Subliminal Talk

(08-27-2023, 08:02 AM)Ampersnd Wrote: [ -> ]Appreciate the response.

I like these passages:
[*]If we identify to much with our persona, I.e. the image we present to other people, we feel the need to have a "definition" of who we are and how we are separated from others.
[*]Definitions of ourselves are only needed for helping other people get a sense of who we "are", which by it nature will always be a great over-simplification, and we need to see those definitions for their simplified purpose, rather than a necessity for ourselves to ponder.

I'm bit into wordplay and wordsmithing, but that in itself might be a trap. Good definitions require for 100% of the things it references to be included in the definition, excluding the rest, and I think that this might be stifling me, having to fit perfectly into the labels or needing to find the perfect label.

Are you aware of your Myer’s Brig’s type? From your posts I would put you as someone who uses Ti (Introverted thinking) heavily. Probably a Ti dominant. If I had to guess ISTP. ISTPs are logical problem solvers that like to fix problems in the here and now. Ti also has a habit of trying to define things and find the perfect word for something. Other possibilities are INTP, ENTP and maybe ESTP. Of course you could be something completely different, but these are the possibilities I see from my limited POV of you.

I’ve found Myer’s Brigs helpful in my life, although I don’t use it religiously anymore as I found it stifling to a degree. Now I use it as one element among many systems and ways of thinking.

(08-27-2023, 11:40 AM)Frosted Wrote: [ -> ]Are you aware of your Myer’s Brig’s type? From your posts I would put you as someone who uses Ti (Introverted thinking) heavily. Probably a Ti dominant. If I had to guess ISTP. ISTPs are logical problem solvers that like to fix problems in the here and now. Ti also has a habit of trying to define things and find the perfect word for something. Other possibilities are INTP, ENTP and maybe ESTP. Of course you could be something completely different, but these are the possibilities I see from my limited POV of you.

I’ve found Myer’s Brigs helpful in my life, although I don’t use it religiously anymore as I found it stifling to a degree. Now I use it as one element among many systems and ways of thinking.

I've tested it about 10 years ago and it was INTJ. Again about 4-5 years and it was INTP (which makes sense, since I used to categorized the world in a much more judgmental way).

I think Maverick has changed my epistemic view of the world, so it might have changed again.

Day 179,

I think that I've reconciled my conflict about serving society or not:
* The rest of the world have a time-limited arrangement, based on a paycheck. The market incentivizes this arrangement.
* Otherwise, they disengage, turn to hobbies, to family, or to vice.
* What obligation do I have beyond that?
* The visionaries and inventors are deeply tapped into society, and they'll often gain out-sized rewards.

I had a MGTOW phase and a red pill phase, but it's hitting me deeply how much of a trap much our society is.
Promises of ephemeral feelings in exchange for your giving up of leverage; once you've given up your side of the bargain, the terms change for the worse.

* Buy a house, then the property taxes get hiked and interest rates spike.
* Get a student loan, then spend decades paying it back despite the market not valuing your degree.
* Get married, then your wife gains 30 pounds and loses her sex drive, and can financially drain you in courts if you end the relationship.
* Work the same hours, get an hourly dollar amount that loses value to inflation year upon year.
* Be instructed to get more accredited and work harder, and gain only a percentage of the new value created in take-home pay

Of course, YOU'RE expected to hold up YOUR side of the bargain, otherwise you're a BAD person (shaming mechanism); meanwhile, the other party is allowed to shirk their end, their inadequacies guarded by a legal system siding with them. Calling them out somehow also makes you a bad person. Calling out the unfair dynamic morphs into a discussion about sour grapes (from your end) and your inadequacy in weathering the unfair dynamic. It's a moving current; every bit of fight against the current is a point of friction, a point of sale, a way for others to make money.

I've generally protected myself by being non committal. No debts, no mortgage, no wife, no kids, no student loan debt (paid off), no car payments.
I've also been on the other side by being in copywriting circles and creating sales pages with varying success); it's not about product quality (short-term), it's about what argument will get the sale.

Society is screaming at you to give up your leverage, stressing the positive side of what will happen if you do. Once you do, you're given a lecture about how foolish you were for expecting it to be a walk in the park.

