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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Antares

  1. I wouldn't say feminine by nature. Feminine by both nature AND nurture is how I'd put it. I have no idea about which force overwhelmingly wins out. But yes, feminine.
  2. Add garbage collector to the list. They're like 4% woman. I hear they actually pay quite well.
  3. Because these jobs are 1. Seen as feminine. You have your masculine jobs (any physical work, positions of power). Then neutral jobs (professionals). Then jobs seen as actively feminine (hairdressers, all of the jobs in the OP). Same reason that, aside from the lack of physical prowess, women tend not to like to be trash people or plumbers or carpenters or miners or construction workers. Dirty. Gross. Sweaty. Unfeminine. I admit, that women seem more willing to take traditionally masculine jobs than vice versa. 2. These don't appeal to T types. Men are mostly Thinkers. These prioritize empathy and smiling and watching your tone and/or liking kids. Women tend to like kids more than men. As a woman whose MBTI is pretty biased towards the thinking side, these jobs sound nightmarish to me. I would think so. At least among mammals, females tend to take on caregiver roles. Examples, all great apes, dolphins, dogs, cats, seals, elephants, basically most mammals I can think of, they are the ones to take care of the young, if animals take care of anything at all. I cannot think of a mammal for whom FATHERS are the sole caregivers. If males care for anything, it will be their own children along with the mother, never alone. Of course not all females are good at caregiving and not all males are bad at it. You do see from time to time a blatantly unfit mother who mostly neglects her child in other mammals. I don't see why humans should be the exception.
  4. Whenever AI is brought up in the context if futurology, many people assume that we might have robot overlords who might one day turn bad for us. Then we try to shut him down. And he's not going to let us do that. It will turn into some sort of robots vs humans situation. My question is WHY? Why would a robot want to preserve itself at the expense of humanity? Why should a robot have self interest? Sometimes I feel like people project their self preservation instincts on robots and imagine them to be some kind of mechanical people. Why should they be? Self preservation doesn't arise out of a vacuum. Species that have evolved through natural selection must have it if their genes are to continue. But none of that applies to robots. We create them to serve us. But just because they can be as intelligent as we are, or even more intelligent, doesn't mean they are remotely like us in their instincts. Indeed their instincts are whatever we assign to them, and their intelligence will be used to fulfill these instincts. It does not follow that just because they are intelligent like us, that they will think like us, or have the same goals as us. No company in their right mind would create a robot that even they themselves cannot control if need be. Nor will they program into the robot a tendency to resist destruction or deactivation by their users out of self preservation. I don't see why any human would create a robot servant that will resist its own destruction. We humans have the self preservation instinct. Due to this we will not create a tool whose self preservation instincts conflict with our existence. My iPad doesn't want to preserve itself. It doesn't care. It doesn't care because Apple doesn't care. Apple doesn't care because there's no real good reason to make my iPad want to protect itself against me. But I keep seeing this kind of scenario proposed. Is there another reason why they might have self preservation instincts against humans? Am I missing something?
  5. Some background: My mom and my dad both grew up desperately poor. My mom's family are generally more ambitious and perfectionistic people. My dad's family is more stubborn and idealistic, perhaps to a fault. Now mom (and her brother)is a self made multimillionaire. She keeps saying how nobody understands her but her brother.. I grew up having experienced both being almost broke, and having too much money to know what to do with, so I can see both sides. We're on vacation in SE Asia right now and she has complained our resort at least once everyday. It's about $250 per night per room and they are both ocean view villas. I love it. It's not huge, but the garden is very pretty and the pool area overlooking the ocean is scenic in a boutique, not palatial way. The breakfast was tasty, but she complains that there aren't aisles on top of aisles of food options like in Sheraton. We went to a really luxurious resort for dinner today and all she could do all night was rag on my dad's choice of resort even though he was probably trying to surprise her with a nice dinner. She complains the people at our resort are too, well, low class. They look fine to me. Middle class, maybe. They probably wear H&M stuff. She kept pointing to the guests at the other resort. Yeah. They look like they buy brand names and wouldn't look too out of place in a magazine. As for why it mattered, she claimed that she would rather be around classier people. Why does that matter? They're mostly white Europeans/Americans and she doesn't speak their