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.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About elsdfr


  • MBTI


  • Gender
  1. Boil some detergent.
  2. That is a food rainbow.
  3. That captain is on to something. I think the "pay-gap" comes down to personality and not simply some mystical 'patriarchy' or vast conspiracy against women (as some paranoid feminists like to suggest)... Some people are simply less argumentative and more agreeable by nature and they are therefore more likely to prefer compromise over disagreement, even to their own detriment, and dare I say it, this is more likely to be a female trait, whereas it is less common in males. I have seen this myself in the workplace. Some males when offered an opportunity of more money are like savage dogs, they will do anything if they think more money is what they need, and they can be quite ruthless and determined. However, as more females enter male dominated industries I've noticed this kind of behavior is becoming less and less common, making it so that not only the most aggressive and determined get the 'fruit' -- It now seems tilted, so that others might still be given a chance, even though they are not the most... hmm, how can I put this?... the most obvious choice?? Essentially adjusting workplace culture in order to match a social and employment agendas. Included in this is there is not as much focus on individuals and 'targets' (KPIs, etc), as there once was. So while it is still a fair percentage, it is no longer the be-all and end-all of how well someone is seen to be doing. Other factors now include things like: how a person is seen to be doing in their position (stressed, depression, their work-life balance); are they contributing to a 'good culture'; are they seen to be contributing a positive company image; how well can they recite the corporate mantra and their contribution to it all, and what are they doing to promote it, etc.. All of which were never really spoken of in the past, let alone accounted for in review of someones performance, future promotion opportunities and bonus pay -- essentially removing the individual from what is being measured, and attempting to foster more of a collaborative / group collective (re)view (regardless of requirements).. this to me now seems to be a preferred metric and it is becoming common in many STEM-type corporations and occupations.
  4. Sweatshops and things like this. Global justice is a growing concern for some, but it also has some consequences. So I wonder, what is the difference between helping them and exploiting them? Do multinationals have an ethical responsibility not to exploit wage-gaps? Many companies and brands do but it seems reactionary as they only sort of curtail or change when the consumers protest. We also have 'ethical' companies where they claim to not exploit this divide, they are 'fair' -- Is this just another reaction to consumer demand? Or is it the role of corporations having ethical values and global responsibilities? Many major brands also like to now blame their outsourced contractors when they are caught up in it.. but is that a fair excuse? Surely we are all in effect 'profiting' as a form of exploitation, but just to varying degrees.. http://www.thetalko.com/11-celebs-caught-up-in-shocking-sweatshop-scandals/ Steve Jobs: When reminded there had been 13 cases of suicide amongst members of staff at Foxconn, he replied, “This is very troubling to us. So we send over our own people and some outside folks as well, to look into the issue.” Then in 2007, Apple were pushed to investigate the real goings on at Foxconn and were shocked by their findings. In their Supplier Responsibility Report which was published online, they reported: “We discovered that in order to work for some suppliers, many workers were coerced by unscrupulous recruiting agents into paying excessively high fees to gain employment. Because fees to these corrupt middlemen often equaled many months’ wages, workers were taking on huge debt even before they started at the job. They were forced to hand over nearly all their wages to recruiters to pay this debt, and they had to remain at the job until the debt was paid.” Thoughts?
  5. Morbid is my sense of humor in telling a stranger to embrace their shadow-self with no reference. That lands on the on shoulders of the oh-so-harmless, Jung - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology) It is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses- and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circumstances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster. ~ Carl Jung, “On the Psychology of the Unconscious“ While it's not all I was referring to, perhaps it makes a little more sense.
  6. I still have most of those books. Those books helped me sort myself out - but not in the most conventional way - they helped me understand and put in context what I thought I should be doing, and I was able to put it into the smaller frame of reference of here and now and for me. Sometimes going to the heart of darkness and being honest about things to yourself, talking them through and attempting to resolve 'it', is one of the better ways to sort out what might be troubling you so you can find out what values you actually have -- giving yourself the ability to still stand under that burden and then being for values that you respect and can still see meaning in, despite the rancid aspects and the totality of it all.
