>go to a party with my brother
>one girl there
>is treated badly and ignored by everyone but acts really cheery
>first thing anyone says to her is "you should bring your friends over"
>she gets out her phone and starts showing him pictures of her friends
>gets real fucked up and blurts dumb shit no one replies to
>makes everyone drinks, omelettes and cleans up all the trash and talks about things she can do in third person
why are women so disgustingly submissive
>some girl is obviously trying way too hard to fit in
>instead of making her feel more comfortable or trying to set her straight, OP calls her disgusting and joins in when others treat her like shit so she can just repeat the cycle at a later date instead of learning from it and cutting that shit out
Humans. Not once.
>>27358923
>and talks about things she can do in third person
what? like she talked in third person as in said her own name?
>>27358923
Why didn't you be nice to her, OP?
>>27359101
yes
things like "x can clean the garbage!" and "x can mix drinks!"
>>27359063
Girls get enough pampering. If he were a male, you'd just say "ewww creepy beta LOL".
>>27359448
>implying
>not helping out everyone
you're just a shitty person my man
>>27359448
You don't know me or what I would say
Stop thinking in memes
It erodes real thought
>>27359471
>>27359461
I already know what you two would do because I'm also a human and I had sympathy for the girl in the OP and I thought "ewww creepy beta" in response to the character I invented, despite being in a position of sympathy for such a person.
That's human nature.
I've seen girls like this before.
They try so hard to fit in.
I know I shouldn't feel sorry for any woman, but you do have to remember a life in which everything is given to you never teaches you how to deal with adversity.
These girls are extra devastated, much more than you and I would be.
>>27359494
That doesn't make any sense
If everyone always thought the exact same things in response to the exact same events then there would be a lot less variance when it comes to human behavior than there is
And don't forget we've all accumulated different experiences and perspectives
Seems like you're just projecting
>That's human nature
No, it's your nature.
>>27359448
No that's what Stacy would say.
Try to be slightly above Stacy, you're a man for fuck sakes.
>>27359556
>he thinks he's a special snowflake
Oh, boy. Growing up is gonna be rough for you.
That's kinda sad desu.
Poor girl, I hope she finds friends.
>>27359574
Not him but you choose how you can interpret every situation.
KYS.
>>27359574
>strawman
Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall
You honestly believe no one thinks differently than anyone else?
That's retarded
w-was she cute thoughI mean it's not like I have an interest in someone I don't even know is real, and am certain I will never meet. I just kinda have these fantasies that I'll find some socially inept woman version of me that nobody would want to talk to so I could have her all to myself and I would have someone to talk to about all the stuff I love (But she would have her own interests that are different from mine but compatible in a way that I could enjoy, or at least appreciate.). I used to be really bitter and think that ">:^(( all girls are whores they have no hobbies and they can't be socially retarded like me it's not possible," and I still feel the same way to a degree. (barring the extreme 1/1,000,000,000 exception) Even if I did find the girl of my dreams (Read: Description above for an introduction to the subject.) the chances of her being infatuated with me are slim at best, and eventually she would lose any attraction to me and pursue an emotionally stronger figure. I guess that's just normal. Whatever.
>>27359574
>not acknowledging individuality just to brush off the responsibility of a well-adjusted person
it's alright to be wrong, just adjust yourself
why are you admitting you're no better? because right now you're permitting yourself to be no better baka desu senpai
>>27359615
Humans have the same machinery and share most of the same genes. Most of your "thinking" and personality happens at the implicit level, such that you don't realize it, and is completely automatic. The conscious part of your brain - the pliable part - is nothing. It's just an illusion of 'self'. This what contemporary psychological and neurological data tells us.
Hope this helps.
>>27359655
>The conscious part of your brain - the pliable part - is nothing
can you explain how all of the differing personalities or reactions to situations boil down to nothing?
>>27359707
Think of it like everyone having the exact same dials, but not the same settings.
>>27359641
don't worry about finding that dream woman anona
rather, be the dream man for yourself or for someone else - then you'll have great success
>>27359655
It still expresses itself in different forms
Not everybody replies to the exact same question or the exact same situation in the exact same way, because the "they" part of the equation, as the perceiver of the event, is different from the "they" part of the equation of anyone else who witnesses the event.
This is just empirically true. Otherwise everyone would respond to the exact same event in the exact same way every time an event occurs and this is not always the case.
>Most of your "thinking" and personality happens at the implicit level, such that you don't realize it, and is completely automatic
Yet it still generates outputs that differ from the outputs of others.
>>27358923
Pledges, not even once
>>27359727
a twist of the dial is different enough, is it not?
