My words and actions are not directed towards the manipulation of the the world to the ends of my desires, but the truth. Does this result in success? It doesn't fucking matter to me if it did or didn't.

Confidence has nothing to do with your ability to do anything other than get people to believe you. The obsession with confidence, and who's more afraid or lip quivery is so fucking silly.

"A casual stroll through an insane asylum demonstrates that faith doesn't prove anything." - Nietzche

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Russell

They even have tested it, and shown that people that think they'll do the best on a test do like the worst, and people that think they'll do the worst do the best. The wisdom traditions are all about checking your ego, which is a defense against your vulnerabilities and mediocrities.

Watching people "read body language" and cold-read out a hundred conclusions per minute is fun and all, but a waste of time when their premises are ridiculously flawed, and with such volume they're bound to be right about something, none of which will ultimately matter, as even what they're right about doesn't mean a damn thing anyway.

I'd tell those space devils that I'm not going to be complicit in their schemes, but instead will give a rousing speech that explains why humans are so awesome, and make them turn about face and want to impress us now.

"Your little head, and your little core." "Your brittle hands... do your hands ache when it gets cold?" lol.

Tomorrow! At this point, I hope that Mcgregor wins. He claims within four rounds. It's pretty ridiculous that everyone (including me) gets so wound up about dudes beating each other up. People also think that the gloves will make a big difference, but they won't. They wear gloves to protect their hands, not their faces. They couldn't hit as hard without wrecking their hands without gloves and taped wrists.

It's all about the gs you deliver to buddy's head, not how hard your hand is. It's about causing their brain to collide with the skull, making them forget often not just the whole fight, but the whole damn day. Get up and keep fighting on instinct while their brains are all scrambled.

The way everyone is expecting Mcgregor to lose makes me want him to win now.

Is it on Game of Thrones, or Rick and Morty? If not then it doesn't exist to me.

I don't really know who those guys are, and I don't care to either.

I'ma tell Freud's mom on you.

I actually made up that I made it up. I heard someone quote it though, and don't know where it's from exactly.

I'm a loner because I avoid them. I don't answer my phone, I rarely return texts. Only if they actually have a question, or substantial thing to tell me, otherwise I tend to just ignore it. I'm not very good at small talk, or just talking as a means of maintaining the relationship. I'm obviously some kind of retard.

Funny thing, is I figured that if I looked it up. conscientiousness would be the greatest trait indicator of successful longterm relationships, and it turned out that it, and agreeableness are. Neuroticism is the one most linked to relationship failure and dissatisfaction. Openness doesn't seem very important. When it comes to the traits, I'm like 98% openness, and like 58% neurotic. So even though I'll try anything, I'll find it all largely unsatisfying, lol.

No, I made it up.

Jung said that if you had have seen Freud's mom, you'd want to have sex with her too.

It may be. I just think that it's important to point out that the quality of the relationship, or the suitability may have absolutely nothing to do with its sustainability.

Look up the statistics for first love marriages, and highschool sweethearts. People with the most endearing, long lasting marriages in fact often did marry the first one, and lived happily ever after.

I really do hold that what is significant, or important is the promise, the commitment. If it were about suitability of any kind, you would have to believe that you're the most suitable, otherwise someone more suitable could come along, and things would be reasonably, and acceptably over. It isn't though, because of the commitment, and not the suitability.

Some people are horrible. We don't tend to form relationships with others because they're good or bad though, but because your neighbors, work together, roomed together, are family, met through similar interests, and share constitutions, political and religious affiliations. That short of thing. What continues a relationships is maintenance and commitment, in my view. Though, I'm not super great at it, and am a loner.

I don't think that I believe in that. It isn't that I don't think that some people are better suited for each other than others, or that some people are just better humans than others. It's that I don't think that that has a much to do with commitment as people tend to think that it does. That people that stay together are in general, more suited to one and other, or better people, or have better smoother relationships. I don't think that that has much to do with it at all.

The "goodness" or suitability of either has little of anything to do with pair bonding. Some people stay in abusive relationships forever with people they hate, and others break up with their soulmates a few months in.

It's completely untrue to think that people that stay together have a better relationship than people that split. There are many influences that could lead to divorce. How normative it is, what your parents' relationships were like, and other influences, but the idea that people that have worse relationships split, and people that have good ones stay together seems completely wrong.

