Confidence is flamboyantly faggish. Have Justified Arrogance

Bash the pick-up art community. Challenge the assumptions and techniques used by pick-up art, discredit the effectiveness of pick-up art, expose ripoff products, and reveal secret info of dating gurus.

The concept of confidence is primarily predicated on the notion of having a positive nature/ a stubborn sense of self esteem, and to always see the best in every situation. Which gives off the boyscout/ sympathetic samaritan. That's the colloquial unvoiced semantical stance of the word confident... when I calculated all of the underlying insistences/ moving mobile passing context of the instance based on the cumulative manner in which it was implemented.

But this is a red herring, and not what girls really want. Sure, confidence can be gained from self belief, as confidence is not mutually inclusive of that semantical stance of the word where people are whimsidaisically self-reassuring and evasive of all instances of self-deprecation/ belittlement. Confidence really just means self belief, and people can get it from being arrogant. It's just that people want to insist on confidence in a way so as to fairydaisy people's thinking. To tip people off from primal capital, and to go straight into a different sort of capital... one of PURE bondship/ connectionship through PUAutist methods. Connection currency comes to most women from Primality currency gravity. PCG. Even if you're incompatible internally with a woman, but you have what she wants, then she will fake it to make it for you.

Women try to hypnotize people of their darkness. Of their schemes. Their common strategy for coding their intentions is like with confidence. Taking one aspect, and disproportioning it to create a false semantical psychstance to account for why X = X.

If X is truth, then Women want men to think Y = X, or Z = X or X = ? or ? = ? or for ? = X when women want to use the truth to confuse you. Getting a Woman to be objective or honest or convictious is like forcing a cat in a shower or for someone to instill conviction into women is like forcing a marble through a coin slot. Getting a bat to lounge around during dawnbreak. Or getting something out of a broken vending machine. No matter how much you put into it, you're not going to get something you expect back. Like trying to get a mosquito to pollinate a flower. You're not going to get the right result and it will bite back at you or get into a mess.

Women use Confidence as a semantical smokescreen/ masking semantic slipscape. It's a correlation with high value, but not the causation. They want to put misleading evidence that puts people in the underlying notion that woman's value system is pillared around things not of raw primality, but of a refined primality concerning people's inner essence/ inner conviction.

They do this because they want their agendas concealed, and so that no one will think twice of trying to produce value to fool/ manipulate a woman with veneers of primal value. Women want their discernment to be correct. Women want their discernment of value in certain areas where genes/ a person's inner demeanor/ etc. are in the manner/ fashion identitical to their ideal visualization/ reason/ favored fancy of what it stems from. Which is accidental/ unintentional/ undeliberate. To have primarchical eliteness from both the material raw (neanderthalistic) and material refined (Deftness) and immaterial attributes as a consequence of non-self conscious bearing/ for the identity to be brought about from an inadvertent inclination identity. (Which is something I find weak. If you're insecure it's better because you'll "DO THE MOST" as oppose for it to be someone's inadvertent inclination. Especially if it comes from weakness. Because insecurity makes you feel so much more pressured, and will force you under fear and hate to optimize yourself. On sheer substance, it's not just about your raw value, it's about your value in the moment, and utility. And someone obsessed with acquired value will exceed someone with inadvertent inclination because it's usually people with inadvertent inclination in nature to have flaws that only perfectionists can relinquish. People with the inadvertent inclination identity trail will always lose against a power obsessed tryhard).

They want the value produced, and for the general population to be as unpragmatic and unanalytical as possible. Women spread humanitarian hypnosis for this very same reason.

Confidence is a flamboyant pseudo-alpha behavior. It's very faggish. Girls know that and they love putting men in cucky thought loops, and laughing at their cuckpillable IQ. It's better to have a justified far-sighted arrogance. To have value that is truly worthy of the scales of esteem which warrants the notion that you CAN defeat obstacles/ competition in your way, and to have the right kind of raw and refined primal substance for that.
Last edited by Eugenicist on Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image

Image

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
― Charles Darwin

"A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over the period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery which today seems scarcely conceivable."
― Adolf Hitler

"The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
― H. G. Wells

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
― U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Buck v. Bell, 1927






the boy scout "i can do anything hurr!" attitude is extremely cringey and embarassing and retarded. almost always fucking idiots possess it too

I disagree with your post, because you conflated confidence as only a social mask for women for their preference for LMS, rather than as a free standing element of attraction itself.

This would play into LMS if as many LMS type people think LMS = confidence, which is sometimes true, but is not actually anywhere close to a 1:1 relationship.

What you fail to account for is "gaming the system" IE that men of deficient LMS sometimes still have delusionally high self belief or confidence.

This matters both because it shows that a person of deficient LMS can still have high self esteem and positive emotions and because women also respond to this and to the lack of it, despite what pure LMS people would like to believe.
Loose Goose

100+

PussySlaughter wrote:I disagree with your post, because you conflated confidence as only a social mask for women for their preference for LMS, rather than as a free standing element of attraction itself.

This would play into LMS if as many LMS type people think LMS = confidence, which is sometimes true, but is not actually anywhere close to a 1:1 relationship.

What you fail to account for is "gaming the system" IE that men of deficient LMS sometimes still have delusionally high self belief or confidence.

This matters both because it shows that a person of deficient LMS can still have high self esteem and positive emotions and because women also respond to this and to the lack of it, despite what pure LMS people would like to believe.
You're retarded. Confidence/ high vibe jiving is not what generates attraction in of itself. Girls have a thoughtloops that crave primality capital... and not mere happy gappy laughy whacky energy.

As a free standing trait is has some value, but it does not dissuade a girl from immediate repulsion from lack of LMS. Women have an insane guilt complex, and pillar their self worth on appearance. How is it conceivable they wouldn't want their significant other to also hold credit on the scales of substance that they hold themselves to also? Mankind holds themselves to scales of substance that high vibe jiving confidence doesn't.

Women want justified arrogance. They do not want flamboyant faggery in of itself. Women want to red herring men from the red pill by insisting on that that's what they want. That is because that anyone a woman wants would not be someone who would immediately go out of their way to produce value, and learn about how they can produce themselves. Women innately stick out for eachohter by depriving men of the avenues of knowledge/ wisdom/ understanding/ etc. for men to learn how to game the system of female selection.

No it's not a 1:1 relationship. Traits are distinctly differentiated. But even women and their conception of what they want isn't even congruent with their subconscious. Being self-aware is a conviction and women are innately unconvictious. They gravitate to primality being the primopriority in their everyday life procedure. They are utterly predicated psychologically on primality prominence/ thinking about clothes, cars, fashion, etc. All things that are indicative of having cosmic superiority over other people. I say cosmic because mankind thinks of themselves in relation to their station in all of eternity. And they have this innate instinct to outreach other people for the light/ glitz/ galmor of existence. So that they can have freedom and dispose of what dares to impose on them.