  7. For me there is no one inherent purpose or a 'meaning to life'. I came to this conclusion at about the age of twenty.. unfortunately it sent me into a few years of an immature and nihilistic rage: a 'everything is nothing' downward spiral - so while I was able to maintain employment and what-not, I was kind of unhealthy in more ways than one, and I thought that was my life forever -- but things change, they always do... I would go on, but my main mistake was reading too much of certain books with having very little background or guidance in them. Anyway: Life to me just the means the small moments that I take from it -- enjoyment in the mundane day-to-day and the small bits of joy; a beautiful sunrise, the smell of fresh ocean spray, connections, the Self and the simple pleasures of it all. So yes, I see no real meaning in the scheme of everything in time (so to speak), just life as an absurd journey of stages from which I take both sorrow and joy and I have grown to accept this meaninglessness as a form of meaning, in itself. Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated - Confucius
  8. Pursue 'meaning', as in saving the poor or being really rich? I guess the meaning requirement of life is a human condition only resolved by their ability to look beyond and for better or worse, just as bitter verses sweet.
  9. Oh yeah, it's always the trolls fault. I guess the bigots would see the racist robots and say: "No, you can't be racist because you're only a robot!" Then the trolled robots could accuse the bigots of classism, or something, and then they could start a war.
  10. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/ai-experiment-language-biases-racist-sexist/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=global&utm_campaign=general-content&linkId=36724208 Robots Are Racist and Sexist Because So Are the Humans They're Learning From Unfortunately, the patterns reveal some ugly human biases. The above-mentioned prejudices were statistically prominent within the data that was processed. When these biases are ingrained in a robot, they’re especially dangerous, because robots do not have the same (often faulty) moral checks and balances as humans. “A danger would be if you had an AI system that didn’t have an explicit part that was driven by moral ideas, that would be bad,” lead researcher Joanna Bryson told The Guardian. This isn’t the first time that algorithms started off neutral and quickly became Frankenstein-like monsters after interacting with humans. ... “A lot of people are saying this is showing that AI is prejudiced,” Bryson said. “No. This is showing we’re prejudiced and that AI is learning it.” The most notorious examples come by way of Microsoft, which often unleashes Twitter robots that are meant to learn from and converse with Twitter users. One robot named Tay, after spending some time on the platform, became a raving bigot. And if such a prejudiced system were ever implemented on a large scale to make decisions and pass judgement, the consequences could be dystopian, making all of humanity’s worst tendencies harder to overcome.
  11. I'm not saying he's not a feminist in general, just doubting his claim that he said he was 'first-wave' or traditional, so I outlined why this is so.. he seems more third-wave and post-modern to me. ...... added to this post 12 minutes later: They did because common-law only recognized many legal rights for women if they were married. Now, two people (even same-sex), can be in a de facto relationship for only a few months and the law may see them both as having essentially the same rights as a married couple.
  12. Okay, so why are you getting married? Well, the 45 year old male doesn't have to compete in the same why they once might have. Now it apparently comes down to age meaning maturity and wealth, and that is seen as attractive by some because more than likely the average 20-something is swimming is debt. Also, just came across this video, I haven't watched it all but maybe it will explain something : I'm sure some could make comment on how right or wrong they think this is.. ...... added to this post 5 minutes later: I cut and pasted the article and that was one of the lines from this link - See? What I think is the flip-side of your argument which amounts to 'red-pillers are bad and shitty and they should just not do what they do', is to say a man who is new to the dating scene, maybe early twenties and they go out and attempt to court the opposite (or same sex ),and they will get a different experience and from those times and they will learn. The opposite example being the female who dresses well, uses lots of makeup, is flirtatious to the guys she likes only to lead a good portion of them on -- then the average male will learn that they can either go for this kind of person or they might just want to stay away. So, the counter example to this is for someone to tell females that they should not dress or act or appeal to the basic psychology of the male brain... which I think many people in the west would find problematic and essentially nonsense.