language. Actually, it's because they make for better backdrop that makes her feel better about her surroundings. She wants to feel powerful, important and part of a rich clique. She would rather live in a standard room in a classier hotel than live in a villa in our current one. I didn't think our neighbors were that shabby. They didn't get in my way. Didn't make a mess. Basically the good kind of neighbors. I'm not here for the neighbors. I frankly didn't even notice them. My dad (ISTP) is very much like my boyfriend (INTP) who is also thrifty, middle class, not emotionally sensitive, not rich, not super ambitious, disdains social class and doesn't give a shit about how he looks. But I guess when you're my dad people just see you not as thrifty but as a cheapskate. He's a person of simple tastes, and I think he wouldn't have minded choosing even simpler accommodation. After she ragged on his choice all night (claiming that she TOLD him she wanted Westin or Sheraton or some large, palatial resort full of well dressed yuppies. She was mad that he booked us this "cheapskate" resort. She's mad that she made her preferences very clear and he just turned around and ignored it), then she started ragging on my boyfriend. She dislikes him for pretty much the same reasons. part of the way, she started talking about how she BEGGED him to buy fancier clothing for himself. She kept saying that she'd be very disappointed if I marry my boyfriend. I should marry someone whose traits, if you hear them, are the polar opposite of my dad and very similar to my mom. I'm not as thrifty, or cheap, if you like, as my dad and in my many ways I'm my mother's daughter, fond of luxuries as well, but I feel like she puts a lot of pressure on people to be just like her, and looks down on everyone who is not class conscious and act like rich people. It's like she wants to be an aristocrat or be hanging out with politicians and socialites and people like us (my boyfriend, my dad and I) are holding her back. Ugh. Sorry for the rant, but how the fuck are we having class issues in one family? I don't even understand. It's irritating as fuck. How does one deal with this?
  6. As in, do you think it needs to exist? Do you have any experience in the subject? Would you resent having to pay it? When is it justified, and when is it not?
  7. I don't think they know why they made the money. There was no thought involved. They were just so desperate to be financially solvent for so long, they made money like it was going out of fashion. Not long ago, say, 15 years ago, they were on the brink of bankruptcy and they still wanted to pay for my expensive private school so there was no other choice. And before they know it, we're in this situation. I don't think they can unlearn these habits. I would say I take care to dress well, but I'm not fashionable. I take care to choose things that flatter ME, my specific proportions and face shape. I don't particularly keep up with the fashion world. But yeah, I agree with you in a sense. I take care to dress well. It's not hard. If I fill my wardrobe with great looking pieces (and they're not hard to find, nor expensive, if you know where to look. Most girls I know spend way more than I do) that are uniquely suited for me, I can literally toss things together and the outfit will look like a million bucks. Dressing well takes a bit of thought and intentionality, and I enjoy the process. Worked their asses off. Lived apart so they could have higher salaries. She got a high salary and a small inheritance, which she put towards a house. Made more choice investments. China's economy took off. The rest is history. It's a combination of being willing to work like a dog (she took no maternity leave from her small business at the time. She was working up until her water broke, then went back to work the next day), live in unimaginable and inhumane conditions, and keeping an eye out for opportunities. ...... added to this post 6 minutes later: My proposed solution is that from now on I will book the hotels. I have a taste for luxury like she does, but I'm also aware of what my dad's comfortable with. Seems like the best of both worlds. They both seem fine with that so far.
  8. I mean, I accept that, as a young woman of reproductive age, I might be more of a risk for employers than other demographics. After all, more than half of women become mothers between the age of 15-44 in the US. And that's even higher in non Western countries. And mothers have a higher rate of absenteeism than any other demographic including fathers. And mothers who leave the workplace permanently to become SAHMs after birth vastly outnumber fathers. So if any employer hires me, there's a significant chance that I might fall pregnant in the next few years. And if I do I absolutely will take maternity leave. And I've been toying with the idea of becoming a SAHM should that happen. I accept and understand that they are looking out for themselves, so I know they're going to discriminate and then lie to me about why I'm not hired. However I don't have to let them look out for themselves to MY detriment. So, if asked about my relational situation and family planning I will lie through my teeth and feel no guilt. It's not right or wrong. Everyone's just trying to do what's best for themselves. I accept it. I'm not mad about it. But I'm not going to take it lying down.