>>27359758
Also if everyone's basic machinery were exactly the same, variances in intelligence would not exist unless you're willing to argue that intelligence is purely conditioned
>>27359641
>Read: Description above for an introduction to the subject.)
You remind me of how i write. Over articulated all over the place posts about personal things that usually no one reads. We could be friends under different circumstances, maybe IRL.
>>27359819
Untrue. Intelligence is just another dial. People are still fundamentally the same.
Compare an overclocked (arbitrarily, pentium 4) to an underclocked model. They're running on identical architecture.
>>27359854
So what causes this "overclocking"? The environment? Genes? And if yes to genes, then does that not constitute as close to an innate difference as can be in an entirely conditioned reality?
Assuming your assertion is even true, of course.
Intelligence, imo, is a little more multifaceted than that.
The point, no matter what, is that the outward expression still varies widely despite the similarities between individuals, and it seems a bit arbitrary to say this doesn't constitute "difference" because we all have brains.
>>27359854
>They're running on identical architecture
>men and women
>identical architecture
either way, even if we are the same machine, isn't the significance not in our hardware but rather our software? what we've installed?
Our experience?
>>27359972
Point being, you still follow the same mental archetypes as all of humanity. Read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
What sort of gay sausage party orgy were you at if there was only girl?
>>27359998
Don't tell me what to do.
Your point is irrelevant in the context of asserting that all people, universally, would think "ewww what a beta" when they see a male who isn't fitting in in a social environment. Because they don't, regardless of whether this is conditioned or following predefined archetypes or not.
>>27360041
I believe that they do.
The ability to assess social hierarchy and judge one's own place and the place of others in that hierarchy is THE most sensitive human evolutionary apparatus. This is how you survived as a social creature in a tribe. To opine or believe that such a core feature was somehow amenable to vague 'software upgrades' that you're proposing is absurd. Your very survival would be at stake if these archetypes weren't as robust as they are.
Again, as I've stated, I'm in a position to feel sympathy or empathize with that hypothetical male more than anybody else. He's literally me. Why am I still incapable of that? Why do I still see him as a loser and a beta and see the woman as a valuable, if overlooked, member of the tribe?
Millions of years of evolution created a very robust lattice of social sensibility such that very little is going to upend that setting. That's all.
>>27360097
Yes but that's only you and I'm sure many others.
You still haven't actually proven that this applies to everyone else except by generalizing social ideals that you yourself subscribe to and asserting that because it's detrimental to survival not to think this way (which you haven't proven, either), it must therefore be impossible. "Aberrations", as you would see them, exist and then die all the time.
>>27360145
*social/evolutionary ideals
>>27359821
Please still be in thread I want to be your friend pls pls pplspls
>>27360145
Obviously I can't 'prove' incredibly vague and complex ideas. It's up to you to make a Bayesian inference based on the information I've provided. I'm confident that the correct conclusion is to agree with me, maybe with slight modification or elaboration.
>>27360097
Oh, and, also, feeling empathy for this girl or her male counterpart IS a function of social sensitivity. Helping her/him eliminate their self-destructive behavior by letting them know what exactly it is they're doing on how others feel about them, instead of reinforcing her/his behavior, is actually allowing them the opportunity to fit into the hive more seamlessly and therefore be of more service to the hive itself.
>>27360168
I'm still here. If you're like me you know i wouldn't close the thread after making a post like that.
WaitingBrass is my skype if you have one too.
>>27359494
You're a fucking idiot. I hope you feel like shit because at the end of the day you just wanted to fit in.
This board complains about being bullied in high school and then joins in the first chance they get.
>>27360203
*doing or how others
>>27360173
And I'm confident that it isn't. Sucks when it comes down to that, but it often does.
>>27360203
There's no reason to invest resources in a low value male. Males are a dime a dozen. My cock could inseminate 6 girls in a single night, whereas an inseminated girl takes 9 months to gestate. That's the arithmetic of evolutionary value.
>>27360218
I wasn't bullied in high school. I more or less controlled myself from bullying others and probably did so less than the average person, but the temptation was the same as any other human.
>>27359655
>muh determinism
We have no idea how it works pham. Just admit you were being a cunt.
>>27360243
You're acting like biological reproduction is the only value a human has. Males are very valuable to society simply considering the sheer number of advances they have caused that definitely aided in our survival.
>>27360301
You're falling for the group selection meme.
Selection occurs at the individual level.
>>27360243
You're a fucking loser. You joined in because you're a weak willed piece of shit desu. What's with all these sweeping generalizations you're going on about, I wouldn't do that, I've been in that kind of situation and wasn't a cunt to the other person, you're literally thinking in memes.