  13. It shows that many modern women do not identify with traditional feminist values. They share many of the same views which I linked to only one page back. I was pointing out that your statement was contradictory: marriage was never really a true feminists choice; It's kind of like being 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) and also calling yourself a feminist. Just as people who suggest that women are unable to make their own choices, in that they are admitting (by attempting to 'save' females), that they are easily manipulated and are unable to make their own decisions, thereby removing their agency, which is a form of regressive feminism. That was part of the article that I was quoting..
  14. Which is why I pointed out the modern feminism is also destructive and why they are in many ways just reflections of each other. 1700 females responded.. pubmed is a bit low on red-pill content. By traditional I mean first-wave, but by strict definition and if you are serious then being pro-marriage kind of disqualifies you as being a traditionalist. Well where is your 'scientific methodology regarding your assertion that red-pillers are 'destructive' and shitty'? All I have really seen is "I've got myself a unicorn, therefore those red-pillers are stupid".. but from my understanding, I don't think RPs want unicorns, picket fences and marital bliss. Demanding scientific evidence after all of the baseless assertions you have made so far is a bit rich, but hey, I'll play along.. Look at this: http://pillse.bol.ucla.edu/Publications/Pillsworth&Haselton_ARSR.pdf Women's Sexual Strategies: The Evolution of Long-Term Bonds and Extrapair Sex I'll break down their conclusions and attach the relevant TRP lingo where appropriate: Across all cultures, women deploy a dualistic sexual strategy: Coupling (beta bux) and Dual Mating (alpha fucks) Coupling (beta bux), meaning the formation of a long-term 'monogamous' relationship with a provider, is necessitated by human infants requiring long years of high resource expenditure before they are independent. Evidence indicates that for the purpose of Coupling (beta bux), women seek out men that display characteristics like ability to provide (bux), kindness and reliability. When selection is constrained, women will prioritize the ability to provide (bux). Women will display Commitment Skepticism (shit testing and comfort testing) with their Coupling partner (beta bux), requesting a variety of displays on his part (failed shit tests) to gaurantee he'll be willing to commit once they have coupled (and she's likely pregnant). This is because a wrong investment on the woman's part would prove disastrous for her, leaving her without her Coupling mate's resources (beta bux). Dual Mating (alpha fucks) is a strategy in which women seek to reproduce with men offering better genes (alpha) than their Coupling partner (beta), while retaining the commitment (bux) of the Coupling partner Women are specifically drawn to Dual Matin during the fertile phase of the ovulatory cycle, and women in long-term relationships display a larger attraction to Dual Mating than otherwise For dual mating, women prefer men with the following (alpha) characteristics: body and facil symmetry, facial masculinity (large jaw, prominent brow), dominance, deeper voice, physical size (in relation to their partner) Evidence of Dual Mating is the adaptation to sperm competition (the relatively large-sized testes in men follow the pattern in other primates of larger testes = more sperm competition), the commonality of extrapair mating (cheating, with around 20% of women admitting to at least one lifetime instance), and the development of jealousy (which is not ubiquitous among primates) in males, including to the point of violence Conclusions: alpha fucks, beta bucks is evolutionarily ingrained in human females and guarantees their best reproductive success the scientific evidence for it is multi-dimensional and overwhelming alpha and beta characteristics are hardwired, not cultural; cultural and social context can add something on top but can never replace or overcome instinctual behaviour LIFT, become assertive and learn to speak with a proper voice https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/418m22/red_pill_science_ucla_researchers_compile/ So now we have evidence of red-pillers using this evolutionary psychology in order to make themselves more attractive. Not to mention, females have their own methods of making themselves more attractive, so why can't red-pillers? Why is appealing to the other sex, in whatever way, suddenly bad when men do it? And when does red-pill cross 'the line' (in your opinion), and become a destructive ideology? Rather than simply being individual cases of damaged and toxic individuals hiding a behind movement of which you want to tarnish the whole group.