Highvibejiving does not gravitate more than primality. It can pull, but ultimately you're a dense jester. Now if you take a Christian girl, or someone who likes happy vibey normie friendly things, then you will still have the normie natured priority set. Do you really believe the innate neurostructure of mankind would love to have some low LMS patton oswald/ louis C.K. esque individual spewing things from a blue pilled view? Women see redpilled men as either a great profit if they're alpha or a great danger if they're incel. But blue pilled people are a bit disposable because women want someone who is 3 steps ahead, unless he is a holloy mannequin of LMS, that a more machiavellian girl would want. But women want a connectionship with something that appeases them/ makes them smile amidst their high primality predicated inner dialog thoughtstream/ psychliloquy of judgment/ discernemnt that ripples as valuable throughout all mediums that a woman juges herself by.

-other people's opinions
-seeing herself as valuable by the eyes of society (humanitarianism/ marxist shit)/ and the harsh course their judgment system takes in relation to the cumulative criticism system all mankind holds towards incelity/ low genetic value
-the framework of the physical world, and how she can project herself as valuable amidst the hierarchy of physical/ natural circumoccurences that favors natural selection, and how she is valuable amidst the discernment flow, rate, surveillance, assessment of the criteria of natural selection.
-the collective judgment system of psychos/ sluts/ assholes/ uptight asshole businessmen, strongmen in the business world/ etc. (all people who rival her primality)
-her family and their expectations (as she wants to ripple a resonance that makes them feel proud, and confirms/ validates her desire to have that high cosmic significance/ high-essential existence).

People are actively analyzing themselves, and underlyingly perceive opposing physical/ mental/ abstract/ systematic systems of resistance to one's climb for high cosmic value as an enemy. Women aren't innately conscious of it because a lot of them are too hormonal to even stop and think about the inner neurocurrents/ chemicular circulations that their thoughtloops are derived by.

Women are hormonally enwrapped in a normie friendly frenzy/ safespace constrained thoughtloop. They can't branch away from it. They lack the capacity to dimensionalize something out of their evolutionary capacities. Would a hippo know what the fuck to do in a european mountain range? no. neither would a mountain goat know how to outmaneuver predators in the savannah. Women are not wired to think outside of the box. Their mind is predicated in the caves/ social circles of mankind. Their conscious mindset is befitted to their evolution. To be soothers, to be the convention that is comforting, and thus they are constrained to comfort.

Women align their conscious with what is comfortable to say. And represent ideas to themselves that isn't conducive to discomforting reality. Yes men game the system but they're on a short lifeline. Confidence/ highvibejiving is a good part of the set, but eventually women will get tired of icecream no matter how well they polish it. Especially if the aftertaste is shit when they reflect on the LMS of the guy... which deprives them of feeling cosmically prominent when immediate/ happy gappy gratification begins to have less of a power to its punch. Women want to feel accomplished passively, and happiness comes from that.



What women want is to feel a certain way, which is what everyone wants.

You are saying that the only way to manipulate this is through LMS.

I am saying that there is a whole complex human emotional system that is involved and although LMS has influence over it, there is far more to it than that, in the specific formation of desired states of consciousness and experiences.

To reduce all of that purely to primal capital is not really doing the subject justice, it's like taking a tire and saying "this is a car".

It's a piece of a system but it's not the system itself.

Why limit yourself in such a way?

What women want is to feel a certain way, which is what everyone wants.

You are saying that the only way to manipulate this is through LMS.

I am saying that there is a whole complex human emotional system that is involved and although LMS has influence over it, there is far more to it than that, in the specific formation of desired states of consciousness and experiences.

To reduce all of that purely to primal capital is not really doing the subject justice, it's like taking a tire and saying "this is a car".

It's a piece of a system but it's not the system itself.

Why limit yourself in such a way?


From what I've seen and experienced primality is what women want. Manipulation almost implies deception. You can deceive but if they find out later on that you don't have the goods then they are going to leave you. Women want the real thing, not a knock off copy of something of high worth, and therefore they have evolved defences to detect insincerity and people trying to "game" them.

Eugeneicist's exposition is not about a reduction rather than a description of the core of what women want, where it emanates from. Everything else is either a distraction or an extraneous detail.

There is nothing to limit since there is still freedom to play this game in infinite variety in the various degrees of freedom that it affords, just like a water colour artists has infinite degrees of freedom in how he can paint a picture but he is still constrained by the chemistry and physics of his materials in regards what can be physically done.

PussySlaughter wrote:What women want is to feel a certain way, which is what everyone wants.

You are saying that the only way to manipulate this is through LMS.

I am saying that there is a whole complex human emotional system that is involved and although LMS has influence over it, there is far more to it than that, in the specific formation of desired states of consciousness and experiences.

To reduce all of that purely to primal capital is not really doing the subject justice, it's like taking a tire and saying "this is a car".

It's a piece of a system but it's not the system itself.

Why limit yourself in such a way?
Wrong again. But I agree women want to feel a certain way, but not in the way you're conduiting. Women don't want to feel a certain way just from a MAN. They want to feel a certain way because of what the man makes them, and what they feel like when they have high primality capital... which is superior to others. In many cases, women have a rank-order centric sense of self esteem. They want to do so for security, for cosmic prominence, and for meeting the mark on all of the things they've expected to be so they can rid themselves of guilt of being pathetic/ ugly/ etc. and be higher than others.

Being a confident/ vanilla vibed/ NT/ etc. isn't really enough. Look at Twilight, and he wasn't really any of the typical colloquial connotion of how those things are defined.

Tire and this is a car LOL. I'm pointing at a gas tank/ electric motor and saying that this is what cars run off of. And that's almost largely true, but again there are variations, but primality is the fact that a car needs energy, and nothing can get past that.

I'm not reductionist, I'm just giving you an apt reality of existence. Primality is not just hierarchical/ about punctuated equilibrium of the lesser people, and elevation of the strong. It's also about inner game and how that holds primality centric value when its conduited about abstractions and assertions. No girl gets iwth a guy almost purely on entertainment. That's why clown comedians don't make it past guys who are dominant comedians/ sarcasm crackers. It's his entertaining traits that a girl primally conduits as a token of being in some way an otherworldly prodigy. Where his traits are something a girl can see as valuable in the social spheres because she can't abstract enough weakness in it when she correlates that trait with the crowds/ circles that the woman wants power and dominance in. That is if the guy is to be a touchstone, not a stepping stone.

Technically we are all reductionists. But we need to situate the spatiality of infinity into a mental geometric order. It's just that my philosophy about women gives a clear cut regiment that almost never breaks rank with identifying aptly the moving targets of reality. Vanillaholics/ normies/ copists/ marxists/ religious backstabbing fairybraiders every manner of blue piller will try to sway you away, like I think you might be with trying to say there's numerous more nuances I'm being neglectful of for the sake of coming off like I have some abysmal grandiose aptness of reality for pride...