So, what makes a good partner? Above all dedication, and commitment one would think. As without those, it doesn't matter how awesome they are if they're going to take off after the first fight, or when someone younger, better looking, smarter or whatever becomes available...

So, I would say that the good person is the one you can trust, and is comitted to the relationship.

Yeah.

You partake of the transcendence yourself to an extent in every case, sure. It requires a grasping, an appreciation, which is why it is intellectual, and not a sensation. The transcendence of the one elevates the whole world, even if some have eyes, but cannot see, as they say.

It's an intellectual satisfaction upon bearing witness to transcendence. When something is the best form of something, or transcends the limitations of itself, kind, or expression and moves beyond it. We don't appreciate all good things equally, we're always waiting to hear a better song than we've ever heard before, see a more beautiful flower than we've ever seen before, etc.

This is tied into significance and meaning, and synergizes with other meaningful things (or our own instances of transcendence). Like the sky was never bluer than the day you were born. I never appreciated that song before until I listened to it with you, etc.

I don't see rivers, lakes, oceans or estuaries -- I just see water.

Nah, we'll all be aspies engineering better and better sex bots in the future.

Yeah, they ought to be working together!

As was pointed out, it kind of misses the point. It isn't that some structures are natural, and some artificial, it's that we box things off for reasons. The Nile isn't about some objective feature of the world, and universities some social entity that is fundamentally different, it's that they do work. They have stakes. You don't know anything, or really care about anything to do with some objective feature of the Nile. The work it is doing in this context is meant as a contrast for a purpose to make a point (and the concept exists at different resolutions, with different associations for us all, none of which matter as long as we understand how it is functioning in the discourse). When I mention the river, I mean fish, perhaps a threat of drawning, the other side of town, that place I met you, the border between two locations, the picnic we're having later.

The whole thing about structuralism is that whenever we talk about something, there is a whole lot of motivation, intention, history, associations, and things all behind its mention, and the very way it is structured. Smaller brooks run into the river, and the river runs into a lake or something, and this matters, and is cut up the way it is for reasons.

Power tends to be a big one, but this is why post-structuralism tends to be so tightly tied into the humanities, and pyschoanalysis and whatnot.

Yeah, there is, so get up and dance about it. Clearly everyone for all human history, and across culture were just primitive idiots, because of some evolutionary malfunction or some such. Just all wishful thinking, but us enlightened know that if you want it to be true, or you prefer it, then it must be delusion, and nonsense. That's why we're all so fat, isolated, and depressed. It's the cost of our identities as good, smart, rational people. Everything to the pyre in the name of keeping up appearances regardless of what actually moves you at a visceral level. That movement is just primitive irrational emotions, opposed to our super smart rationality... We know everything now you know, other don't want to unweave the rainbow because they're "mysterians" in love with mystery, that don't want to admit that we know everything now.

Anorexics aren't Bulimics in the sense that they're obsessed with being thin, but they don't binge and purge.

That seems pretty general, and non-descript. The more general something gets, the truer it gets because it applies to more things, but sacrifices content in the process. The higher level of abstraction we get, the less we say about something. Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

It's good for you to stare at the sun for at least an hour a day, optimally five hours a day. No pain no sunken beady burnt retinas.

Because of the state of their lives, as being really really clean and organized. The observation that they find skin, muscle, fat to be gross, but bone to be all white and pristine. That's what he said, I don't have all of the facts. I just googled it, because it was contrary to what I was hearing, and google seemed to confirm that.

Yeah, I'm not denying that neuroticism can lead to particular disorders, but also that it is considered a fundamental personality trait with strengths and weaknesses, and not problematic in itself. Just look up the "big five personality traits".

I got that from listening to Jordan Peterson, but I just did a google search, I found an abstract that said that neuroticism increased after treatment, and another one that correlated the big five personality traits (which is all the rage now) with it and found no correlation. Look it up.

Lots of stuff has traditionally been considered such and such by psychology. These days they consider there to be problems with the excess or deficit in any of the big five traits. Or upsides and downsides to them all, and these to be genetic, and everyone, when pushed hard enough will break where they are most susceptible to breaking based on their balances of those traits.

You also should understand that what is considered healthy, and sane is up for debate, and not agreed about by everyone. They're theories. If just being happy all of the time is the goal, then neuroticism may be the enemy, but then just taking drugs all the time, if that causes happiness ought to be fine.