>>27360168
Did you die anon?
>>27360355
When you say "weak willed", you implicitly recognize that the natural instinct that one "must" deter or attenuate is to go along with the bullying. Why is the natural instinct to bully? Again, we all experience these instincts.
As for me, I did I make "school shooter" remarks behind the back of the weird kid? Sure. Did I harass him to his face? No. That's far enough, really.
>>27360355
>you're literally thinking in memes.
No other reply is needed for 80 percent of the content on this website.
>>27360320
Yes, but you're not questioning whether your method of selection is optimal or ideal.
Destroying people because of who you think you are instead of fixing what is obviously broken so that they can become something better is insanely stupid.
>>27360364
I'm creating a skype right now. I will message you when I've done so.:-))))
>>27360416
These ideas are descriptive, not prescriptive. It has nothing to do with 'optimal', 'ideal' or 'preferred'.
>>27360432
Yes it does, because you can make the choice to do what is optimal, ideal and preferred instead of throwing your hands up in the air and saying "evolution lol" justify being an asshole.
Thank you recently evolved intellectual abilities!
>>27360425
Someone just added me, i thought it was you.
>>27360455
*to justify being an asshole
>>27360455
>he believes in the "choice" meme
Read Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Also read some Sam Harris if you're having trouble with basic neurological determinism.
>>27360488
>he believes that because choice is an illusion people must all behave similarly
What I meant by "choice" is that your faculties can use themselves to determine a better outcome than the one that you presuppose must happen simply because it's how things have been happening
You can make a choice to stop being a piece of shit bully once you understand how to make that choice and if the rest of your cognitive patterns happen to line up so that you do make that choice. And who are you to claim that this is not feasible?
>>27360531
And also, why you should make that choice, of course.
I don't care if you're a determinist or not, that isn't relevant. You're implying that because determinism exists that all things must happen in one predefined way, when really things are determined to happen in a multitude of ways.
>>27360531
You can "choose" to suppress or guide the suggestions of your impulse, sure, but it's still there and has sociological implications.
The implications of the topic we're discussing:
The man gets less sympathy on the aggregate, sociological level, and is branded as an undesirable by a fair majority of people who haven't bought into your schema for correcting their behavior at the cost of their own resources for no apparent gain.
The woman gets more sympathy for the reverse reason, and is treated better as a result.
That's all you need to understand.
>>27360531
Oh but then again, maybe you just lack those faculties
It really isn't your fault.
>>27360594
You originally asserted that all people think exactly like you, and therefore you can divine what they're "really thinking" and now you've backslided to a "fair majority".
Thanks, lol.
>>27360621
What are you talking about? The integrity of my original assertion remains at 100%.
The "fair majority" are the people that you're not going to convince to alter their behavioral patterns and will just go with their instinct, which is the factor I've asserted as nearly universal.
For the people who will choose to alter their behavior patterns, they will still get the same suggestions from their implicit thoughts/subconscious, they will just shape them with corrective behavior.
>>27360594
And what resources, anyway? A little bit of your time? Having to do a little thinking (which is beneficial to you, because it can help you grow in complexity and your ability to survive). The "gain" is obvious, you're alleviating social dissonance (which you are a part of and experiencing), which promotes cohesiveness, which is required for many modern applications, and you might even make a new friend.
Interdependence is, at this point in time, enough of a thing that considering others and helping them integrate is viable in an evolutionary sense.
>>27360657
>they will still get the same suggestions from their implicit thoughts/subconscious
Prove it.
>>27360700
>And what resources, anyway?
The cost of associating with a low value male. Even if you were to help this person, even someone like you would be very careful to signal that you're not inherently associated with this person, merely that you're helping them because you happen to be so altruistic.
The social implications are enormous. Did you not go to high school or something? The dynamic should be fairly easy to infer. Why do teens dread interaction with low value individuals? Because they're huge meanies, or because their social standing was the sole metric of their survival for millions of years?
Anyways, you're kind of annoying and not very insightful, so you're boring me.
>>27359101
>>27359437
I thought this was a Seinfeld meme.
>>27360751
You're not very insightful either. You're just spouting basic evolutionary dogma and going on the assumption that it's universal just because that's your experience of it.
>The cost of associating with a low value male
Which may be artificial, a product of conditioned constructs, and something you can't prove to be innate.
>>27360791
I'm just gonna come out and say it point blank, you have no way to know with certainty how another person would react on an instinctual level without actually being them. All you can do is guess, and that is what you're doing, guessing.
>>27360011
just ask marco "foam boy" rubio