But I'm reality I'm not. I'm just saying that this "piece of the system" is the most paramount when it comes to the jugment scan of females and their value spectrum. Only those in a non-lofty position settle for anything less than this, and maybe enough have persisted in this to make you see this as a reality... but in the end, a woman is always pillaring the detriments and benefits of a man around being a primal-diva of social domineering on behalf of her own narcissistic gratification/ whim. They want this, because they were meant to be moving targets for men to evolve to impress, and because they want the superiority of mankind.

Remember women only lower their expectations in a weaker postiion, and want to avoid the rejection of men who will judge someone as worthy above them. But there's never a second that really goes by where a woman doesn't pillar their happiness on vanity. It's jsut that women ciruclate themselves in thought loops to bury this truth from themselves, but in the end they still wish they were vain. This isn't reductionist fallacy, this is the latent abysmal core reality.




Lastly
Primal capital is not merely just LMS. It's about gaining primacy over others as the pure benchnmark of gratification mechanism of relationality. Hence hierarchy. Mankind desires primacy, and men are supposed to be a platform by which they can conduit that primacy.
Women chiefly determine a man's value by the propensity to be of primacy utility. Primal momentum being a life or death presence has what has caused us to obsess over the currents of primality that we want to achieve for ourselves.
Thoughtloops of women track back to primality, say every 7 or so thoughtstrokes at the very least, but even then the gravity of it has more essentiality than all of the other thoughts. Hence where she will predicate her emotional state on behalf of primality.
Being funny, confident, charming, good with kids, having a nice car, liking some bands, etc... all of these things only bring female gratification on the bar graph where those traits are X = Substance and Y = Utility when X hits the Y of PRIMAL UTILITY. On that note, End of Conversation if you have anything which dares to attempt to contrast this fact.

Though it can be argued that Primality isn't everything. I know of the Tenderarchy. But that eventually feels like eating a tub full of ice cream to a woman. Being tender isn't thrilling, and a woman thoughtloops like I said, 1/7th of the time at the very least of wtf she's doing here.

This is purely by her pure whim. But you can have it be a girl's whim to not be lashed a thousand times if you're inbred enough to lock her in the attic and force sex her every night. Not really what you can do in a 1st world society in the open though.

cperkins wrote:From what I've seen and experienced primality is what women want. Manipulation almost implies deception. You can deceive but if they find out later on that you don't have the goods then they are going to leave you. Women want the real thing, not a knock off copy of something of high worth, and therefore they have evolved defences to detect insincerity and people trying to "game" them.
Yes my colleague, but as I said before, it's not really "manipulation" that they advocate, it's pretense and stiltedness that's deception, but it's in the same vein manipulation. Yet it what's the PUA tards advocate, since you have only one option left if you cannot get girls in a straightforward manner. All of what they say is redundant once they imply there's a right and wrong thing to do, which opens up the principle of there being hit and miss, and that's in every area, every particle of the package, which definitely WOULDN'T be just predicated on the way you act, but also your bearings, looks, lineage, money, status, primality capital, NT capital, vibe capital, etc.

The thought loops of women aren't consciously aware of their FULL judgment. Just about appearance/ normie friendly/ vanillaholic thoughtloops. BUt hte rest is subconscious. A woman can't really tell you hwo to get men, and evne if she did she'd have misgivings because she is a woman and doesn't want manipulation of her gender getting circulated to other women. It would weaken her gender, and her as well from a ripple trickle effect.

cperkins wrote:Eugeneicist's exposition is not about a reduction rather than a description of the core of what women want, where it emanates from. Everything else is either a distraction or an extraneous detail.
I know right? How dense are these autistic low iq genetic junkyard INCEL hunchback o' notre dame motherfuckers. Mentalcels no doubt as well.


cperkins wrote:There is nothing to limit since there is still freedom to play this game in infinite variety in the various degrees of freedom that it affords, just like a water colour artists has infinite degrees of freedom in how he can paint a picture but he is still constrained by the chemistry and physics of his materials in regards what can be physically done.
Yes. You can't open a keyhole with your finger, you can't shape/ mold it as they keyhole would need for access like mr. fantastic. But he did labor under the assumption that primality wasn't all of it, which is isn't agreed. But it tracks back. You just need ot know how to be tender sometimes, but that vein of value isn't the essential. Like how people go to the bank for money, but the tenderarchical capital is like havin a good bank teller. Even if it sucks, people will still bear it to get their money. If it's just bad enough, like the bank teller is literally a curmudgeonly sick lecher then the girl will try to slowly phase out and find a new bank by which to extract money of value.
But still, she will find a bank to put her money in. As primality is the essential of all things.
And even if it isn't, it's an extraneous minority.
Thought loops are anchored on the primality as the number 1. vein of value for a female's criteria of intimacy/ suitability. No. Extensive. Exceptions.
The only other trick to understanding this is the right kind of stimulus per every thoughtstate a girl is in that requires a form/ variation of primality value to flex and lubricate the situation into accommodation, but only so long as the raw materials are checked in and gives you the leeway to even rebound per a girl's mode of mood in the first place.

Primality is the pull, personality is the lubricant that gives the girl leeway to access the primality capital, but you also need periodic passivity so that it doesn't become so commonly held to her that she feels you aren't of the primality capital quality of being an unknowable otherworldly prodigy who is unfaultable by female intuition/ primal evaluation. Obscured by his high abilities, fame, fortune, female crowding constraints, power, thrillfilled life that the girl has a hard time imagining she can cling onto.
Only bargain basement bitches stay on the sidelines, to stay insulated and isolated, but even then in our society men will give them enough attention that it's hard for a girl to stay on the sideliens knowing hteir sexual utility, and htier hormones are rather ungovernable making them not utterly overcautious sometimes to high wellsprings of primality such as what I'm delineating.

Yes it is exceptionally reductionist.

LMS takes a few good ideas, then turns them into a inflexible prison of a few dominant ideas taken to absolutist extremes, just like with things these same people would consider "normie".

I haven't really found the "red pill" to be any less of a rigid, inflexible, socially and tribally driven frame work, than the "blue pill" which it commonly derides, just simply another theme of it.

It's the same as a discussion with "normies" just about a different topic, but the thinking pattern and behavior is identical in most cases.

We've already had these ideas for some time additionally, they are nothing new really.

On that note, End of Conversation if you have anything which dares to attempt to contrast this fact.


Yes I do. The true test of a theory is it's functional relationship with reality, and I will leave that one up to you to decide and discover.

PussySlaughter wrote:Yes it is exceptionally reductionist.

LMS takes a few good ideas, then turns them into a inflexible prison of a few dominant ideas taken to absolutist extremes, just like with things these same people would consider "normie".

