If you want to change the world, change yourself. If you want to make the world a better place, make yourself better.
While you are at it, seek for the role in the world that lets you maximize that thing and transform your surroundings, so more people can benefit from you.
That role is hardly going to be a president, a doctor, an astronaut. The world doesnt benefit from the roles themselves, but from people being good / better / creating transformation, wherever they are.
Its not about the role or the job, folks. Its about the impact you have.
Put Robbie Williams to compete against the Russel Crowe from Gladiator.
If you put the assertive/bold/manly and the jerk/nasty/darktriads to compete for the same women, the darktriads gets more women. But not only gets more women, he gets more public acceptance.
Why? I’d say it speaks about something else. The guy who is all the things manly but is also a GOOD man, comes across as righteous, living by a code, doing things right and balanced. He is by comparison less dangerous, more stiff than the dark triads. He also calls for direct comparison and echoes against the crowd, who can relate and idolize, but who wants to follow his same steps?
What people, in general, dream about, is to be able to indulge their very own whims and exploit their surroundings. People dream about letting their own wild side out. Dream about all the stuff they could get if there were no morals or supervision. They dont dream about managing their own wild-side and trascending and doing hard work. In short, the darktriads guy resonates with the crowd better.
You see that all the time in show business. The icons out there, you expect them to go crazy with drugs and sex and do all kind of antisocial stuff. They get to do what you cant. In comparison, the rightful ones are boring. Like. Boooooring. You´ll also see the righteous ones sacrificed and dead by the end of the story. And the crowd likes the crucifixion. After the righteous one is gone, the party can continue.
So, the strong/manly/decent guy trumps over the nice chump, but the jerk/asshole still wins the pot.
So, PUA has defined Alpha as “what attracts women”. Good. Alpha does attract women. You can break down every action and every detail and make a comprehensive list about Alpha, and then you can go and emulate it piece by piece and get similar, if not same results. Good? not arguing about that.
What Im saying is this:
Defining Alpha purely from a point of view of its results and effects, is putting it harder for yourself to reach the Alpha state.
What Alpha state? well, a state or a being or whatever is out of your current handle of things, consider this:
Mind has frames. What is a frame? a logical space where you operate. An identity. A narrative that tells your story. A mood. What you consider the boundaries of your reality. Your ego. Your beliefs and projections. Your fears. A set of premises. The foundation of yourself. Your limits. Cool? so, whatever you are, your current “frame” distorts whatever you perceive, and distorts whatever you act on, and pampers it with your frame. The hows and whys are subject for another debate.
Lets just agree for now on that the mind has frames / states.
What Im saying is that Alpha, Beta, Omega and anything in between are frames.
You project your frame out there, and the world returns you the same you´re projecting. Cause and effect. Most of the time, you are the cause. In whatever case, the stronger frame dominates and conquers the weaker frame. When reality sets its frame on you, you´re its bitch. When your frame dominates reality, reality is your bitch.
Alpha > Beta > Omega. If you put these frames to fight each other, the more dominant wins, right? So Alpha projects its dominance over the other frames, and the other frames go into reactive mode, reacting to Alpha´s proposition, and concede Alpha its power. And so on.
So. What is the problem of defining Alpha as “what attracts women”? that, duh, attracting women is like 50% of the deal.
But moreso, if you start recopilating and emulating what Alpha does, with your current (beta or whatever frame), you´re just a beta doing tricks. And. IT WILL SHOW. Chances are you will just be jumping through hoops you set for yourself, and then whipping your own ass when you fail, and pumping your self esteem when you succeed. In other words, you will be punishing and rewarding yourself.
Guess who punishes and rewards himself? not Alpha. Who tries so hard? not Alpha.
Is self punishing and self rewarding attractive? nope! trying hard attractive? nope!
So whats attractive? Loving yourself unconditionally. Being bold and assertive and getting your shit done. While being comfortable in your own skin.
Who does that? eh. Only Alpha can. And its a deluded thing for sure. It is also attractive as hell.
Can you break that down, being your own thing, doing your own thing, the whole Alpha archetype, the whole book, while at the same time expressing totally what you are, without masks or tricks, being REAL… by just doing some techniques, and because you want the results from a different frame than the frame you have? Nope.
Long story short, you can do some and get some, but there wont be enough energy to sustain it.
