On one extreme, you have deliberate deception or even abuse, where there is obviously a legitimate claim of trickery or worse. Then you have other types of guys Imperator mentioned who, while not very likeable to most of us, and who may even hold reprehensible views, are basically what they appear to be and happen to (for whatever reason) attract women. One could also make the case that many redpillers have esteem issues, bad childhoods, etc., though when they're the ones initiating the interaction, it's understandably harder to empathize with them. They're seen as the "actor" in this drama while the women are seen as being "acted upon". I think, though, that a reasonable case could be made that we're already primed to respond more empathetically to women, creating a bias on this topic. That there is a history of oppression of women just intensifies that.
  12. Right, but I think he's rejecting the notion that they were tricked in the first place and didn't simply choose to be with a "bad" guy because she likes that guy and/or just wants sex. Alternatively, they could be tricked but enjoy the results and choose to remain involved with the guy. I suppose that, with redpill, whether or not it's a "trick" depends on how committed the guy is to whatever change in his persona he's trying to achieve. If someone is attracted to a set of qualities that the other intends to keep, I don't think we can call it trickery. Though, perhaps I say this because I generally believe these guys are trying to be more like who they "really are" and only pursue the ideology because it speaks to them. I think, overall, my point would be that we have no right to assert another's victimhood just because the circumstances are ones we wouldn't choose. We should ask these women if they're victims. Maybe they get off on shitty dudes because they're shitty themselves. One of the few things I like about redpill is they remind us that women can be awful people too, though apparently they see fit to just call them all awful, lol. Also, they (pillers) all seem humorless, along with mgtows. I never see these guys laugh or say anything funny. If their women are anything like them, no wonder they hate them.
  13. I reckon you're talking about the combination of gemini moon (conversation skill) and sagittarius venus (intellectual approach to relationships). I'm not sure how accurately this describes my life though. Having mars in aries sounds pretty cool, theoretically, like I could get shit done when I set my mind on it (which is accurate enough), but I'm perhaps mellowed out by jupiter in pisces making me all fluffy and empathetic. I dunno, I'm trying to make sense of it.
  14. I guess this depends on one's definition of suffering, which has been used differently throughout this thread. It's an awkward stance, because it feels wrong to somehow equate, say, poverty with the kind of suffering economically privileged people experience, and yet, I've seen plenty of wealthy people cry sincere tears and they still have to deal with things like death, loss, and existential terror, to name a few. I don't think you need to equate them, anyway, to consider them suffering. Many people, who are quite happy overall and certainly not lacking materially, have cares and goals that are deeply meaningful to them and do experience, I believe, sincere suffering in pursuit of them. They can also suffer when witnessing the suffering of others. I'm not so sure we are programmed to create suffering by default, but where we have genuine desire, we suffer. I guess then it comes down to how inevitable desire is. Perhaps the supposedly nihilistic who "don't care about anything" could avoid suffering, but in my observation, people without a goal don't fare very well either. I suspect that, to avoid suffering completely, you have to give up any chance of joy too. (that feels a bit simplistic as I read it, but it may be generally true)
  15. My little hope is that in another ten years or so we will have figured out how to integrate technology into the value systems that make us happiest. I suspect that many are being "forced" (in a market sense) to buy into values that aren't their own in order to compete in this landscape. I sometimes consider how tradition was stifling and frustrating, but perhaps made life simpler for most. Pandora's box has opened and people are free to do what they want, so there's a kind of honesty there, but I wonder how many are finding satisfaction. (alternatively, you could ask how many ever found it in more traditional times). Point is, freedom may not equal happiness. Like, with tinder you can find out what proportion of people find you superficially attractive. Aside from "do you even want to know that?" there's also the question of "now what?". I reckon many are not (yet) oriented in such a way to get much value from that. I tend to think the most meaningful connections happen through shared interest, and probably by accident, but that's possibly somewhat a product of being born into a value system in accordance with that desire/expectation. Maybe we'll witness a kind of existentialist revolution where technology both helps and (let's be honest) forces people to learn how to make meaningful interactions without any traditional systems aiding in the process. We've come a long way from arranged marriages. Now there's barely even the pretense of "meaning" so you'll have to create your own. That's an opportunity. I suspect technology will become more sophisticated and responsive to the issues (bugs, if you will) brought on by previous tech and will work better at meeting the diverse needs of its users. Early dating apps will seem primitive in a few years. There's no escaping technology, but it can improve its ROI. That's my preferred time, when apps are more of a help and less of a novelty.