I haven't really found the "red pill" to be any less of a rigid, inflexible, socially and tribally driven frame work, than the "blue pill" which it commonly derides, just simply another theme of it.

It's the same as a discussion with "normies" just about a different topic, but the thinking pattern and behavior is identical in most cases.

We've already had these ideas for some time additionally, they are nothing new really.

On that note, End of Conversation if you have anything which dares to attempt to contrast this fact.


Yes I do. The true test of a theory is it's functional relationship with reality, and I will leave that one up to you to decide and discover.
No one is completely objective. No one's map holds all the territory. Develop the mindset with the best territory. Even if there are errs, they're extrenuous. If you're wrong, then it's marginal and mostly dependent on the non-concrete elements of the world. But most of the conrete elements of the world are solid/ meant to be resilient against the natural wear and tear of nature. Everything that hasn't been destroyed yet has had to fight back against the universe. Why do I say things are primal? Because we need to be selfish for self-sustainment.

It's pointless to get the full readout instead of the basics in life. You'll be inactive your entire life in contemplation. There can be benefits to reflection, but it's a vice if it expends opportunity for higher measures of gratification, which I'm sure the buddhists/ spiritualists/ broadminders may not fully prioritize. I am not as much of a broadminder as I am a conqueror. Pillar your knowledge's value not on wholeness, but on utility.

No one can be objective. Machines can readout objectively, from every lane of radiation/ proximity/ angle of observation... but the programming is subjective. You can have full objectivity, but even the machine will be subjective when its programming is to clean/ to kill/ to cook/ to destroy/ etc. Even if it has full objective correctness (tough to say it is, for there are other layers of reality no sensor can probably pick up, but bec ause they're inconsequential then we didn't even bother to know/ realize them) you can't take a stance without being subjective. Focus on what forwards your subjective stance through understanding objective reality, but not knowing objective reality at hte expense of knowing the best benefit from it.

Remember, work to realize your destiny. The universe is transient, yes. You're misthinking what I'm saying if you think I don't know that. But you should remember to advance with what you know. That's the value of it. Ensuring that it will work, and that it's in accordance with essential reality... relevant reality... not extraneous minutiae.

You'll be mostly correct with the black pill with al lof the essentials/ non moving aspects of reality kept in place. And you'll be caught up in nothing if you take the rainbow/ entire spectrum pill which is everything encompassed. And in hte blue pill you'll just be lost and chewed up and dead.

PussySlaughter wrote:Yes I do. The true test of a theory is it's functional relationship with reality, and I will leave that one up to you to decide and discover.
Why bother to come on here if you leave people to decide their own philosophy instead of guide them? We can say that mountains are small and that rocks are liquid. But it's up to you to substantiate that claim. Or that everyone is reductionist and you leave them to wallow in that thought? Seems totally redundant.

All creatures are going to be reductionist .To even take a stance is a form of being a reductionist, even if you're a completely objective self improving A.I. that is so because we are all seeing hte universe form an individual scope, and are not omnipotently tethered into eveyrthing around us. A machine probably couldn't see the universe from every lens, even the blank silvered unsentient lens of a life surrounding the proximity literal pebble for some amount of time, 10,000 years for example. Unless it could shapeshift. But even if it could what's the point of it? Don't worry about knowing the full scope, but just know all that you need to apply it to reality and achieve your goal. Your goal is one that is contrastive with my own, I pity you for a lack of vision.

Why bother to come on here if you leave people to decide their own philosophy instead of guide them?


There is no useful discussion to be had with you.

You come from a very limited restrictive philosophy of which pussy sits at the top, above a pyramid of LMS.

You can superfluously expand it, but that's what it is.

Why would you give a man an answer, when he already has them?

PussySlaughter wrote:
Why bother to come on here if you leave people to decide their own philosophy instead of guide them?


There is no useful discussion to be had with you.

You come from a very limited restrictive philosophy of which pussy sits at the top, above a pyramid of LMS.

You can superfluously expand it, but that's what it is.

Why would you give a man an answer, when he already has them?
I'm just revolving the extraneous around the significance of the essentials as any sane person would. Revolve the discussion of getting gas in your car around the mechanics of the car, instead of building a system of everything being less permanent and making the essential emphasis around gas.

There are components why things should have emphasis. It's called logic. Logic is an essential tool because of the mechanics of the human mind.

And it's not just LMS... I'm just saying they're the essentials for the feeling women want that you talk about. Of course there are OTHER factors though, but the ones that make the most critical impact/ imprint/ price or detriment determinent are LMS. For an alleged Holist/ Emergentist you sure do judge preemptively.

Not all women use primality evo-logic though. So you do have a point in some regards.

The other factors are just as important.

And why isolate it in the first place?

Of what value is that?

Even if you were right, constantly repeating the theory of LMS is a pretty useless thing.

Why not try to develop actionable things with connection to tangible reality than constantly try to validate some dogma that for some reason you find value in attempting to manipulate reality to?

What is your basis for these claims anyways? How do you know they are correct?

I'm just saying they're the essentials for the feeling women want that you talk about.


How do you know that?

Is this something you rigorously directly experienced or just simply assumed?

Why not try to develop actionable things with connection to tangible reality than constantly try to validate some dogma that for some reason you find value in attempting to manipulate reality to?


"actionable" in what sense? In deluding idiots into going to the gym and changing their diets and learning to wear nice clothes and all that? Isn't all that related to LMS in regards to how to increase it?

Do you want someone telling you what you want to hear or someone who just tells the truth? I mean the real truth?

The reason why most of this is not actionable is simple because the game as we see it is pretty damn fixed unless you fluke out on luck etc (like winning the lottery, but even then the attraction you gain might not be the sort your really want).

LMS is just a concept espoused to simplify the picture somewhat but it IS a necessary condition. Don't believe me? Then go and try attract women without LMS. We've all seen plenty of ugly guys get nowhere with girls - and not for want of trying nor failing to read PUA stuff!!!

How do you know that?

Is this something you rigorously directly experienced or just simply assumed?


I know that from personal experience. None of my girlfriends EVER knew anything about me when they showed interest in me. It was all pretty primal. They liked what they saw - end of. Only a retarded person would pontificate about my "character" or my "personality", or how I moved or all sorts of factors that PUA tries to sell you that can be improved upon by an individual through practice and commitment . . .

And yes it is a little reductionist, but then again it does paint the picture. It's like saying, to take the example above, that you require energy to move a body when discussing physics. This is the most basic law of all, totally reductionist, but still offers infinite degrees of freedom in regards to the experimental parameters in the context of discourse. So saying energy is need to move a body does not in anyway violate possibilities that we've not seen or encompass with our thoughts, which is what your main objection is.

In all cases, first the basic fundamentals must be right, and then we can discuss the nuances and various other cases of interest from there.