You cant do the whole thing. Your energy will run out. The building will be too expensive to maintain. When you get to the point most of the stuff you do is off-frame, when you start getting the results of the frame you are emulating… you´ll realize the law of diminishing returns has already hit. The stuff you get… you paid so much already, and it doesnt even start to fill the gap you´re creating on yourself by being off-frame. You wanted love, sex, admiration, dominance, whatever? you might get a tiny bit of it, but in contrast of what you are paying for it, its a fucking broken deal. Soul sucking experience. The Alpha is getting it EASY, got it? All the results are GIVEN to him. All the wonders he gets are a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF HE BEING THERE. How unfair! the asshole doesnt even try! His frame just wins! The world is his! How can you fake the world is yours? is that a technique?
So whats the solution?
First to the problem, again:
Defining alpha by its effects is counterproductive to getting there: because the one who wants to get there, the current (beta) frame, is the one who has to be sacrificed.
A curve:
Defining success by the money only makes you want the money more, and makes you forget about all the mechanics that are needed to achieve success. And, you only want all that money because you are poor. And you want the validation from the money. Because you are poor. So you ARE poor, right? Thats your identity and your frame. Thats why you CARE about money. Do rich people care about money as much as you? you probably care a lot more. Your frame probably doesnt even understand what is “being” rich, because its too busy worrying about “not having money”.
And the point is that without understanding what is to be successful, all the stuff that has to happen, the frame where it operates, etc, including the hard hard work… without understanding all of that, whats the point? you want money. Because you are poor. And always will be. Unless the poor in you dies. Unless your identity is gone.
So. The Alpha frame.
Alpha is at the top of the social chain. Alpha has abundance of everything. But Alpha is also responsible for everything, starting from himself. Alpha doesnt need anyone. But people look up to Alpha and deposit their attention on him. Alpha is the first to eat until he is satiated, and also the first to stand alert when enemies come. Alpha sets the rules. But Alpha is also responsible when things go bad. People will always, always, always, be testing Alpha to see if he is the real deal. But Alpha doesnt really care. Alpha is Alpha. Alpha is the master. When you challenge Alpha, he looks down at you like you are a child. Alpha is rich to the bone. If everything fails, at least you still have him and if he dies, its like your whole country has died. Alpha is the rule for every other man to follow. Alpha is a brute force, a brute arrow, that doesnt even try, that doesnt even work hard, because reality is his frame to bend and his bitch, and reality likes being his bitch, because he is Alpha to the core, and whats left for him is just to do his thing, amuse and enjoy himself and reach his own personal goals, which happen to transform everyone down the ladder, be himself, and rule the fucking world like it was designed to spin around him.
And every behavior that exudes from this abundance, confidence, detachment, grandiosity, bold projection, self delusion, is extremely attractive to women.
Even the negative aspects of it.
But women are also attracted to other things, example, not Alpha men. Women like drama and the only drama Alpha can generate, is to not reprocicate affection because he is busy with his abundance. Women like security and safety, and a lot of the time Alpha is not available or not around, because he is busy with his own life. So, women have room for other frames. Women are extremely attracted to Alphas, but women are not Alphas and cannot live in the frame (women´s base frame is about attachments). The Beta frame is closer to women´s, and women can relate better to it, and are attracted to it, just not as much.
So what´s the problem with defining Alpha by its effects? The problem is that you are looking indirectly and wanting, envying, the effects of the frame instead of wanting the frame directly. Like wanting the shadow of the thing instead of the thing.
But the Alpha frame doesnt care about what its effects are. The Alpha shadow is enormous but thats not what Alpha cares about. Alpha is just content with being a God and getting his way.
So from the moment one, the moment you want to be like a God so you can have power, you are wanting that because you feel powerless. And since you feel powerless, you cant feel like a God, you cant incarnate the frame, so you cant get the results, and anything you do and get will fall short and be incomplete.
But whatever. Im repeating myself.
Defining the frame by its external effects is misguiding to get there. If you want to get there, better understand what the frame is.
There are traits, behaviors, that are Alpha. The more traits and behaviors you have in yourself for good, the closer the frame is. The more you act and respond from an Alpha frame, the closer it gets. The trick, put it simply, is to drop whatever you are now. Including all your dreams and aspirations, the whole frame. A total self death. Put that down. Then create a new frame, the best Alpha frame you can and start living again from it. And you will have to repeat that fenix´s burn-and-raise dance quite a few times.