  9. This is interesting to me, because numerous studies show that both men and women prefer male bosses over female bosses, and that female bosses who act assertive are seen as bitchy and aggressive whereas in males it garners respect. This video seems to contradict that. The woman channeling Trump is clearly the more aggressive one, down to her posture (a very masculine one, because it's Trumps) but somehow I prefer her. Maybe these studies need more nuance? Or maybe the female actress is just more charismatic.
  10. That's about my sense of humor. Tell me if it doesn't work for you. once my roommate and I weren't talking for a while. He said: sometimes I'm worried that you'll come in one day and say "hey, I'm moving out next week." I told him: "you don't need to worry about that. Even if I don't like you I still love your flat."
  11. Yes. If nothing else, a rogue AI could start out perfectly innocuous. Make toothpicks. His directive is to find better ways to make toothpicks at a lower price. With this extreme intelligence, he achieves his goal. But it turns the whole town into toothpicks. This will be due to bad programming, not a malicious AI. And there's no reason to think we'd have any trouble shutting him down, provided we don't get into the way of his making toothpick. which, come to think of it, we just might. It might decide we are in it's way of making toothpicks and choose to kill us. But it would take a spectacularly stupid programmer not to see that this could be problematic, and at that point I'm sure we'd have AIs whose only directive is to find ways to shut down other rogue AIs.
  12. Yes, this. In male dominated industries women have to act and think like men in order to be more successful. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5671415 the reverse is of course also true for a man in a female dominated industry. But female dominated industries aren't as lucrative. In fact the percentage of men in the industry is a good way to predict how high the salaries are. In my field at least, girls who have trouble due to their gender are not untalented. They just don't know how to, or are unwilling to act and think like their colleagues. To fit into any workplace culture you have to conform a little bit to your colleagues. Who happen to be 80% men. Needless to say, displays of overtly feminine behavior, such as crying, or tone moderating, are not taken well by the men. And by that I mean, if it's even understood. It goes over their heads most of the time. This is not because they're sexist, but because this is just not how the culture is in this field, and they don't have to accommodate you. And that's not sexist either. In any group the tail does not wag the dog. You conform to the majority not the other way around. ...... added to this post 3 minutes later: That's changing though. As men take on traditionally feminine roles, the rhetoric in the workplace has changed a little. It used to be that childless coworkers disliked mothers. Now they just don't like parents, period. Of course my response to all that is, bitch, they're raising the generation that's gonna pay your pension. If you don't want to do that and pay it forward yourself in the form of a child, I don't even think you deserve any of their children's labor. Since you're getting it though, at least have the graciousness not to bitch and moan. Consider it your minuscule way of paying it forward.
  13. I think that's about what I would write in my prenup also. I think allowing the ex spouse to enjoy the previous lifestyle is BS. The payor doesn't enjoy that either. The previous lifestyle IMO, you only get to enjoy while you're my spouse. After the divorce I can see the ex spouse being supported for a number of years (3-5 at the max) so they can get their job training/earning potential back up. After which they will be completely cut off. The lifestyle maintained should be something like: "the lifestyle you can have with your earning potential prior to marriage" or the payor's ability to pay. And if the ex spouse has never had earning power (say, never worked, married outside of high school/college) then they should be paid welfare rates. Since in my eyes they ARE on welfare. Just paid by the ex spouse. They get a limited number of years to get their skills up to speed then it's done
  14. LOL deeper meaning? I don't understand. My life has no deeper meaning. Enlighten me. What deeper meaning is there? We're a bunch of organic material that is decaying. The heat death of the universe is coming. Tell me that all this is not true. Where does your deeper meaning come from? Why is your way laudable but theirs contemptible? I think the ability to make do without meaning is a strength not a weakness. Because truly I cannot find much meaning in anything, except for the ones I'm almost certain are subjective. It would be sad if I could only live with objective meaning because I don't think it's forthcoming.
  15. From what I understand she has a lot of hang ups when it comes to "class". She knows a man much wealthier than her, but his fashion sense is bling, his manners are rough, and he treats his subordinates like slaves, in other words the very stereotype of "tuhao" in Chinese. She aspires to the elegant, intellectual, understated aristocratic presentation. For reference she also doesn't like the Silicon Valley "nerd" style of rich. When she goes on vacation she wants to be surrounded by beauty, elegance and world class service, and these people in their fancy dresses do make a picturesque backdrop I suppose. People in our resort wore torn t-shirts and cheap sun dresses, and the souvenir shop sold low quality tourist trap stuff while the other resort sold silks and cashmeres. I got her a tea and saucer set for around $100 once. It's pretty cheap for her collection but she says it's her favorite because it's aesthetically quite amazing, so I think it's really aesthetics for her.