But I've noticed that you yourself haven't really suggested anything so I can only infer that you probably don't know much of what you are on about.

This is just a straw man on your part.

I am not saying that those are the fundamentals and trying to nitpick you on some minor less important details to achieve some sort of stubborn mostly irrelevant point, I am saying those are just as important as LMS and you both have gone totally off base in claiming otherwise, which I also related to a lack of experience, since I can't imagine someone who picks up and fucks alot of girls, especially from cold approach or other challenging ways of doing it, not understanding this.

Also lets not pretend here, we are not even discussing LMS.

What both you and Eugenicist are discussing is looks, not money and status, so lets not confuse what we are talking about here and be a bit more direct.

And I could say tons about it, I just usually don't, since I know where I am posting, and that it's mostly a stupid and pointless discussion to have on a forum like this.

I speak from experience on that one as well.

I have enough in common with the ideas and theme of this forum to post here occasionally, but certainly do not resonate with pure LMS theory, or what it really is in the PSL sphere, which is just looks, not even money and status.

It's something I'm more than confident to discuss, but I've never found that anyone cares in the first place, so why bother talking to people about something they would not like to hear?

"actionable" in what sense? In deluding idiots into going to the gym and changing their diets and learning to wear nice clothes and all that? Isn't all that related to LMS in regards to how to increase it?


This is just another straw man. There are plenty of legitimate routes for "subhuman" men to bang tons of hot girls, in some cases even way more, and way easily, than plenty of chads.

And there are plenty of guys who do, I could post them all over this forum.

This is not a theory it's a fact of reality than anyone can easily observe.

Do you want someone telling you what you want to hear or someone who just tells the truth? I mean the real truth?


Do you?

I know that from personal experience. None of my girlfriends EVER knew anything about me when they showed interest in me. It was all pretty primal. They liked what they saw - end of. Only a retarded person would pontificate about my "character" or my "personality", or how I moved or all sorts of factors that PUA tries to sell you that can be improved upon by an individual through practice and commitment . . .


In what context is this personal experience you are referring to?

Is this picking up a large amount of girls for quick sex?

In all cases, first the basic fundamentals must be right, and then we can discuss the nuances and various other cases of interest from there.


Sex and attraction is a complex human emotional social system and you have not established that those are the only "fundamentals".

That is what the process of sex itself is. It's not just "looks". It's a subjective interactive experience. I don't know why you think it's a superior viewpoint to isolate it like that.

And as if behavior does not have a profound effect itself on how other people feel, wheter it's attraction or non sexual relationships.

I don't really find that to be a exceptionally reaching statement.

This is just a straw man on your part.


Not at all. I'm willing to hear what you have to say. I believe in Free Speech absolutely.

I am not saying that those are the fundamentals and trying to nitpick you on some minor less important details to achieve some sort of stubborn mostly irrelevant point, I am saying those are just as important as LMS and you both have gone totally off base in claiming otherwise, which I also related to a lack of experience, since I can't imagine someone who picks up and fucks alot of girls, especially from cold approach or other challenging ways of doing it, not understanding this.


I said LMS is an umbrella terms. We've probably not described it properly but that's a close approximation to it. Impactionism, primality etc. . .

I do NOT pick up girls. It's not something I go out of my way to do or something that I plan for. Anyone who has been through my experiences will know what I mean. And I don't do cold approach at all . . . . This ain't no competition between people about who gets the most lays which I regard as pointless and ego posturing . .

Also lets not pretend here, we are not even discussing LMS.

What both you and Eugenicist are discussing is looks, not money and status, so lets not confuse what we are talking about here and be a bit more direct.


Looks should trump all, but that's not completely correct. Because that term encompasses a lot of variables. Also we can have the case of being "average" in looks but with a very interesting personality could also trump certain level of looks as well, so it's all of an interplay between various factors. Thresholds and tolerances and subjectivity and other issues come into play to certain degrees. What is being said here by Eugenicist is that this being "confident" advice is ineffective: you are what you are and the woman has mostly already decided.

What it appears to me is you are trying to say that there are some PUA techniques to increase your attractiveness. And what Eugenicist is saying is that you can't do that because it will make you look a faggot if you don't have the necessary "primality" to back it up. A good looking guy with bad fashion sense could improve his social status by dressing in expensive garb. Conversely I suppose he could lose it when people perceive that he's not very bright. But an ugly guy dressing in expensive well fitting clothes will always look like a try hard. . .

This ain't no competition between people about who gets the most lays which I regard as pointless and ego posturing . .


I agree and I'm not trying to make it one.

It is relevant though because we are trying to accurately describe something so I think the ultimate test of that is to weigh it against reality.

If reality shows different, then we are wrong, it is as simple as that. And we must modify the theory accordingly to account for what happens in reality.

What is being said here by Eugenicist is that this being "confident" advice is ineffective: you are what you are and the woman has mostly already decided.


I think being confident advice is stupid, but for different reasons than you.

Not because it doesn't have plenty of value, but because actually doing it, is a very different matter than presented by people like PUA's, who seem to think that it's a simple thing to emulate, which could not be further from the truth.

It's something that's up there as just as challenging to do at a high level as any LMS is, just as uncommon, and also arguably has a large inherent talent factor itself, just like those other things.

It's not some loophole where every guy can become amazing with girls equally.

It's a inherent talent, with some room for improvement, just like looks or anything else.

And the kind of guys who naturally highly excel it, are born that way. It's not something some dork from RSD is going to pick up at a seminar or even from going out for years either.

What it appears to me is you are trying to say that there are some PUA techniques to increase your attractiveness. And what Eugenicist is saying is that you can't do that because it will make you look a faggot if you don't have the necessary "primality" to back it up. A good looking guy with bad fashion sense could improve his social status by dressing in expensive garb. Conversely I suppose he could lose it when people perceive that he's not very bright. But an ugly guy dressing in expensive well fitting clothes will always look like a try hard. . .


My thoughts about it are far from PUA techniques or what would normally be taught in that school of thought.

But I disagree fully. A guy with a really high level of personality, it won't mean shit that he doesn't have high "primality".

In fact I fully agree with Tyler in this case, although I disagree with his methods of teaching and achieving it, along with telling guys that there is no talent to it, that he can and does walk circles around good looking guys.

Cause they are just used to standing there and not having substantially skilled or talented social competition right up in their face making them look like idiots.

And yet again, I totally disagree with PSL thinking, that being a chad automatically gives you those qualities.

It is relevant though because we are trying to accurately describe something so I think the ultimate test of that is to weigh it against reality.