So. “Becoming” the frame rather than “procuring to obtain the results from a frame different than your own”. Become step by step. Understand your limits, fears, aspirations, crush all of that, then gain step by step, one trait at a time.
Detachment? check. Burn your house if you have to.
Sexual boldness? check. Go sex clubs if you have to.
Free spirit? check. Travel for a year or two.
Confidence? check. Get experience. Do everything enough times until its done.
Love your life? check. Quit your job if you have to.
Risk taker? check. Do really risky stuff. Until you love it.
Abundance frame? check.
Check check check. x1000.
Etc. Game as a lot of great transcriptions and stuff of verbal game and stuff. Tricks. All of that is useful. If you use that as a roadmap. Like. OK do I have problems doing this? what is the problem? then crush the problem. Until you are totally fine doing what you are doing, like its your first nature.
What is the difference between what Im saying and just honing “skills”? that Im talking about frame and identity. Im saying, transform yourself. Rather than increase yourself with skills. Im saying, smash your frame and grab the Alpha frame. Rather than “improve your masks so you can get the results from the pros”
Any body trainer knows what Im talking about, I guess.
The emphasis of guys on “getting abs”, when they should really care about whole body training, diet etc. “Oh but I dont want to do diet and train four times a week, I just want the abs”. Yeah, good luck with that.
So, if you grab the Alpha frame and move towards it, doing the skillset (Game, approaching, dominance, teasing, frame control, self amusement, etc), that stuff increases your energy rather than decreasing your energy – because what you are doing clicks with your frame and is synced to your reality.
I remember when I was learning this stuff. I was supposed to feel abundance frame and be cocky and confident… but every day reality told me otherwise. I didnt like my job nor my social circle and had a lot of external stuff putting me down. Feeling cocky was a struggle. So, I quit my job, and positioned myself where I could love my life: oh good. Now I dont have to FAKE this part. I can take something else in. Next trait please.
The easiest way to get the results of Alpha is being it. Not just “doing it” or worse “faking it”. The easiest way to get the Alpha effects is to be Alpha. Do you want everyone look at you like you are the ultimate shit? be the ultimate shit. What is the ultimate shit in your own mind? become that. Want every girl around to to be so so so so fucking attracted to you they talk about you in their sleep? then be fucking attractive. Be it.
But the effects are that. Effects.
You can measure Alpha by its effects. Feedback and measuring and seeing how the world responds to you and achieving, its all part of the road. But, again, defining Alpha by its effects only, is counterproductive if you want to get there, as it would be counterproductive to define that “acting” is “what makes the public applause”. By focusing on the effects only, your goals will be pampered by your current frame, and the stuff you will do will get you somewhere else.
The guy in that video is Alpha. And he is not doing what he is doing because he wants effects (or he would be reactive, which he isnt), but the effects are there because of who he is. If you try to get to where the guy is, by caring about the effects, you´ll get somewhere else, somewhere between fake and wannabe and tryhard. Maybe. And if you attract someone, they will also be fake wannabe and tryhards, and as off-frame as you are. Maybe. Maybe.
If intelligence gives you street smarts and swagger, its fine.
If intelligence makes you solve common problems faster and gives you confidence, and an advantage over other men, its fine.
If intelligence makes you create powerful stuff that gives you social recognition, its fine.
If intelligence makes you practical and determined and hard to be fooled, its fine.
If intelligence gives you social power, its fine.
If intelligence makes you money, its fine.
If intelligence makes you funny, its fine.
If intelligence makes you cultured and personable, its fine.
If intelligence makes you click with the people around you, its fine.
If intelligence makes you click with HER specifically, its fine.
If intelligence gives you sexual imagination, its fine.
If intelligence makes you win, its fine.
But if intelligence makes you isolated, a freak, awkward, unadapted, if intelligence makes you score high in IQ tests but low in social life and low in the world, then your intelligence is a pile of crap. In other words, intelligence on its own means nothing. Its how you use it in your own advantage, and in advantage of the people around you, what makes it valuable.
When bad stuff happens, when reality strikes and your wishes crumble, when you try and fail, when the shit hits the fan, when you dont get the reward, when the outcome is not what you intended… What do you feel first? what comes more natural?