  16. I think deep down she doesn't even care about the money; her money is her vindication. And true, because of her obsession and perfectionism she's far wealthier than anyone we know from the same background. Always seeking some kind of perfection. Everyone in her life thinks she goes too far. I attended an elite secondary school, but that's because she bottomed out her bank account, worked 12 hour days, lived on rice, lived in a one room flat the size of a small kitchen, almost destroyed her relationship with me and my father (when she's stressed by work, which is all the time, her temper is something to behold), to achieve that. You will get no sympathy from her if you complain that it's out of reach for poor people, because she was poor and she did it. By torturing herself to death on the altar of parental sacrifice. I think she desperately wants to believe that it was all worth it. Not sure he ever had that mentality TBH. My dad and I are both nerdy intellectuals; we find happiness in simple things. He's a bit of a cheapskate, even I'll admit that. Much poorer people spend more money than he does. He loves audio equipment. But when it comes time to buy some, he always by the cheapest one he can tolerate. When he books stuff he'll book the worst airline with the worst food because it's cheaper by like 50 bucks. In economy class. It's unfathomable for my mom that they can have so much money and my dad is still counting pennies. And I think it's irrational on his part also. It makes him so guilty that he cannot even enjoy extra legroom and better food that a good airline would bring. They just responded to their childhood poverty differently I think. Both of my parents used to talk about how in their childhood they were constantly in danger of eviction. How my dad started cooking for the family at age 7 because everybody else had some other job to support the family. How my mom and her little brother had to choose between a dirt cheap meal, and a bus ticket home from school (2 hour walking otherwise), and how she used the money to buy the meal for her little brother then half carried him home.
  17. My best friend has recently been online dating and he has little to no experience in dating. He had a relationship, but she asked him out and they were friends before. And that was in high school. His ex girlfriend (now good friends), according to him, wrote several messages to girls on his behalf and he's been getting replies but he asked me how he should ask them out. To be honest, I'm not the best person to explain this to him either. I also have Aspergers and I have a very hard time talking about social relationships as if it's not some kind of academic subject. I can explain things such that he understands, yes, but I can't translate that to practical tips because fundamentally I don't understand social nuances either. But he doesn't seem to understand explanations that doesn't amount to a very academic treatment of the subject. If I say: "Ask her out as soon as you two have a good conversation going" he said: "How"? Well, without knowing the exact flow of the conversation I can't exactly say. So I start treating the subject in an abstract way like "Then you should just search for mutual interests in the conversation and suggest something that has to do with it. If it fails just suggest a restaurant for dinner." Then I'd get something like "How do you 'search for mutual interests'"? I guess I could just talk to the girl and ask her out for him or his ex can do it but neither of us can go on dates for him. If we tell him what to say it's a form of doing the heavy lifting for him, and it's honestly counterproductive for anyone to do it but him. How do I help him? Are there good books that doesn't involve PUA (he's not interested in that, and I'm not speaking for him. We talked about PUA in passing before. He has zero interest in that and expressed a negative opinion of people who use it) that you can recommend?