Agree 100%. I've applied the same strategy here. Non-commital. Paid off, though, I have a $10K+ USD income and almost retired from my investments on the side. Mediacl writer, 1 man business. Age 37 now. But, no wife, no house (travelling through Latin America a lot and staying summers with family), so now I can get all I want in the future on my own terms. But to get there requires sacrifice and hard work - I had a few failed businesses with years of time lost. Will prob get new passports, as I'm from Europe and refuse to pay almost 50% income taxes, tons of VAT on top of that, a wealth tax, etc. My tax money will go towards governments that are efficient with it.

Edit: my point is that if you've got the opportunity, it's probably best to go to a decently comfortable level first. And then, whatever society throws at you, it's easier to handle as you've got options. But, yeah, in hindsight I'm VERY happy I didn't make the easy choices. Didn't live together with a woman the last few years, didn't marry, etc, didn't buy a house etc, as my life would have been very different now. And, I did make sacrifices for this, as I was 32 or 33 or so when I left the house of my parents, after a failed business. Extremely late.

Edit 2: So, the bottom line for me is this, if you CAN get a larger degree of control than many others in society have, then it's worth it. Because control over these situations allow for freedom. And seems like you're very well on your way just like me!

Day 179,

Another big thought I've been sitting on for a while.
Once you've striped away all of the layers of sophistication and rationalization, every major ideological group - including feminists - believe that men are inherently superior to women. This is not an argument about material fact, but an explanation about the world acts so strangely, so do hear me out.

They idealize us and see us as Superman.

• On the physical plane, they see man's strong back. Men toil in the sun and build the major infrastructure.
  
• On the psychic plane, they see man's ambition and indominable spirit.
  
• On the intellectual plane, they see inventions and the rapid development of technology.
  
• On the financial plane, they see men heading companies. They see men's leadership and direction.
  
• On the romantic plane, they see men in fearless pursuit. No doubt. No shame.
  
• On the dominance plane, they see guts and sinew. They see callous warriors and ruthlessness.
  

Accordingly, they see the archetype of Man™ as a Titan; a bulletproof demi-god who can weather any storm.
Obviously, we are not Superman; of course, the title is nice, but then they fire live bullets at us and expect us to stay standing.

I remember when I was 19 and in a class project with only women; they elected a team leader, then every one of them, including the team leader, was turning to me for important leadership questions, then shunned me for not giving complete answers. I was so confused at the time.
My tomboy-ish cousin, who came out as bisexual about 4 years ago and now only dates women, complained that the other woman would turn things over to her to pursue; my cousin felt like she had to do all the work in initiating and planning, which she did.
To her advantage, she was given all the work, and still did not have to face the social mechanism which would shame her if she pushed things too far.

This framework also does such a good job at explaining comically-glaring double standards.

• When a grown man and a grown woman get drunk, and have sex, many people - even feminists (FEMINISTS!) - will believe that the man took advantage of her. This is because he is always the mastermind; how could he not be?
  
• (This opinion is less popular nowadays, but) feminists also used to argue that a woman who has taken as much as a sip of alcohol is too compromised to make sexual decisions. The man can drink a lot and still be seen as more culpable. Consider how infantilizing this is, as algebra can tell us what is left over if you start with (a woman too dumb to make decisions) and take away (the sip of alcohol that took her there).
  
• Basically every major calamity is seen as "affecting women more"; war, climate issues, guns, cancer. Because the implicit assumption is that men can weather these things.
  
• If a man loses big in family court, the world accepts it because we hold the opinion that the man ought to be enough of a rainmaker to make back the money, and then some.
  
• If a woman is required to make alimony payment because of her greater income, she drops all egalitarian pretense and resents it because "she's the woman" and "he's the man, damn it."
  
• The major "equalist" movements to 'destigmatize' mental health and sex, and to contribute therapy, a soft life, and body positivity are for women only. Men are openly called small-dicked balding losers who live in their mothers' basement if they disagree with a woman about the wrong topic.* A man is blamed for the degradation of a relationship; she whole "he cheats and he's an asshole, she cheats because he must have driven her away" talking point, applied to a variety of areas; decision-making, finances, child-rearing.
  

The world expects Superman and deducts points.

Society actually believes that we can withhold guidance, encouragement, and interest in young men for a 20 year period and still have them turn out bulletproof, mentally resilient, and tough as nails. That we can talk down and disband their spaces, to run negative PR, to push their shame and guilt buttons, and not expect them to have psychological and social deficiencies.