A) This is SO unfair.
B) If I want a different outcome I have to do something different, or be someone different.
C) Acceptance.
D) Denial / Hope.
There are no wrong answers. Extra points if you give me some more data:
- Can you experience several of those at the same time?
- Which option is out of the equation? which one you dont consider? which one you reject?
- For how long do you need to experience A or B or C or D, before one state transforms into the other?
- In a ten scale, how successful is your choice at changing the unwanted?
After a few threads on different blogs (HUS, manboobz), Im starting to grasp the modus operandi that makes it so hard to talk openly with feminists about issues and reach to logical / sane agreements, or even logical / sane disagreements. It seems like if you want to debate like you are a feminist, you have to:
- Selectively ignore arguments.
- Present your arguments clearly and in a sound manner.
- Mis-represent every argument from the opposition.
- Present your statements as absolutes.
- Invalidate opposing statements on the basis they are trying to talk in absolute terms.
- Address only the stuff you oppose to.
- Get offended easily.
- Turn any disagreement into an accusation.
- Repeat your premises often.
- Demand sympathy / understanding for your cause.
- Ridicule / demonize the opposition.
- You are always the recipient of the wrongdoing, NEVER the one wrongdoing.
- If facts get in the way, ignore them.
- You are the role model for everyone else to follow.
- If its good for you, its good. Period.
- If its not good for you, it´s gotta be wrong. Period.
- If they hurt you, they are bad people. If you hurt them, they deserve it.
- Your job is to stand there, resiliently evangelizing, until everyone recognizes / celebrates you. Shame, insult, reframe, ignore, readdress, deviate, repeat if you have to. For as long as you have to. If the opposition opts for stop arguing with you and leave you alone, you have won. If the opposition drops the subject, you have won. If the debate turns ugly to the point it not longer matters, you have won. When the only sound left is the sound of your own voice, you have won.
- If for some reason you lose, if you find yourself cornered, or are proven wrong: escape, and try again tomorrow.
So its a strange cocktail of clear / logical presentation of arguments, plus solid, unmovable premises, selective listening, proactive reframing, thin skin, hard vicious tongue, strawman arguments, aphex fallacies, ad hominem, victim and inquisitor roleplaying. All at once. Nice.
What makes me crazy about this is I really, like, really would like to talk with these people, understand whats going on, address the mistakes, have an intelligent discussion over topics, etc. I would say its similar to talking to very religious people, except religious people have a BOOK and a lot of premises they all agree on. With feminists, its more about the posture than it is about the content.
We measure other people superficiality and take most things at face value.
If a singer makes me cry, by projecting his voice really good and giving each phrase a certain feel and articulating and projecting emotion and makes the whole thing flow effortless, I dont really give a fuck if he is a “natural” or if he took singing lessons for 20 years.
If someone comes saying “hey but this person is a fake singer! he took lessons! he wasnt born with this gift!” It would be sort of a bullshit, right? because lessons, technique, can only bring what was already there. If the guy had to take 20 years of lessons to bring his potential up and turn a carbon into a diamond, hey, I applaud his perseverance, and I would say that perseverance is a plus to the whole thing.
So.
Lets say we are in a society where singing has been mostly banned. That would mean I dont hear singers who make me cry very often. Does that mean the potential of singing is now gone from the population? Nope.
So.
We live in a society which has tamed most men into betas. Does that mean every man is a natural born beta? Nope. Does that mean men cant explore and develop leadership / dominant traits? nope.
I dont even know if there is a “beta gene”. I think most men can develop alphaness to a certain degree, just like most people can learn to sing. I think its about interest and drive, and of course natural potential. But most men are so, so far from what they would be naturally be doing if they hadnt been brainwashed into forced betaness, that just a couple of touches here and there can go a long way.
So, its not that Game changes the DNA of beta guys. Its that society is molding guys in dissonance with their own DNA, and something is needed to realign those guys into properly displaying their genotype and use what they have got for their own benefit.
You know, when you know a guy who is comfortable in his own skin, has his life figured out, is content with himself, reassured, has resources to make his way, has goals, has a network of friends and people who respect him, and looks at life in a fun / positive / forward / bold / assertive way? you know that stuff is pretty attractive, right?
I believe thats as natural as a man can get and that everyone has it in them.
