Open Thread

[Sticky] Open Thread 2019 (#10)

The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!

The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.

Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.

28 thoughts on “[Sticky] Open Thread 2019 (#10)

    1. That was a good article Frank. If extraversion is not all genetic and rather an adaptive response to size and strength, then those men who are intraverts can trick themselves into being more extraverted with women. I will admit though I am still afraid of approaching a woman near a huge man for fear that he would be the pulp out of me.

    2. Don’t get fooled by pop psychology writers. If you bother to read the actual research papers you will find that in 95% of cases the effect size of bombastic phenomenon they write about is so low that it can safely be ignored.

  1. Thoughts on the Call Her Daddy podcast? It appears to have joined the top 20 list on the Apple Podcast app.

  2. Even without all the psychological research, this kind of makes common sense based on my general experiences of life.

    One of those experiences is that I have noticed that people tend to have a generally opportunistic nature. They will often disregard principles or morals in the process. Frequently they will use some kind of plausible deniability within their own minds in order to justify their own behavior to themselves.

    I couldn’t guess a percentage of people who behave this way, I just know that I’ve encountered a lot of them.

    So it makes sense that, if someone is gifted with various physical traits, this will affect their personality because they are capitalizing on those physical traits.

    “With great power, comes great responsibility”.

    1. @Houdini

      Yes, of course it makes common sense. If you have any brains whatsoever, then you’ll know how “things” work. Only our brain-dead feminists & politically correct idiots tell us that it’s all about character and self-confidence… but what if your looks and attractiveness contribute to your character and self-confidence? (that’s what the study is hinting at). There is also the HALO effect, which subconsciously contributes to “good personality” if you are good looking & attractive :=D So all in all it’s a win win situation for good looking people! ;=)

    2. @Houdini

      >>One of those experiences is that I have noticed that people tend to have a generally opportunistic nature. They will often disregard principles or morals in the process. Frequently they will use some kind of plausible deniability within their own minds in order to justify their own behavior to themselves.

      I couldn’t guess a percentage of people who behave this way, I just know that I’ve encountered a lot of them.<<

      Could you please give some examples…

    1. They were probably hand-picked. On that note, when you land in Beijing, the female airport staff you come across there is exceptionally good-looking, giving rise to somewhat inflated expectations. You have model-caliber women check your passports, for crying out loud! Meanwhile, at your typical Western airport you see an army of wall-hitters with fading tattoos and serious weight problems. The contrast couldn’t be any starker.

    2. @Aaron Sleazy

      They sure are, but at least those East Asian Countries try to represent their country the best possible way, whereas we in Germany promote this fat acceptance bullshit and “all women are beautiful” insanity.

  3. I want to start reading philosophy but I really don’t know where to start. Should I start from the beginning with Thales or perhaps skip to Nietzsche? Also, which works from Carl Jung would be recommended?

    1. I recommend you start with History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. It will give you a nice overview of Western Philosophy and you can then choose an entry point for yourself.

    2. That’s a good starting point. A quicker read is “Think” by Simon Blackburn. In general, though, don’t bother too much with philosophy as the discipline is beyond useless nowadays. Anything of substance branched off into separate disciplines. If you fired all of today’s academic philosophers and prohibited them to write, nothing of value would be lost. Besides, virtually all progress in this discipline came from non-academic philosophers anyway.

      Regarding C.G. Jung, I’d say you shouldn’t bother. He’s a very muddled thinker who is adhering to a non-scientific world view. Just spend a few minutes thinking about “synchronicity” and you’ll likely figure out why this phenomenon can be fully explained with probabilities.

    3. I particularly like that it gives you social and political context from which the various philosophies emerged.

    4. @GMoney Nice. I just ordered it. Funny thing is a guy gave me a copy of that book a long time ago, but it got ruined on accident so I threw it out. I never actually read it lol.

      @Aaron I will look into Think as well. I guess I figured it would make for good entertainment and perhaps expand my mind in some way or another. Is there some other kind of reading that would make for better use of my time? Something not necessarily practical?

      Regarding your views on Jung, it kind of reminds me of something I’ve wanted to discuss with you lately. I’ll send you an email and a proper donation within the next 24 hours.

    5. The problem with philosophy is that the signal to noise ratio is severely out of whack. Even the most lauded works are waffly and full of ambiguities. I think the most useful part of philosophy is an introduction to formal logic, but what philosophers study in one semester computer scientists and mathematicians cover in one or two lectures, and then go much further. Still, for the notoriously lax humanities, that one element makes philosophy the hardest major in that area of academia.