They actually expect a plant that grows on its own, without sun or soil or water. Because we are already supposed to know what to do and to just figure it out, right?

(08-29-2023, 05:01 PM)Ampersnd Wrote: [ -> ]Day 179,

Another big thought I've been sitting on for a while.
Once you've striped away all of the layers of sophistication and rationalization, every major ideological group - including feminists - believe that men are inherently superior to women. This is not an argument about material fact, but an explanation about the world acts so strangely, so do hear me out.

They idealize us and see us as Superman.

• On the physical plane, they see man's strong back. Men toil in the sun and build the major infrastructure.
  
• On the psychic plane, they see man's ambition and indominable spirit.
  
• On the intellectual plane, they see inventions and the rapid development of technology.
  
• On the financial plane, they see men heading companies. They see men's leadership and direction.
  
• On the romantic plane, they see men in fearless pursuit. No doubt. No shame.
  
• On the dominance plane, they see guts and sinew. They see callous warriors and ruthlessness.
  

Accordingly, they see the archetype of Man™ as a Titan; a bulletproof demi-god who can weather any storm.
Obviously, we are not Superman; of course, the title is nice, but then they fire live bullets at us and expect us to stay standing.

I remember when I was 19 and in a class project with only women; they elected a team leader, then every one of them, including the team leader, was turning to me for important leadership questions, then shunned me for not giving complete answers. I was so confused at the time.
My tomboy-ish cousin, who came out as bisexual about 4 years ago and now only dates women, complained that the other woman would turn things over to her to pursue; my cousin felt like she had to do all the work in initiating and planning, which she did.
To her advantage, she was given all the work, and still did not have to face the social mechanism which would shame her if she pushed things too far.

This framework also does such a good job at explaining comically-glaring double standards.

• When a grown man and a grown woman get drunk, and have sex, many people - even feminists (FEMINISTS!) - will believe that the man took advantage of her. This is because he is always the mastermind; how could he not be?
  
• (This opinion is less popular nowadays, but) feminists also used to argue that a woman who has taken as much as a sip of alcohol is too compromised to make sexual decisions. The man can drink a lot and still be seen as more culpable. Consider how infantilizing this is, as algebra can tell us what is left over if you start with (a woman too dumb to make decisions) and take away (the sip of alcohol that took her there).
  
• Basically every major calamity is seen as "affecting women more"; war, climate issues, guns, cancer. Because the implicit assumption is that men can weather these things.
  
• If a man loses big in family court, the world accepts it because we hold the opinion that the man ought to be enough of a rainmaker to make back the money, and then some.
  
• If a woman is required to make alimony payment because of her greater income, she drops all egalitarian pretense and resents it because "she's the woman" and "he's the man, damn it."
  
• The major "equalist" movements to 'destigmatize' mental health and sex, and to contribute therapy, a soft life, and body positivity are for women only. Men are openly called small-dicked balding losers who live in their mothers' basement if they disagree with a woman about the wrong topic.* A man is blamed for the degradation of a relationship; she whole "he cheats and he's an asshole, she cheats because he must have driven her away" talking point, applied to a variety of areas; decision-making, finances, child-rearing.
  

The world expects Superman and deducts points.

Society actually believes that we can withhold guidance, encouragement, and interest in young men for a 20 year period and still have them turn out bulletproof, mentally resilient, and tough as nails. That we can talk down and disband their spaces, to run negative PR, to push their shame and guilt buttons, and not expect them to have psychological and social deficiencies.

They actually expect a plant that grows on its own, without sun or soil or water. Because we are already supposed to know what to do and to just figure it out, right?

I'm not sure if the somewhat reductionist statement "men are inherently superior to women" is the correct way to examplify how the hero archetype is materialized in our society. 

Sure, men are expected to find their inner strength and have a drive that comes from within resulting in a clear direction, but is that really equal to being "superior"? That's only true if one views that the qualities of a human solely consist of those that the hero archetype holds.

Men are by nature and by societal expectations more prone to identify with the hero archetype, which result in leadership and creation often being done by us. However as most of us know, we long for resting and coming together in the stillness of a female energy. We long for it so much we sometimes put women on piedestals . Aren't we men prone to see women as superior in those cases as well (as much a fallacy and over-reductionist thinking as the other way around of course).