That opposed to being insecure, reactive, awkward, socially inadequate, with lack of own value, afraid of his own impulses, unskilled, uncertain about what he wants, dependent on other people´s validation…
I mean. Who the fuck is “genetically” awkward? who the fuck was born to have his / herself underdeveloped, unrealized, and dependent on society who tell you who the fuck you are? What we see in the word aint “beta genes” but beta brainwashing. And the dissonance it produces in people and the mental sickness and emotional voidness it produces in people, is what´s so unattractive.
More on the beta gene vs game vs everything:
Men are wired to compete against each other and form ladders. Women are more attracted to the males who do better on the ladder, and less attracted to the men who perform worse. The position on the ladder also alters and molds the men´s character, behavior, outlook, etc. So, at face value, women respond to these superficial attributes, as they reflect the men´s position in the ladder, and ultimately, they reflect the deep core true guy´s potential – genes. And this is pretty basic, instinctual, animal stuff.
But for this stuff to properly work, for women to be filtering and picking the right genes and guys to reproduce with, properly, the guys have to be *actually* competing and sorting themselves and the output / face value has to be real rather than forced.
Society is a hijack on human nature, and it splatters all kind of men all over the place. You´ll see the talented and the broken and the evil and the good, all misplaced, all over the place, all the traits dispersed, and all the power being about capital and media manipulation, and so little power where it really matters.
I find it funny and sad that the males on top are not longer the stronger / more adept, that the smarter are not the ones in charge of fixing stuff, that evil wins, that capital is the master. Society is “broken” from a biological point of view. Its like a sims game that has been rigged. So the attributes are disperse, some guys are playing A game, some are doing B game, some are clueless and going with the motions. The women´s game, at least, is clearer, maybe because its more self centered and less externally driven than men´s: women keep wanting whats best for them, attracting the best resources for them and keeping them, filtering the bad from the good and form strong communicational nodes where they can assert whats good and bad etc… while men are trying to fit themselves in a ladder that no longer serves a purpose, this “doing the right thing, even when the right thing is bad for myself” that men often do.
I think the ladder has been tampered and needs fixing. Like we need a total revolution in the ladder.
Men quantity and women quality. Over time, neither produces monogamy.
While men want to be with a wide array of different women and different quality at the same time (meaning, from hot to not so hot women at the same time), women want to always be with the hotter, top and most solicited flavor of the moment.
Men want the most deals they can get. Women want the best deal they can get. Men want to open many doors. Women want to open the right door. Men are about taking risks and pushing the limit, losing big or winning big. Women are about doing the safe bet.
So women want the hot flavor of the moment, the same that everyone wants: the safe bet. And men are constantly fighting each other, often to death, to be on that hot top spot, because being on the hot spot is the key to open every door. Since the men in the spot are replaced often, women tastes also change often.
Disclaimer – women dont just want to “fuck” but they want “relationships” with the guys on top, and by relationships I mean they want complete dedication, attention, resources and focus from the guy they pick, and want that to last, at least, enough time to produce beautiful offspring. By “relationship” I dont mean they want to support the guy, be his partner and stay with him because he needs it. Its not a relationship for the guy, but a relationship for her. Cool?
So women want to breed and be associated with the flavor of the moment and the top guy, and will always want this, to be with one of the top guys – not with the top guy she picked a while ago, after he is no longer on top.
Monogamy? for the man, its unnatural. For the woman, only as long the guy she is with is the flavor of the moment – the king. Only that the king, in our culture, is so relative and brief.
Its not one or the other. The market controls and pushes choices, and the individuals choose from the available options. The market has the upper hand. The way to change the masses is to change the market. Change the direction of the herd and the free will will follow.
In one hand you were pushed into going to school, pushed to learn language, pushed to learn a set of social skills, pushed into a moral code, pushed to share dreams aspirations and limitations, pushed to belong. In the other hand, you have chosen to do all of that, and you have done all of that because you have chosen to survive.
So, its both. The market limits your choices to Obama and Bush. Then you are “oh so free” to make your choice.
Who´s more attractive, Britney Spears or the female Supreme Court Justice judge? who´s being pushed into the market more? man, little girls are going to have trouble with that one.