      I have read quite a bit in economics, including (parts of) classics like Adam Smith, Malthus, or Ricardo, up to more recent economists of the Austrian school. That was worth my time. I also enjoy reading up on (Western) history. If you’re so inclined, I also tend to recommend people to learn how to code, not necessarily to make a living with it but because you can’t bullshit your way through it, as opposed to almost everything else in life. The computer simply does what you tell it to do and will relentlessly expose if your reasoning is flawed. So, you could either study formal logic to sharpen your critical reasoning skills or dip your toes into coding. The latter is more interactive.

      I’m looking forward to your email.

    6. I second Aaron’s opinion on modern philosophers.

      Russell’s book is outstanding with regard to the Greeks and mainly the development of Christian philosophy. It gets somewhat sloppy with regard to later eras – he has not a very high opinion of Schopenhauer – If I a remember rightly, he calls his philosophy somewhat simplistic. Overall, he is one of the very few whose writing powers are on par with his clarity of thought and logical skills – you often see people with good writing skills who lack any solid reasoning.

      You may also think of reading F. C. Copleston, his antagonist in the famous BBC exchange which is also reprinted in the book “Why I am not a Christian” (Routledge Classic).

      I would like to add another point why philosophy has not so much practical application:

      For some time now – in order to get an idea how the coming banking crisis may unfold – I have been reading up on (central) banking including the tulip mania, John Law’s infamous system, the Austrian criticism of central banking (Murray Rothbard’s “Mystery of Banking” and others), the creation of the Federal Reserve, etc.

      I have also been very interested in history starting in antiquity and lately have read a lot on WWI, including the Russian Revolution(s) of 1917. I must say that slowly, but gradually, my jaw dropped: The deeper you dig, the more you realise that mainstream history is nothing but a scam. WWI, WWII, the American Civil War (and undoubtedly most other wars, I am only getting started) were orchestrated by a small group of extremely powerful people in the background who stay well hidden. WWI seems to be a good starting point – it is less complicated and not so much riddled with “taboos”. You will come across the name of Alfred Milner a lot – this name is hardly mentioned in mainstream books on WWI.

      Therefore, I would conclude that philosophical thinking is valuable, but the world is governed by much darker forces.

  4. Does anyone have predictions on how will relationships between men and women will turn out in the next years?

    I recently spoke with a guy that he was convinced of the fact that in the future, men will somehow overthrow this state of beings and the “market value” of men will raise to the point of being equal to the women in terms of sex value and possibilities.

    Me onestly i always thought that this cant happen. I just see men being more jaded and retired. I also see prostitution being more legal and cheaper, the rise of new tecnologies and the fall of the marriage institution as the concept of ” alpha fux beta bux” is spreading everywhere,

    What do you think?

    1. Technology will most likely play a huge role.
      The question is, if there will be enough brains around to create technological advances to effectively replace women in their current unbearable form with a good-enough alternative. (Sex dolls, artificial wombs).
      Everybody takes technological progress for granted but it’s a few high-IQ people that are driving progress. The more sandni**ers the governments import, the smaller the productive middle class who is in the driver’s seat of innovation becomes.
      My bet is on Asia (Japan, Korea, China). They seem to be the most closed off.

    2. Btw, men will not “overthrow” anything. Too pussified.
      The times of revolutions are gone. People just vote with their wallets and their laziness.
      Stop buying one product, start using another.

      If you friend meant by “overthrow” that men will simply ignore the current product (women in their current state) and start going for alternatives, i.e. one idea dies at the expense of another (vs. being killed without an alternative), then I agree with him.

      Slow death of the old and slow emergence of the new, both trends accelerating after a certain point. Think MySpace vs. Facebook.

  5. That was a good article Frank. If extraversion is not all genetic and rather an adaptive response to size and strength, then those men who are intraverts can trick themselves into being more extraverted with women. I will admit though I am still afraid of approaching a woman near a huge man for fear that he will beat the pulp out of me.

  6. Amusing article:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/2019/07/29-i-look-back-my-teenage-relationships-older-men-more-not-less-confusion

    29 year old chick looks back on dating older men when she was a teenager. Thinks those men are creepy and ridiculous now but is scared that men her age would rather date a teenager than her. Admits halfway through that she wanted those relationships and encouraged older guys to date her.

    Funniest part is when she mentions her developing a beer gut as if that is an inevitable part of getting older! Most people do not have beer guts by 29…

    1. That was a pretty amusing read. Thanks for sharing! This part cracked me up, where she describes herself as a teenage girl: “I spoke articulately and affectionately about how I was more mature than my years, how it was different for us.” In all likelihood, none of those guys thought she was “mature”. Instead, their primary interest was in bedding a teenage girl.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.