Conscientiousness is the second greatest trait indicator of success behind intelligence, being about half as effective. Life genuinely is unfair, as I would have to work significantly less in order to attain the same goal. I also won't waste my time on goals that don't matter, or avenues that won't work.

Fluid intelligence is highly related to physicality, as it begins to rapidly decay in your twenties, unless you maintain a good physical discipline. I began half-assed and half-brained, and have climbed myself out, through hard work, because the world actually is just, and being a fantastic human being brings all of the spiritual rewards, and my super-human intelligence. So now I compete with the half-assed, half-brained, and attain great unbinding, awakening, balance, and da center more and more each day. Rather than losing it, I'm aging in reverse. Nothing is denied to me, whereas I'm like staring directly into the abyss itself, so is my depth.

Every time I feel depressed, I just move really fast, as confidence and movement speed are directly correlated.

Anyway, I win. Richer in cultural and spiritual capital, and grasp the highest level concepts humanity has to offer me. I'm sure you have a spiral stair case or something though.

I still feel like you're implying that neuroticism, which is simply sensitivity to negative emotions, is in itself problematic... is blindness to negative emotions preferable? It's basically shy people.

Its excess leads to depression, phobia, anxiety and panic disorders, and drug and alcohol abuse. Not Bulimia. That's caused by orderliness, and like a perfectionism, and high disgust sensitivity. Surely many things, and I'm sure that neurotics can be bulimics, but there is no obvious pathway, or correlation that I'm aware of.

Point was that neuroticism is a fundamental personality trait, and there are problems with its excess and deficit, like there are with all of the other fundamental personality traits. It's not that all mental illness is reduced to sensitivity to negative emotions or anything...

But yeah, it was CBT. I looked it up because it seemed to both imply things that I didn't like, and was counter to my understanding of the personalities of Bulimics from what I've heard. Though I understand that it was a passing comment that wasn't super important to the thrust of what you were saying. I just didn't like it, and wanted to point out that neuroticism isn't related to mental illness in and of itself.

Actually Bulimics demonstrate increased neuroticism after treatment. Contrary to that, Bulimics are highly orderly and conscientious, with extremely high disgust sensitivity. Similar to OCD sufferers.

I don't think that you quite grasp the concept... it isn't that one diversifies against a few different particular options, it's that one is willing to try new and different things all the time. Take risks, be stupid, and risk failure.

That is the great thing about fluid intelligence. It's general. People like to say that everyone is good at something, no one is good at everything, but this isn't actually so. Only in practice are people better at this or that than someone with a higher fluid intelligence, as they put overwhelmingly more time into it, but all things being equal, the one with the fluid intelligence is better at everything, as they would improve more quickly, learn it faster, find easier ways to do it.

And you're talking about me, of course. Me.

Pretty shitty though when all you see is apples when apples disappear, as they definitely will. Specialization brings dependency, and although the specialist will always be better adapted to any specific circumstance, and dominate the circumstance they become adapted to, the plastic one will in the long run be the one undefeated by changing circumstances, and less harmed by the flux.

Specialization is always a death sentence, and those specialist traits that allowed for the domination in that particular circumstance or environment will die with the environment, and be weeded out in the long run. Plasticity is the ground of evolution though, and is precisely what allows for survival, and the transcending of particular circumstances and environments in the first place.

There is much you can do to become happy and well adjusted to the times, but adversity will hit you harder, and the more you specialize, the faster you'll become obsolete.

Yes, we do it all the time. We don't just think in actualities, and concrete entities, but in possibilities which are not correlative, or even necessarily actionable. Funny thing about openness and creativity, is that creatives tend not to be great at implementation and non-creative people are great at it. As if they're opposed. Jordan Peterson says that he thinks this is because in order to do a lot of creative thinking, one has to be able to detach their abstractions from their actions. Otherwise they would act out everything that they thought. Kind of like how you're put into paralysis while you're sleeping. Reminiscent of Kierkegaard's ideas of angst being caused by freedom, and infinite possibility. Without definite boundaries between categories, constraints, and strong belief in the reality of one's world view, ideas become less actionable.

The highly abstract possibilities, which include with them all kinds of qualitative judgments, and associations greatly affect the unconscious, in the sense of telling you what's possible, what's good and things without any necessary experience directly with them, or even correlative to other experiences you've had. You can preconceive of things, and they can be pretty much anything, which will tell you in advance how to react to them, or accomplish something without training or experience with it, which you can implement.