To go against the common choice you need to have the critical, rebel, isolated, broken, bad, black, individual, usually unhealty, drive in you. To turn that into something that works for the herd or even yourself… thats a rare thing. Expect the masses to follow the masses wherever they go, even if the masses are clearly jumping into the abyss. They are choosing to do so, for sure, just like soldiers choose to kill and kids choose to obey their parents and study for exams. But that kind of choosing is called “the herd.”
You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.
What would you prefer. A guy with a gun and tears on his eyes, or a guy with a gun in control of his emotions?
Why is that confidence / indifference is attractive?
What does confidence / indifference mean in the emotional realm?
What would you think if the leaders of your tribe, bosses, presidents, CEOs etc cried when bad stuff happens? How about your lawyer? doctor? concierge? plane pilot?
What is closer to defeat, emotional turmoils or stoicism?
Who would you trust can solve bad situations better? the guy crying, or the guy who doesnt seem to be that bothered?
Who would you trust with your own problems? Who would you perceive as being more reliable?
So men swallow their emotions. Not very healthy but it does the job. A better approach is to “master” your emotions, and canalice and channel your emotions, so you dont become a time clicking bomb. Mastery also opens up and articulates, while repression just shuts down.
How about if I was practicing Buddhism and dressing in pink, and then found out Buddah never said anything about pink?
Or that he said I should not pay attention to my clothing?
Should I follow the pink crowd and distance myself from Buddah; follow Buddah and distance myself from the pink crowd; or distance myself from the whole thing?
A woman is DRAMA when… she resorts to emotional manipulation, passive aggressive behavior, name calling, nagging, lying, denial, projection, strawman-ing, making up stories, picking up fights, win-lose, to get what she wants, rather than choosing loving / honest / open / vulnerable / win-win language.
A woman is DRAMA when… she sees everyone else´s feelings as means to get stuff.
A woman is DRAMA when… she understand “fair” as “whatever is good for her” and “unfair” as “whatever she doesnt like”.
A woman is DRAMA when… she wants to be seen as a victim but plays as a bully.
So women have this more articulated, richer emotional lexicon. In my experience, when left to their own devices, they use that as a weapon.
Dark player: Hey honey, I know you are a virgin, and Im virgin too. I had a girlfriend but something sad happened. I really want you, I want to see the rainbows and our children, lets take this dream home. Love love love. Hold on, my other girl is on the line.
Alpha player: Eh, you are a virgin, too bad! I dont want to ruin your innocence (wink).
Alpha: Wow. I really like you (and lots of attention but also boundaries).
Beta player: Lets pretend Im like the guys you like. Do you like me now?
Beta: Im so lucky you are even talking to me… what could I ever do to deserve you?! just tell me what I need to do and I´ll do it! walk all over me, I can take it!
Omega: One day, one day you will be mine. One day I will be great and you will realize how much I am worth of you.
Under Omega: You´re so beautiful. I´ll never be with you. I wrote you a poem. You will find about it when Im dead.
Creep / Stalker / Freak: Stupid bitch. Take this bitch. Thats how you like it bitch. I fucking hate your guts bitch. Yeah you stupid cunt. Take it! take it!
Finding the person you match with and being a mature enough person so you can develop a relationship is the golden pill.
It doesnt matter if marriage happens early or late in life, if you and your spouse are a mismatch and you are not mature enough, its going to result in a bad marriage, which is likely to be worse than being single.
I dont know whats the maturing age these days. It seems like in the old days guys prepared to become husbands and women prepared to become wifes. Now the focus is personal “fun” and ambitions, so if some maturing comes from it, its just a byproduct of the fun and failures you had, not because you had the goal of maturing with some other goal in hand. Without the maturity, its unlikely you will think clearly about where you´re going and who do you want to take that road with.
So making it about maturity, I doubt any marriage on people´s 20s has any chance at survival. People know this, so the response is… delay maturity and marriage even more. By the time the 30s come, marriage becomes a thing done against the clock “I have to settle and have kids now or I will lose my chance”, and decisions made against the clock and in a hurry are bad as well.
So, having fun and developing your persona is cool and all. But in the current ecosystem the fun factor is detrimental to the overall picture. People should be focusing on goals and maturity and character development and creating something great for themselves, and looking for other people to share it with.
The “short term fun” mindset is limited. Try to grab any of the stuff that feels fun / attractive now and commit to it and sustain it for a lifetime, and it will fall short and become boring and you´ll want to get out of it.