The issue of seeing things a superior or not, is coming from a binary way of thinking, short-cutting the duality of life, the need for the two poles to co-exist and their both inherent qualities along with the other nuances and contradictions that exist beside the two obvious polarities.

Double post

I felt that I've narrowed down my statement.
I've claimed that people from every major ideological group feel those impulses; there can be exceptions, of course.
I'm willing to accept that the average person views the world in a binary way, and views things in a good/less good dichotomy.

Most of the existing social commentary has to do with peoples' behavior in the world, not on their stillness, which is why I'm placing more weight on the behavior side of things. Also, the challenges of life pull us out of stillness and forces us to act; I'm commenting on peoples' attitude about who should act, where they should act, and in what way.
Still open to having my position challenged.

Day 180,

Finally hit the unofficial six-month mark; the official six months will be on September 3rd.
I feel my energies starting to channel towards a general direction.

Have been feeling very behind on my money; big numbers are floating around in my head. 350,000 USD annual; that kind of 'big'.
The desire is there, but the mechanism or the specifics are not. I used to have Machine Learning Engineer as the mechanism, but I've stopped caring for that.
I have inner motivation again, but that could change tomorrow.
Sense of urgency is back, but that could change tomorrow.

Day 184,

Been thinking a lot about manipulation and those who do it.
Manipulators want as much maneuverability as they possibly can.

•  They want to extract as much value as possible with minimal work
  
• They want the benefits from identifying with a role in society.
  
• Yet they want to be liberated from any expectation on them to fulfill their responsibilities for that role.
  
• They refuse to connect roles and responsibilities, as that would implicate them.
  
• They latch onto frameworks and belief systems as a pretense for harmful beliefs.
  
• They will switch between conflicting frameworks to get the best from every situation.
  
• They will use every dishonest rhetorical tactic to gain the upper hand and stump the other party.
  
• They transmogrify every person who disagrees into someone who is as vile, vengeful, and dishonest as they truly are.
  
• They will pull every lever at their disposal to squash any person who threatens to call out these dynamics.
  
• They want to seamlessly cycle between being viewed as a free agent and an oppressed victim.
  
• They want social permission to navigate the world fluidly, while expecting rigidity (i.e., duty) from everyone else; expecting others to do the same things, day in and day out, as they can take others' movements for granted and as a constant opportunity. You know what else is rigid and never moving? A stepping stone.
  
• They want no cause-effect relationships between their behavior and the kind of person they are.
  
• They want grace for their misdeeds and vengeance for the misdeeds of others.
  

Every group has people like these; in some cases, we let people get away with this. I'm not making this into an anti-woke point, as even white people will invoke greater victimhood than their peers. Big business owners and hedge fund owners have whined and cried on TV because they didn't like a progressive candidate's fiscal policies. Don't worry; every assortment of folk has their band of manipulators.

Day 186,

As much as I talk about manipulators as though they drive the entire world, I believe that most people are unconscious participants in their own imprisonment. It comes out when they think thoughts like:
* "Maybe I should go back to school" (and take out big student loans)
* "Maybe we should have another kid" (in the context of a stale marriage)
* "I don't really love her, but I'm getting older and I won't have sex for a long time if I don't commit to marrying her"
* "I should get a new car with financing" (Just because)
* "We should renovate XYZ rooms" (and refinance our mortgage)
* "I'll move in with them to save on expenses" (early in a relationship)
* "A pre-nuptial agreement would be too uncomfortable of a discussion; we don't need one"

It goes beyond "taking more responsibility," but loading your back with heavy shackles and giving the key to someone else.
The deeper analysis is that these decisions fill our lives with superficial drama to avoid having to think about the deeper questions about life.

Day 188,

Been growing a beard. Going well, given that I've taken steps to manage the initial itch.
Signed up for the business course I'd been contemplating for a while.
It will involve some resourcefulness and marketing behavior which I'm not used to yet.

Jiu Jitsu is up to 5-6 times per week, sometimes in small doses.
My upper body is getting a bit smaller because I'm doing less strict bodybuilding/strength training.

An interesting thought I've heard in the past hour:
The very slight of a pitbull evokes an emotional response. Even if it is calm and poised, we can see its inner power and potential output.
That same concept applies to people.
I'm feeling an inner rumbling; like fire blood or tiger blood. Making me realize that I've been far too comfortable in my usual habits.