  18. @Monte314 @doll @byhisello99 That actually sounds about right! All her complaints, even about my boyfriend, are about her. I have no idea what causes her feelings. Maybe it's a manifestation of her childhood poverty? She did work very long hours for many years so she would never have to go back there again. She endured a ridiculously rude boss and backstabbing colleagues. She had a very hard life and finally made it. She's actually a pretty introspective person these days. She admitted to all the things she did wrong in the past and became much less emotional. But this is just one thing I cannot get her to see no matter what and a person who cannot admit the problem will not do therapy. She did say once that she thinks everyone can do with a bit of therapy. Maybe I could frame it that way. Hey, you got cash for unlimited therapy, so why don't you give it a try? I'm just worried for my dad which is why I got so upset (and partly, she keeps denigrating my boyfriend). He is autistic like I am, but more severely. Comparatively I'm very high functioning. He has had to hear for years how he's not good enough. Tonight she was like: I have an austistic husband and austistic daughter. How did that even happen? Is it always going to be like this? He's not exactly a guy who knows how to stand up for himself. He usually just shuts up when she gets like this and nobody knows how to get anything out of him. He doesn't seem to understand his feelings. When mom asks him on his feelings on anything, including her treatment of him, he doesn't know. And prefers not to comment. And i think he really doesn't! I'm his daughter and I don't pressure him, yet he doesn't open up to me. I don't know if he's capable. I feel like he's always trying to please her and told my mom that, but she doesn't see it. She asks if he's really doing that, and if she's being unappreciative. He shrugs. Are all these questions making him uncomfortable? "No". I don't know if he's lying or if he's truly that unaware. He's obviously uncomfortable. ...... added to this post 7 minutes later: Funny you brought that up. In fact, she idealizes the traits of a class of people I'm almost certain she would hate. She loves the idea of ambitious, genteel, elegant upper middle class people. She actually always preferred people with honor (she's honorable to a fault and stubborn as a mule) and authenticity and always treated her friends and relatives with a kind of self sacrificial generosity. She also hates backstabbing and rumor-mongering. Who, having known some of these people growing up (I actually grew up upper middle class), are insufferable. She just hasn't gotten it through her head that her ideal people don't exist because these very same upper middle class people are often passive aggressive and rumor mongering i.e. Everything she hates. And she's found even European royalty wanting in manners and honor. She knows lots of rich people now. And Austrian people (she has a thing for the austere Austrian/German stereotype). She doesn't like any of their characters. Maybe ambition, style, honor and kindness don't often go together? To be fair she really admires one moderately wealthy, intellectual, compassionate and elegant female friend. Also a self made woman with a tragic past and a peculiarly zen attitude towards life. But that's one person.
  19. The ideal human culture would require humans to be without any of the flaws we have today, and that will never happen. Hence the question is meaningless.
  20. That's not why primates have friends. Primates have friends for very pertinent survival reasons. In other primates, males band together to get sex, to fend off invaders, etc. females have friends to babysit each other's kids, share resources, stop rapists etc. there have been many documented cases of females banding together to stop another female from being sexually harassed by a male. Children of lone female primates have a much lower chance of reaching maturity, because it's hard for a lone female to raise it and not catch any break. It's nice if the friend I have is also the friend I want. But in reality, not having a friend or any family at all is a sad existence. Sometimes I don't get the friends I want. They're really rare. But I will still try to get the friends I need. Human friends do indeed serve a similar purpose. Girls often go out with friends at night not just because they're fun. It's also dangerous to be a lone female. Male friends often band together to work towards common goals, such as building a house. Female friends often babysit each other's kids. Pool resources. even if I do enjoy hanging out with a person, we do not have the same social needs. I prefer to do it less that most others. Others can simply end the friendship if I do not fulfill their needs, therefore I must meet them halfway. That extra effort that I wouldn't actually want to make, is work. In our materially rich times it may not be apparent, but in harder times, friends or the lack thereof could literally mean the difference between life and death. And many of our primate cousins still live this way.
  21. Companies simply are incapable of behaving morally. For all the noise Apple made about the FBI case, this is because Apple would lose profit if the American public saw that it would bend to FBI. Apple China, on the contrary, cooperated with the Chinese government because they wouldn't be allowed to sell at all otherwise. Apple ACTED moral when it suits them. Companies cannot be moral because companies are not people. It does not have an intelligence. It's composed of people who all have 374827 different motivations. One thing they all have in common though, is that they all want the company to profit. For some reason. Profitability is the only desire they have in common. So as an entity, the company does what's in it's self interest, because after all the other conflicting motivations from all levels of Apple are settled this is the only common goal. Companies are not people and cannot be reasoned with like a person. If corporations ever seemed evil and psychopathic to you, it's because, if the acts and traits of a corporation is seen in a person, he is certainly a psychopath. Corporations are impersonal machines that are the average of all of its members' goals for it. This is why it only ever acts in it's self interest, which is profitability. Even Tim Cook or the Chairman of the board does not have the level of control over Apple. Even if they were to be diehard altruists, there is no way they can impost their vision on that many people. They will be fired, voted out, outmaneuvered. And few becomes a CEO or a Chairman because of altruism. What would likely happen, if the Board suddenly decided that Tim Cook can live with a massive paycut, is that he will leave to get his old pay back somewhere else, Apple will have to hire an inexperienced CEO who has not worked at a comparable firm to be able to pay him only 1-2 million. Shareholders would pull out. Apple would be done for. You can argue that maybe then Apple should be destroyed. I'm not arguing against that. But this is what will happen if what you're proposing comes to pass. In an ideal world everyone would be willing to live with less so others can have more, because you're right, Cook does not NEED 8 million. 2 is plenty. And if everyone thought like that the world would be a kinder place and your proposal could happen. This is not the world we live in.