There needs to be a more long term mindset overall. Filled with fun bits, but, still long term.
So… my diagnosis is people are not working enough on who they are but disperse and evading and postponing, sort of “I still have time, I´ll figure that out later”, and instead cashing their energy for immediate fun, immediate compromises or just in reactive mode, going with the flow the world forces on them (college, job, rent).
With this bubbly, coreless thing inside, anything external, jobs, money, relationships, are necessarily short term too.
Theres no magical amount of external validation that will give you confidence.
To feel unconfident, all you need to do is to question yourself. Even if you got external praise, you can still turn that off in your head and question yourself until you get to a dark place.
Famous people, athletes and celebrities do that all the time. Shooting themselves down.
Its not about the amount of external praise.
Its about your SKILL.
The trust in yourself and your ability to get results. Thats where confidence is born.
Once you have taken N amount of trial and error, and collected the experience, and developed your skills, then you get a confidence that you can get your way out of any situation and get the best shot. Stuff that made you feel powerless stops being threatening, it becomes normal, becomes life.
Then when presented with rare and challenging stuff, the fear is replaced by excitement and learning eagerness.
By the time the external validation, the recognition of your work and persona comes, you no longer need it. You already have what matters: yourself and your own way of relying on yourself.
And if presented with defeat and external de-validation, you wont be questioning yourself from a self esteem point of view, but questioning your skill and wondering how to get better, how to train harder, learn faster. Adjusting your goals and actions, not just your ego.
I see so many people caring too much about feeling good – safe – and saving the ego, too few pushing to get “there” at expenses of the ego. Its way easier not to risk anything, but still feel like you are “something”, that you are worth it and deserving, without actually putting the required work to be worth it and deserving, and live in a delusional, well crafted ego that is afraid of looking in the mirror… That is easier than doing the work and risk “everything” and maybe get bruised… but so what? The real stuff is out there for you to grab. The path is always there. Its not easy, its not always pleasant, but its also a heck a lot of fun, and alive, and worth it. And it can get you the stuff that matters.
By making this about self steem and belief so many more people make this a dead end.
Im hungry for knowledge. Theres too much going on my head and life. Need to jump some gaps from where I am to where I want ot be. Getting my assumptions crushed is fine. Being exposed to new ideas is fine. Getting out of my comfort zone is fine. Learning is fine. Switching is fine. Destruction leads to creation. Finding new ideas, understanding reality, solving problems, constructing models. Stuff I live for.
That, as opposed to lock myself in a bunker and find safety and refuse to let reality and dissonances come in. Embrace dissonance. Build a new melody.
The problem isnt the emotion, but the frame you put yourself in when you feel it.
Watch out for the context, the storytelling you are performing, what you want to prove with your story and what kind of character you are creating. Chances are you are using your emotions to retell the same story.
Democracy has no chance to put the right people in power.
I dont think private companies would survive if the CEO was elected in a popularity contest among the employees.
The popularity contest is rigged by the media, which molds the mass opinion by restricting the choices to “whats hot, what to fear, whats good for the business” while painting the scenario in whatever light they decide to. And the media can be bought, so capital is king. Once the media has molded the mass opinion, the voting itself is irrelevant.
But lets say there was no media to be bought and the process was meritocracy oriented. Every candidate would expose the real problems the nation faces, and very real, detailed plans and solutions for these problems.
Other than putting the masses to sleep, theres zero chance the masses can digest the real problems nor can process, elaborate or agree on the solutions. Simply put, a less informed audience cant judge the issues better than the “expert” who is presenting them. Even in a meritocracy setting, this would become a sales pitch, with the “sales” skill being whats important.
But lets say we do, we run such a meritocracy contest where every voting person is informed, shares a common goal, has enough expertise to grasp whats going on, and has the will to increase the well being of the majority. We vote and pick the definitive right person for the job, one who can lock on the problems and solutions and lead the nation properly, so we dont have to worry about it. We pick the Steve Jobbs of politics. Whats the point of firing this person after 5 years? wouldnt you think pressing “reset” on the long term plans of a nation and switching directions every so often is a bad idea?
I tell you. The whole system is rigged in a way it will never work, and shows it was never intended to. And the common sense is rigged in a way you are not free to question the system.