If reality shows different, then we are wrong, it is as simple as that. And we must modify the theory accordingly to account for what happens in reality.


the problem is reality can sometimes sit on a relative standing and it moves that standing as we evolve further since we are the medium of judgement. Take our ape ancestors, none of us would find them remotely attractive, but going through the stages of selection we are as we are today in terms of physical appearance. That's the problem with this. It's also the problem in regards to how different races perceive the others as uglier or prettier as well since we are also evolving preferences to certain features etc. . .

I think being confident advice is stupid, but for different reasons than you.

Not because it doesn't have plenty of value, but because actually doing it, is a very different matter than presented by people like PUA's, who seem to think that it's a simple thing to emulate, which could not be further from the truth.

It's something that's up there as just as challenging to do at a high level as any LMS is, just as uncommon, and also arguably has a large inherent talent factor itself, just like those other things.

It's not some loophole where every guy can become amazing with girls equally.

It's a inherent talent, with some room for improvement, just like looks or anything else.

And the kind of guys who naturally highly excel it, are born that way. It's not something some dork from RSD is going to pick up at a seminar or even from going out for years either.


Strangely enough I won't disagree with this at all, and I should have added it in my comments. But at the same time I would say it depends what you are confident about. Yes, confidence does have value, it just depends on what confidence and where that confidence emanates from. If it's confidence about one' looks and you are really good looking then it's a no brainer that has value. If it's confidence about doing your teaching job well that would mean jack shit to any woman who doesn't know you and is probably not interested in that side of your personality. But for the sake of discussion the "confidence" being expressed here seems to be the confidence to approach a woman or to use it as something to get her interested in you, and you can't do that if your confidence is either fake or of no worth. Read what Eugenicist is saying and you'll understand. But at the same time I have met some naturally confident people, and you are implying to me that this has value. I would argue that it does to a certain degree as long as you have the looks or the status for it. If you don't it means nothing. Quasimodo cannot get Esmeralda no matter how much natural confidence he has because that decision has already been made. . .

My thoughts about it are far from PUA techniques or what would normally be taught in that school of thought.

But I disagree fully. A guy with a really high level of personality, it won't mean shit that he doesn't have high "primality".

In fact I fully agree with Tyler in this case, although I disagree with his methods of teaching and achieving it, along with telling guys that there is no talent to it, that he can and does walk circles around good looking guys.

Cause they are just used to standing there and not having substantially skilled or talented social competition right up in their face making them look like idiots.

And yet again, I totally disagree with PSL thinking, that being a chad automatically gives you those qualities.


I think you are mistaking cause for effect. What does high level of personality mean? Usually people of high "primality" will almost likely always have high levels of personality since so much positive things happen to them in life, and they can't help but be confident and happy - and are probably full of themselves too.

But again an ugly nerd can have a high level of intelligence, be very articulate, well read and speak multiple languages and MOST women would still reject him because he doesn't satisfy their looks threshold. You could also have women using him or are attracted to his brains, but there is always a caveat. It depends on how much each side is willing to settle in this bargaining and bartering of exchange . . .

And no being chad does not automatically give you these qualities but it MOST likely will. And also being chad makes up for having to try harder to impress and the like . .

Good looking mentally retarded individuals are rare for obvious reasons.

To set the game changing caveats of this argument that pussyslaughter doesn't really comprehend is this. Primality is the system of esteem we innately have as neomammalians descended from protoreptillians. EVEN personality/ immaterial traits fall into primality because they are emphasized/ discerned/ judged/ enjoyed from a primal lens. Even tenderness is an aspect of primal instincts. So you don't have to be a dominarch to have high primality. Some people reverse the psychology of a person by gaining dominarchical value through tenderness.

Remember, attraction is predicated on hierarchies because the relationship investment/ for women especially can only have one man's baby. She can't have multiple men's children at once. We determine attraciton relationally. Capitality/ Currency is different for all mankind, and selection is innately discernment intensive. Around the stimuli, we create environmental readouts of assignation/ ascriptions by our own determinative dynamics. We see a chair as separate from the floor. We see a painting as separate from the wall, etc.

Women have several thoughtloops and are taken from what I ascribe as primality because they are more predicated on their hormonal love. Hormones have several different trajectories but they most often fall under the alignment of a girl who wants to have high value men IF she doesn't have a scarcity mindset. Women and their hormonal hungering is dependent on her position in life. So he's right that it's not all predicated on LMS. Not always. Sometimes if a girl has received nothing BUT the vanity lifeglide then she will probably look for personality, or for a guy who is a beta provider. Sometimes a girl tempers her hormonal hungering for a good looking guy because she doesn't want to be shamed by being worthless.

Usually what makes a girl pillar her hormonal hunger on something is indeed different facets to primality. Dominarchical primality, I.E. LMS, is not just what she wants. Wits, charm, charisma if they want to have a more feeling and non-dominarchical impactist approach. If she wants a submissive guy then there are reasons why her hormonal hunger desires this.
But in almost any way you slice it, most female attraction is based on hormones/ thoughtwaves which ebb and flow without her conscious decisiveness. And I'm telling you that most women, because our species is primacy predicated (primacy is what I refer to as the primal zenith of all life, being dominant, and in control of their surroundings), wants domination. Women want an out of body success experience from their guy. They are parasitic creatures who use a guy's abilities and achievements as a representation of HIS primal momentum resulting in him having the first pick of the draw anywhere, and the girl was chosen amongst his privilege.

I mean isn't it obvious? Look at the way most women judge, play games, sample the guy's strength, and melt into attraction of the guy? It's predicated on his dominarchical primal capital. Dominarchy makes the girl feel he's going to be an objectively "successful" prospect, and that yields the primality hormonal buzz they want to hold on with.

Reductionism isn't just generalization/ and making things more simplistic. That would be Simplicism. Reductionism is where you can reduce the reality of things anywhere into essential parts, where holism/ emergentism is where you think that things come about because of the entirety of systems around them. Like how muslims think Allah is unknowable so it is an immortal sin to reduce him to his constituent parts and try to understand him. And how hippies/ liberals think there is no objective universe (for the sake of trying to frame everything around a fairy braided pipe dream oriented manner of discernment), and how everything around us is relative to some kind of osmosis of everyone's inner essence. (bullshit). But they are just people who can't be reductionist. An example of emergentism/ Gestalt's idea is that we are more than what makes us ourselves. Like how a human being's personality is more than the parts which make it up, which I agree, but even then there is nothing thati s completely emergentistic, because even the neuro synapses/ experience/ heartbeats/ blood cells etc. that is separate from our parts, and came about because of an interworking system are a part of something else. From the farthest trajectory of scrutiny, things need to be broken down part by part as a system. In both Emergentist and Reductionist philosophy. There is nothing really contrasting about them. It's just that a Reductionist goes into the individual parts of the system, and believes that things/ systems are created from building blocks, and we have knowledge from deconstructing them and dissecting them. You can be a reductionist without contrasting emergentism.