  22. That's a logical fallacy. Bigots do a lot of things. That doesn't mean doing the same thing remotely associates us with them or that it's wrong. There is a way to criticize without descending into racism. If anything I see this is the best way to criticize culture. It used to be that when Westerners criticized culture, they criticized entire cultures for being morally degenerate and such. When they praised Japanese culture, Christians praised that Japanese people were righteous and disciplined and what a shame they weren't Christian. Those are blanket statements that easily generate ethnic discrimination. Cherry picking behaviors is probably the only way criticize a culture without going into racism. You can admit that Chinese culture is not inherently bad while still criticizing their traditionalist sexism. But if you do not cherry pick then you must condemn the entire culture. And I'm not saying you should say "Chinese people should end this sexist culture". More that "the sexism aspect of Chinese culture is wrong". i know you think fair criticism cannot be done in the first place, but if one MUST do it (and many people WILL regardless of if you think they should), I advocate cherry picking as perhaps the fairest alternative. As long as you do not take the cherry picker behavior and use it to paint the entire culture. Fairness is not a binary proposition.
  23. No, it is a counter argument to people saying that slavery was good economically. Some proponents of slavery, especially in the past when people were unwilling to abandon slavery as a culture, do really make that argument, things like "our society would be ruined without it". My point is that slavery only benefits slave owners no matter how you look at it, either economically or morally. I'm only arguing the economic side here. So I see this as ONE good counter argument (against a popular argument of slave owners) of many that slavery is bad. And I posit this is even a good criticism of a slave culture, because you will be making the argument that slavery is only for the benefit of SOME members of the free population and not all, thus is the self serving argument of the greed of those who can afford slaves, thus making the person arguing FOR it a hypocrite. This is an argument against one of the many arguments used by slave proponents. I never claimed it has any decisive weight. Certainly we have many things we can say against it
  24. Alright. If you can't even, the we shan't talk of this anymore. No slavery has nothing to do with their greatness, chiefly because everyone else also were slave owning so it wasn't a deciding factor for anything. Why they had were modern infrastructures, professional armies and bureaucracies and a fairly law based system (that's for Rome anyway). They were also adaptable and pragmatic culture. My classics professors often joke that what was considered "Roman" was highly inconsistent, namely whenever they saw a foreign tribe with characteristic they like, they mysteriously started calling that characteristic "Roman" and encouraged it in their population, so even WITH slavery they were a lot more systematic and modern than anyone else. But in the 19th century this becomes very apparent. Europeans by and large were becoming free of the feudal caste system. Serfs were already liberated, slavery was abolished. Larger groups of the population was increasingly enfranchised. This while the rest of the world lagged in egalitarianism. Industrial revolutions started. Laymen could enter higher education and become highly innovative. In short Steve Jobs couldn't have founded Apple if he were a serf. Feudal China (also with a great bureaucracy, but also with slavery and a very rigid social class) used to dominate half of the world, along with feudal Japan. Europeans arrived and creamed China. Japan was a bit smarter, and saw that they would be creamed, so they decided to modernize instead. By early modernity, having a rigid social caste system (which usually has slaves) was as far as I can tell negatively correlated with innovation. so my point is, slavery stifles too many people in your population, including the slaves themselves. Free peoples are out of work and cannot apply themselves to higher endeavors. That's fine if no other society is super innovative but becomes backward real fast in early modernity to present where innovation is the bread and butter of societal power and living standards. You're just not utilizing your nations brain power efficiently from a purely economic standpoint.
  25. Watching television. Like most men. And maybe social media. ...... added to this post 0 minutes later: Oh I enjoy having sex with men. I just enjoy the latter more.