Modern politics is another expression of modern consumerism, sharing the same short sighted, buzz oriented frame, and same repercussions.
My friend says “Im so sick of chasing girls, I cant deal with it emotionally”
Precisely, “chasing” is an uphill, so never – ever do that. The moment you get in chase mode is the moment this is a lost battle, even if you get the girl, the input / returns ratio is against you.
The set of impulses installed in you, perseverance, obsessions, drive etc are useful for achieving goals but when the goal is pussy it becomes a downspiral, since you are putting value on the girl instead of putting the value in yourself, and you know where that leads.
The more you chase the more she runs the more effort you put in the more effort she will make you put in, the more value you put on the chase the less value you have in her eyes. Instead put all of that value in yourself and be direct and clear with what you want.
If she likes you, she wont run. But if she does, keep your cool and keep moving – she knows where to find you.
Image you are camping at some deep unknown forest. You carry some valuable items with you and you are also hurt and defenseless. Suddenly you wake up in the middle of the night and a snake is trying to enter to your tent.
You get nervous and grab something heavy and hit the snake but it doesnt care, it keeps pushing and it seems to get only more determined. So you start screaming at it and calling help but no effect whatsoever.
Then, while the snake is still pushing, you hear it talking. Its telling you how reasonable it is for you to consider its position, how reasonable it is for you to let it get in. You dont want to listen to it, you want it to go away.
If you followed me this far, see how “logic” wont make it. The only chance for the snake, other than enter by force, is to seduce you: make you turn off your own logic and instincts that are repelling it, and let it have control. Possibly for the worst. You have no control or responsibility whatsoever on whats happening.
So this scenario is at the same time horrifying and arousing.
Fear + self preservation + defenseless + crying for help + carrying valuable items + hurt + night + a snake trying to get in + lack of responsibility = women set of instincts.
In contrast a male in the same situation has a set of instincts that would make him actually get out of the tent and fight the snake in the open. Maybe at the cost of his own life. Since the snake is making an argument, establishing a logic combat with the snake might defeat it, so the male will maybe listen and have a verbal fight before risking his life, but “logic” would still be a form of violence against the snake to avoid it getting what it wants, and physical violence the natural follow up if the verbal combat fails.
And of course some women will be inviting the snake in…
But back to the point: insulting the snake, hurting the snake, “shaming” the snake instead of dialoguing with it is natural, and valid if you just want the snake to go away and keep quiet and maybe die. And if you see you are hurting the snake, you will only do it more, maybe now you will have the courage to give it a few hits and put it down for good.
- Which is what happens when guys start failing the “tests” women put them into and the downspiral that follows. -
Women´s natural way to resolve conflicts goes from-repulsion-to-violence without passing through logic or dialog. Knowing they are damaging the opponent only makes them increase what they are doing, whatever it happens to be. It works. Calling women on this behavior so they stop it, doesnt work. Saying “im not a snake” doesnt work. Explaining how reasonable it is what you are saying and how there is evidence, only makes you more of a “talking snake”, because the first instinct triggered is alerting her you are some abominable force that is violating something valuable and sacred.
You can track this on every woman on every argument ever, from the very feminine to the very masculine from strippers to politicians. Maybe theres a NAWALT for this but I havent seen it.
What about women who have an active logical mind?
Then the logic used to prove the snake is a snake, to assert negative value about the snake, to depict the snake in snaky ways. The logic isnt used to consider what the snake is saying, but to use whatever the snake says to “prove the snake nature” and “reveal the snake intentions” that the woman perceives – or thinks she perceives -, in the hopes that once the snake is exposed, external help will come and the snake will be exterminated.
In other words, during conflicts women only use the logic system to exacerbate the unwanted, rather than focusing on the common points that would lead the issue to a pacific / neutral / win win situation.
So for her, calling you names and getting offended and angry is only natural. Attempting to talk her out of that state only increases the problem. The way out: ditch the logical layer of communication, forget the “objective talk” and switch to an emotional / seduction / emphatic level, one that takes in account her fears and desires, not just her ideas, so she can respond with a different set of emotions. One ground where there´s no snake, thus no snake triggers.
You have to stop the “snake triggers” before she can listen.
My name is Yohami.
Im a Singer/Songwriter.
Im on my way to have fun. 