But you will contrast holism, as holists believe that the universe can't be reduced into a collection of parts.The biggest issue people who are holists believe is that people who look at parts can't understand the fully spectrum of causality because they build these intellectual towards/ straight and narrow views of perception and aren't all encompassing.

Things should be bottom-up, not top-down. How the whole affects the parts, rather than how the parts combined comprise the whole. It should be relational.

THEY JUST BELIEVE there are multiple dimensions of the subjective person's interpretation. Where it's not just the parts of our neuro synapses/ methods and tools by which our biology engages in perception of the reality itself. That we're not just observers. But that the whoel system of everything holds within itself a parallel dimension... but this is entirely false.

It's clearly obvious that it's not coincidence/ whim of the world that we vastly intersect in our perception. When we see a barn for example, most humanity is seeing a shade of red in all reality. And if they're not, if they're colorblind and they are in some ocular nerve somewhere irregular from the way most of humanity perceives, then that would also be able to be scrutinized and understood. If we were all living in our own subjective dimension and not an objective reality then it wouldn't intersect in so many possible ways.




Attraction is not a matter of affirmative action, ideally. But it can be. RARELY women loan sex out of pity, remorse, or out of their personal agenda. But it can be. It depends on where women set their
It's OBVIOUSLY apparent women have dominarchical desires, not even in just their conscious mind, but also in their passive psyche.

It's inevitable for us to be simplists in life, that's how we naturally compile information. We need to make things passive and concrete. We make things efficient by clumping up phenomena in patterns and reflexively acting a certain way without spending 3 hours ruminating whether we should say hello to a greasy guy in a trenchcoat licking his lips, or try and dodge the situation in the smoothest way possible/ and if he gets to close then run or kill him.

The simple and fundamental constituents comprise the world. You don't need to analyze the entire system of all existence to figure out why a dog buries its own turds. Do you? No.

Women innately have a capitality behind all their relationships and are hormonally afraid/ repellent to anyone who doesn't give them what htey want in the immediate moment. So whether it was what you thought my previous conception of primality was, Pussyslaughter, most girls pillar their hormonal hunger on something that isn't accessible anywhere, and they need to be very careful of who they choose to converse/ discuss with because that in of itself in a very nuanced world where the male psyche is concerned, will result in them getting unwanted intrusion immediately. This is a main reason why most women are so reserved.

the problem is reality can sometimes sit on a relative standing and it moves that standing as we evolve further since we are the medium of judgement. Take our ape ancestors, none of us would find them remotely attractive, but going through the stages of selection we are as we are today in terms of physical appearance. That's the problem with this. It's also the problem in regards to how different races perceive the others as uglier or prettier as well since we are also evolving preferences to certain features etc. . .


We aren't discussing ape ancestors.

And we aren't discussing the future either.

We are discussing the present majority medium of judgement, particularly of females.

This is just shifting the goal posts.

But for the sake of discussion the "confidence" being expressed here seems to be the confidence to approach a woman or to use it as something to get her interested in you, and you can't do that if your confidence is either fake or of no worth.


Lets clarify here because if we don't, we won't even be having a useful discussion, because it won't even be about the same ideas.

Before you can discuss something, you should know what it even is.

And no that is not the confidence expressed here, that's a very vague simplification.

Lets not even use that term because it doesn't do it justice. Without going into a large amount of unnecessary detail, we are discussing a complex combination of vibe, mindset, beliefs, attitudes, social skills, and combined subtle behaviors that would constitute a guy having charisma.

It's not just "that guy is confident" or "not confident".

It's more like how does that guys brain / psychology function and the subsequent emotions and vibe that comes from that along with the combined social skills.

Read what Eugenicist is saying and you'll understand.


I don't need to read what he says, I can just look at reality and see guys all the time who do possess this combination of social skills / vibe and use it to gain plenty of social power and influence and subsequent women that comes with it.

Their personality is their skill, so to speak.

To put it in his terms, it's a form of primal capital itself, it's a free standing factor, it's not dependent on the others.

I would argue that it does to a certain degree as long as you have the looks or the status for it


What do you think status is in the first place?

As if it is some thing that is removed from personality and social skills.

A large degree of status is just social ability. You are limited here cause you only seem to think of that in terms of 1 on 1 approaches rather than as a totality of overall social interaction and relationships.

Quasimodo cannot get Esmeralda no matter how much natural confidence he has because that decision has already been made. . .


They do all the time.

Well not all the time, but at least as commonly as chads do.

Chads are pretty rare, so are guys with massive personalities. Getting a ton of hot girls period is rare. Doesn't mean that looks is the only way to do it though.

Some guys will also get mad about this and say that this level of status or money is not reasonable for the normal guy.

Well neither is being 1 in a million winner of a genetic aesthetic lottery.

That's why I said it's not the kind of thing where all guys can do it, it's a competition with a hierarchy just like looks is.

And just like looks, it has plenty of a genetic component itself. Having the right kind of brain, or one that can develop to that point, is probably just as rare as being born extremely handsome ripped and tall.

Of course anybody can improve, but you'd have to be a idiot to think that some average guy is going to be Tony Robbins, just the same as a average guy being a pro athlete.

"Looks" isn't the only thing with dominant genetic and biological determining aspect.

Usually people of high "primality" will almost likely always have high levels of personality


Wrong.

High levels of looks do not always go hand in hand with high levels of personality, nor even the high level of talent for it, and vice versa.

Of course sometimes one person will combine multiple traits at a very high level, but those people are even more rare, and certainly not representative of the majority.

since so much positive things happen to them in life, and they can't help but be confident and happy


That's not the same as having a huge amount of natural charisma, which has a lot more factors to it than just self esteem alone, although that's a component.

probably full of themselves too.


So what. If they have better emotions than you, if they can make it work and pull it off, then it doesn't matter if it's wrong.

They have a superior emotional state wheter it's "delusional" or not doesn't mean anything.

If you feel really good about yourself, that's real, at least as far as your subjective reality is concerned, and it is to women too when they feel it coming off you.

Neither them nor the delusional guy cares if it's "real" or not, all that matters is how it feels.

But again an ugly nerd can have a high level of intelligence, be very articulate, well read and speak multiple languages and MOST women would still reject him because he doesn't satisfy their looks threshold.


That's cause the nerd in question has high intelligence but poor social ability.

Intelligence is not the same as social ability. It can have a influence to some degree, but they are two separate things

You can be really smart and have horrible social skills.

Likewise you can be a dumbass and have very good social skills.

And no being chad does not automatically give you these qualities but it MOST likely will. And also being chad makes up for having to try harder to impress and the like . .


I don't understand why people on PSL always are sucking on chads dick.

Of course if you are extremely good looking it matters and matters a ton.

But projecting that into massive amounts of intelligence or charisma in all cases?

That's just fantasy thinking.

Most real life chads are neither and you can go look them all up and find out yourself if you want.