I'm certain that other people around me would feel it as long as my rumbling continues.

The person who provides the pitbull example (Arash Dibazar): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bDADdfH94U
Ambition, goals, working out, healthy eating, being driven all amount to more of that 'potential energy', what I'm referring to as the 'rumble'

Doing what I can to hold eye contact an extra 0.5-1 seconds longer than I'm used to, and to not instinctively turn away when others turn to meet my gaze.
Had that inner feeling at the gym, and a woman who I approached a year ago (but had a boyfriend) matched my eye contact about 3 times from across the gym in my 20 minute gym session.

Day 190,

I'm quickly approaching the point of 3 months listening + 2 week break + 3 months listening.
I'm deciding whether to a) take the break and b) whether to resume Maverick after the break.

I'm going by a theory that virtually all of your adult troubles, over a long enough time horizon, are a reflection of your inner traumas and emotion-based limitations. You will literally not allow yourself to sustain a positive life situation if it goes against some internal standard.
Some are told that the rich are bad for accumulating their money, so they throw away any excess wealth; any inheritance, raise, bonus, or further windfall will be frittered away, and they will go back to their static level of struggle.

Here's a very interesting article about playing to win, in the context of competitive games. Some play the game with self-imposed yet self-restrictive "rules" that allow worse players to feel self-satisfied about losing to people who know and can leverage exploits, and develop the counter to that exploit, and the counter to that counter, becoming overall better players.
https://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

Day 192,

Looking back, I'm realizing that I have unconsciously been pushing the gas pedal on my habits for guitar, Jiu Jitsu, and fitness. More charisma and people-person skills.
My internal ‘give a shit’ meter is super low, but I’ve been behaving like someone who cares to achieve something.
And yet, I'm not exactly pursuing the 'out there' stuff I figured that I would be mentally liberated enough to pursue.

It feels as though my consideration of other people's input for my life path is minimized; it might simply be unconscious (beyond my knowledge) at this point.
So, I get to choose my life path, but what awaits at the end of the tunnel?

By analogy, imagine you are a baby calf, and all you know is that you're in a cage too small for your own good. The whole point is that you will be slaughtered and rendered into tender veal meat for $10 a pound.

However, someone comes to rescue me; my cage is loosened over time, and now the cage door is open. All I have to do is step through to enjoy freedom. But, I'm so unpracticed at the skill of walking (my own path) that it will take a lot of extra work and effort to rebuild those mental muscles and to go where I please. If you have weak legs, it's not enjoyable to move, let alone pivot at a moment's notice.

So supposing that I'm "free" now, in an huge open field, what is so great about this point of the field over any other point? After all, I'll still need to deal with hunger, thirst, predators, cold, comfort. The game has become much more complex, and all of those issues were being addressed in my tiny cage; I'm trading the certainty of that for more navigability, and with a deficiency in creativity on how to make the most of this navigability.

As a real world example, I currently like Jiu Jitsu enough to attend 5-6 times per week and to subject myself to discomfort, even if it's 20 minutes at a time. Other people like it far more and will do two-a-days for 5-7 days per week. They have their hands in all of the competitions and want to reach an elite level.
I do it to be as dangerous as possible, and to leave no doubt that I could maul a bad man on the street if it ever came to that (and I hope it never does).

But what accounts for that delta between hobbyist and the 0.0001% of the sport? What are you left with when you win BJJ titles? Glory? Name recognition? Fame? Even as a BJJ hobbyist, I'm given a torrent of big names in the sport, which I forget within 10 seconds of hearing them. At least the accolades will attract hotter women - I buy that argument, for sure - but some of these guys have wives that I wouldn't touch with a glove.

Even Mike Tyson says that his championship belts are "garbage": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgcHBcQR...hannel=CBS
His accomplishments are tied in with so much mental baggage - I'm sure that Mike would agree on that. And he probably believed that the wins would strike down the feelings of inadequacy that his childhood instilled in him. At the same time, he has touched a lot of money and a lot of pussy because of it. He has since worked on his inner peace and stillness, which is a plus.

Everything fades over time, yet some things shined brightly while it lasted. Is that worth it? That's my dilemma for today. At this moment, I'd say that it is.