Likewise you can find plenty of men that are not chads but at a high level of the other two.

EVEN personality/ immaterial traits fall into primality because they are emphasized/ discerned/ judged/ enjoyed from a primal lens


They are primal capital themselves.

Even tenderness is an aspect of primal instincts.


It's not really "tenderness" but there is such a thing as emotional and social superiority, but it definitely functions itself as a dominant thing so the way you portray it here is strange.

So you don't have to be a dominarch to have high primality.


I disagree, you just don't seem to understand social ability and dominance though, at least outside of other associated traits.

Remember, attraction is predicated on hierarchies


Social ability itself is a hierarchy.

And I'm telling you that most women, because our species is primacy predicated (primacy is what I refer to as the primal zenith of all life, being dominant, and in control of their surroundings), wants domination.


In what planet did you really confuse looks as the primary facet of this?

The world is not dominated and run by chads, despite whatever PSL delusions you may hold.

In fact part of the point of being a chad to begin with, is being able to be lazy and not have to achieve this dominance in the first place, just cause you're really good looking.

Reductionism isn't just generalization/ and making things more simplistic. That would be Simplicism. Reductionism is where you can reduce the reality of things anywhere into essential parts, where holism/ emergentism is where you think that things come about because of the entirety of systems around them. Like how muslims think Allah is unknowable so it is an immortal sin to reduce him to his constituent parts and try to understand him. And how hippies/ liberals think there is no objective universe (for the sake of trying to frame everything around a fairy braided pipe dream oriented manner of discernment), and how everything around us is relative to some kind of osmosis of everyone's inner essence. (bullshit). But they are just people who can't be reductionist. An example of emergentism/ Gestalt's idea is that we are more than what makes us ourselves. Like how a human being's personality is more than the parts which make it up, which I agree, but even then there is nothing thati s completely emergentistic, because even the neuro synapses/ experience/ heartbeats/ blood cells etc. that is separate from our parts, and came about because of an interworking system are a part of something else. From the farthest trajectory of scrutiny, things need to be broken down part by part as a system. In both Emergentist and Reductionist philosophy. There is nothing really contrasting about them. It's just that a Reductionist goes into the individual parts of the system, and believes that things/ systems are created from building blocks, and we have knowledge from deconstructing them and dissecting them. You can be a reductionist without contrasting emergentism.


I don't know why you are saying I am not being reductionist.

It's just that your underlying factors are false, which is why your theory naturally comes into conflict with reality.

Even tenderness is an aspect of primal instincts.


It's not really "tenderness" but there is such a thing as emotional and social superiority, but it definitely functions itself as a dominant thing so the way you portray it here is strange.


So you don't have to be a dominarch to have high primality.[/quote]It's tenderness in relation to the psychopathic nature of living things and the domination predication all living things have from the way which most things are in the universe. A power play of opposing physical forces. Dominarchy is one of the main trait trees of primality. Dominarchical traits are what women gauge and glean as valuable in the real world. Often looks/ appearance hold the value they have because of the properties they like about someone's appearance orienting their value from being more dominant savvy from the status/ raw social power it loans itself to.

And I'm telling you that most women, because our species is primacy predicated (primacy is what I refer to as the primal zenith of all life, being dominant, and in control of their surroundings), wants domination.



In what planet did you really confuse looks as the primary facet of this?

The world is not dominated and run by chads, despite whatever PSL delusions you may hold.

In fact part of the point of being a chad to begin with, is being able to be lazy and not have to achieve this dominance in the first place, just cause you're really good looking.
Sigh... you're retarded if you thought I umbrella'd all of this capital chiefly from that. No, it's just the greatest favorable set of features people want because it's the cheat code to life. Someone can go from dirty poor to rich from those vastly rare features if they play their cards fairly carefully. Because of the primal structure of the human race giving ease/ alleviation to those of high appearance in the offhand. You have to display and flaunt yourself forcibly if you don't have aesthetarchical primal capital. Primality mentalities believe that the osmosis of one's personal delivery... unspoken... unstated is where true value is subcommunicated. If you have to go further, there is a bit of a libido kill. Faint, can be overriden, but still present nonetheless.

AND it gives ourselves a feeling of cosmic significance in having high appearance rather htan feeling we made it through flukes/ artificial (out of the will of the universe) means by money/ status like the PUAs offer us to do.

It's predicated on packages. And in less common but more grandiose cases, having primal momentum from other traits in general will give you more game than just being a chad. Nothing in the quote box implied I thought it came from appearance. You're deliberately trying to derail me of the primal momentum of my insight by arguing with a derogating straw man.



Reductionism isn't just generalization/ and making things more simplistic. That would be Simplicism. Reductionism is where you can reduce the reality of things anywhere into essential parts, where holism/ emergentism is where you think that things come about because of the entirety of systems around them. Like how muslims think Allah is unknowable so it is an immortal sin to reduce him to his constituent parts and try to understand him. And how hippies/ liberals think there is no objective universe (for the sake of trying to frame everything around a fairy braided pipe dream oriented manner of discernment), and how everything around us is relative to some kind of osmosis of everyone's inner essence. (bullshit). But they are just people who can't be reductionist. An example of emergentism/ Gestalt's idea is that we are more than what makes us ourselves. Like how a human being's personality is more than the parts which make it up, which I agree, but even then there is nothing thati s completely emergentistic, because even the neuro synapses/ experience/ heartbeats/ blood cells etc. that is separate from our parts, and came about because of an interworking system are a part of something else. From the farthest trajectory of scrutiny, things need to be broken down part by part as a system. In both Emergentist and Reductionist philosophy. There is nothing really contrasting about them. It's just that a Reductionist goes into the individual parts of the system, and believes that things/ systems are created from building blocks, and we have knowledge from deconstructing them and dissecting them. You can be a reductionist without contrasting emergentism.


I don't know why you are saying I am not being reductionist.

It's just that your underlying factors are false, which is why your theory naturally comes into conflict with reality.
This was a reference to our previous conversations about you thinking I was being a reductionist, but in reality that's oversimplification. You don't know what a reductionist really is, so I used your affirmation about my insistence of being an over-simplifier as "reductionistic" because it's easily for people who don't know the philosophical glossary for a "reductionist" to be someone who reduces reality to something more simplistic and amenable to their subjective/ narrow viewbase.

since so much positive things happen to them in life, and they can't help but be confident and happy


PussySlaughter wrote:That's not the same as having a huge amount of natural charisma, which has a lot more factors to it than just self esteem alone, although that's a component.
Dude natural charisma is discerned by what has impact on the primal discernment system. ... Essentially keeping primal momentum which often is broken depending on how looks are essential to the girl, which is a lot to a lot of them. Attraction is not affirmative action. Primal marketry is hierarchical.
Next

Return to Bash the Scene

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests