Randomness thread, part two.

[Renton]

You have a crazy socialist country over there huh?

[OngBonga]

To clarify, if I were to climb through an open window, into someone's house, and passively sit on the floor refusing to move, I have not broken the law. The police may argue that I am causing a breach of the peace, arrest me, remove me from the property, and then release me, but that is the extent of police powers regarding trespass.

[OngBonga]

You have a crazy socialist country over there huh?

I wish.

[Renton]

You have to see how arbitrary your interpretation of property rights is, right? I mean what is the point of a property owner denying access if the denial can't be backed by force? How is someone sitting on the floor in your darkened apartment in opposition to your will not a breach of peace? Why have property at all?

[OngBonga]

You have to see how arbitrary your interpretation of property rights is, right? I mean what is the point of a property owner denying access if the denial can't be backed by force? How is someone sitting on the floor in your darkened apartment in opposition to your will not a breach of peace? Why have property at all?

idk, I'm just telling you how the law works here. It might be stupid, but then again a law that says it's illegal for someone to stand still in a carpark against the will of the owner is also stupid.

Breach of the peace isn't even a criminal offence, however police are allowed to arrest people if they feel it's the only option to avoid a breach of the peace happening. So if I climb into an open window, the police will probably consider that as liable to cause a breach of the peace and act. That's someone's house though. When it comes to the local supermarket's carpark, well it's different. How can standing still in a carpark be likely to cause a breach of the peace? It becomes a lot more difficult for the police to deal with then, and for the most part, they won't bother, because it's a waste of their time.

[Renton]

Well I'm not really interested in how the U.K. law deals with it, I'm interested in your opinion.

As an aside I'm really not sure what the difference is between a commercial private property and a residence, wrt enforcing the owner's will. This is something I have never understood and I accept that I'm definitely in the minority view on this. I see no breach of the law when a racist restaurant owner doesn't allow people to eat there for whatever racist reason he wants. I just see a racist fuckwad who is probably not going to get very much business with that tactic in the long run. I hate this idea that commercial property is "public space" and has to adhere to somehow different rules.

[OngBonga]

Well I'm not really interested in how the U.K. law deals with it, I'm interested in your opinion.

I'm actually torn on the matter, if I'm honest. I'm all for protecting the individual rights of homeowners, but I'm not interested in protecting the corporate interests of business.

I guess the difference is the business is interested in profit, nothing else. They don't want people hanging around on their car parks because they perceive it as bad for business. It has nothing to do with them feeling threatened, as would be the case of a homeowner who is greeted with a stubborn twat who climbed in the window.

A business is not a person. It's like saying a table has rights.

I do agree with you about racism, though. I mean there has been a case here recently where a Christian couple who run a hotel were found guilty of discrimination for refusing to allow gay men into their hotel, on the grounds of their religious beliefs. I don't see how discrimination should be a criminal offence, esepcially given that it happens all the time in pretty much every aspect of daily life.

[spoonitnow]

If someone breaks into my house where I live, I can shoot them in the head legally. Just a thought.

Also, a business does not have rights, but the person who owns the business does.

Edit: On the topic of the law where I live:

Under the latest version of the Castle Doctrine, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace is not required to retreat prior to using deadly force. The law presumes a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter one of these locations intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

[JKDS]

@ong: isn't there a special criminal trespass over there tho? I think we have that (trespass is boring, so I'm not sure) and we basically stole all our broad general laws from you guys.

At minimum, there's things like burglary, B&E, disturbing the peace, etc.

The scary part is when an american's home gets adversely possessed tho. Then a trespasser gets rights to the property and shit gets real weird and messed up

[aubreymcfate]

It also means modern women don't make good wives anymore. For comparison, I just got me a filipina gf less than two weeks ago. Last weekend she stayed over and the next day, first we went shopping, $800 of stuff for my appartment. Afterwards, while I spent many hours playing the new ps4 games I had bought, she spent them in the kitchen, cooking, cleaning, washing, doing laundry and (re)organizing everything. I didn't ask for this, she just does it. Then we fucked, we took a bath (she gave me a sponge bath), followed by a nice massage with the massage oil we just bought and a bj to top it off. Then she went home as she had to work early the next morning. You just can't find a european woman who'd do all that.

I understand that it's nice to be with someone who goes out of their way to do stuff like that for each other, but is that really the universal standard for a "good wife"? I'm a little messier than my boyfriend and I am definitely improving on that to make life more harmonious for us both, but that sort of thing is nowhere near as important or integral as the emotional and intellectual bond we share that we don't have with anyone else. He makes fun for me for microwaving tea for him the first time he stayed over, but that was in no way going to disrupt the incredible bond we were beginning to forge. Isn't what ultimately makes a wife or husband "good" for each other dependent on their individual dynamic, how they fulfill each other emotionally, intellectually, and how they support each other?

Either way sounds like an awesome weekend for you And I'm in no way judging her for cleaning your stuff while you play games for hours -- that's incredibly sweet and thoughtful of her. So I hope this doesn't come off that way! I do think that if a woman goes out of her way to not do things for her man out of some feminist notion that she shouldn't, that's messed up. We should all be focused on being the best we can be as individuals for ourselves and our partners.


Regarding the NY subway manspread thing -- I have seen both men and women be insanely rude with the way they take up seat space on the subway. The "spreading" thing is more of a man thing though, I guess because sitting that way tends to be more masculine. Women tend to just plop their shit next to them and not give a shit if someone is standing around looking for a seat -- it's beyond obnoxious. But they do normally fit themselves more compactly on the seat.

Interestingly enough, my dad somewhat recently told me that he thinks men are more of the jerks with the way they sit on subways and he liked that there was some vocal action against that. He has no conception of what modern day feminism is like or any of that shit. He's just a middle-aged dude who's worked in the city all his life. So I thought it was interesting that he somewhat agreed with that, because it didn't come from the ideological perspective that we're used to hearing it from. It's refreshing to hear opinions from people who are not caught in the thick of the ideological divide.

Either way, arresting men for that is obviously stupid, no need to really comment much more on it. I also really disliked the manspread tumblr because I think it's unacceptable to post shaming pictures of people online like that, and I thought a good deal of the men posted on there weren't even really doing anything wrong.

OK. I'm more than a bit jealous, then.

Is he a space cadet? or is he actually a down to Earth guy?
It seems like he'd have to be a bit mental to create such amazing and powerful artwork, but what do I know?
Maynard is a vintner. Can't be much more down to Earth than that.

He's sort of both. He's definitely down to Earth and awesome to talk to, and he sort of has a weird adolescent boyish sense of humor. But he also has a Terence McKenna vibe to him, especially how he talks.

Omg so the other day I hiked up to the top of a super high mountain and it was fucking. Awesome. There was an incredible tree perfect for meditation up there, and there was a little St. Frances statue. It's a spot where monks used to go meditate. There were also native american petroglyphs up there. It was so incredible. I feel like it's dorky to post vacation pics of yourself but fuck it, here is picture of me and the view. And the tree. That shit makes me just want to spend my life hiking the highest mountains possible. Someone give me recommendations of mountains to climb!

[oskar]

*deleted shitpost*

[JKDS]

I understand that it's nice to be with someone who goes out of their way to do stuff like that for each other, but is that really the universal standard for a "good wife"?

....

how they fulfill each other emotionally, intellectually, and how they support each other

^Thats what I think it is. But everyone likes being taken care of, and I think modern feminism pushes away from that. If being nice by making a sandwich or cleaning the house is suddenly "oppression, down with the patriarchy", then people arent going to be as nice to each other.

All I'm gonna say, is that if I have a job and my spouse doesnt, I should come home to a clean house and food on the table. And that should be gender neutral.

Regarding the NY subway manspread thing -- I have seen both men and women be insanely rude with the way they take up seat space on the subway. The "spreading" thing is more of a man thing though, I guess because sitting that way tends to be more masculine.

The more "masculine" thing is just tumblr propaganda. Regardless of what their fake science says, it is uncomfortable for men to sit with their legs side by side. Junk, tent pitching, and obesity are the reasons why.

If anything, its a feminine thing to do the opposite. Women have been taught for generations to sit with one leg crossed over the other and what not, and they simply cannot spread their legs on a train when they're wearing a skirt. So they tend not to. But this isnt men pushing down our privilege on unsuspecting females, you girls could do it to if you wore the right clothing for it.

Anyway, you're right that the whole thing is just about how nobody likes to sit next to a stranger...and if you've ever ridden on public transit, you wouldnt either.

[OngBonga]

@ong: isn't there a special criminal trespass over there tho? I think we have that (trespass is boring, so I'm not sure) and we basically stole all our broad general laws from you guys.

At minimum, there's things like burglary, B&E, disturbing the peace, etc.

The scary part is when an american's home gets adversely possessed tho. Then a trespasser gets rights to the property and shit gets real weird and messed up

Yeah I mean it becomes criminal where forced entry is made, or theft, or threats of violence, or maybe even implied threats of violence. I hope I'm not fooling anyone into thinking I'm an expert on this matter (I'm laughing too). When I speak of trespass, I mean with no criminal intent whatsoever, ie entirely peaceful and passive. And yes there's exceptions, one I'm aware of is trespass on a licensed premises. But as far as I'm aware only allows forceful ejection, it's not like you can be hauled up before a court if that's the only offence you've committed.

spoon...

If someone breaks into my house where I live, I can shoot them in the head legally. Just a thought.

I haven't got a problem with this, in principle. But then I also haven't got a problem, in principle, with the burglar's brother coming and shooting you in the head in revenge. Anarchy, bro. Keep that gun loaded.

[OngBonga]

I'm sure trespass on a military site is a criminal offence. It shouldn't be, they should make sure people can't get on there, and if they can, that's the military's fault. But whatever, I have no intetion of putting that to the test.

[aubreymcfate]

^Thats what I think it is. But everyone likes being taken care of, and I think modern feminism pushes away from that. If being nice by making a sandwich or cleaning the house is suddenly "oppression, down with the patriarchy", then people arent going to be as nice to each other.

All I'm gonna say, is that if I have a job and my spouse doesnt, I should come home to a clean house and food on the table. And that should be gender neutral.



The more "masculine" thing is just tumblr propaganda. Regardless of what their fake science says, it is uncomfortable for men to sit with their legs side by side. Junk, tent pitching, and obesity are the reasons why.

If anything, its a feminine thing to do the opposite. Women have been taught for generations to sit with one leg crossed over the other and what not, and they simply cannot spread their legs on a train when they're wearing a skirt. So they tend not to. But this isnt men pushing down our privilege on unsuspecting females, you girls could do it to if you wore the right clothing for it.

Anyway, you're right that the whole thing is just about how nobody likes to sit next to a stranger...and if you've ever ridden on public transit, you wouldnt either.

The fact that it's uncomfortable for men to sit with their legs side by side is precisely why I said it's more masculine. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to put it, since masculine doesn't necessarily mean penis-bearing. I know people think that's bullshit but I never believed it -- it makes all the sense in the world to me that it would be uncomfortable for them to squeeze their balls together.

I agree that women have been taught for generations to sit with their legs closer together. That's why they tend to fit themselves more compactly on the subway seat. .

[rpm]

here is picture of me and the view. And the tree.

view? tree?

[OngBonga]

It's a fucking great view that is.

[spoonitnow]

[OngBonga]

Me enjoying a cuppa...

[Galapogos]

aubreymcfate's a girl???

[OngBonga]

ong is a twat?

[oskar]

Every time I buy a can of wasabi peanuts I'm telling myself: this will be the time I remember not to fondle my crotch after eating them. It never is.

[BooG690]

Fuck that manspreading shit. What about womanbagging? Take your fucking bag off the chair. No, just because you have a stroller doesn't mean you can take up all three seats. You should've thought about all that shit when you chose to have that useless child.

[BooG690]

Additionally, there is a computer science class here at Queens College that DOES NOT ALLOW MALE STUDENTS TO REGISTER. There is a cap on the number of male students allowed to register for the class. Disgusting.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Me enjoying a cuppa...

That's a cock-eyed view if I ever saw one.

[aubreymcfate]

Queens College is my alma! I just graduated with my masters from there. So weird about the male quota though, wtf? I've never heard of such a thing while I was there.

Yeah the womanbagging thing is totally nuts. I mean both men and women are assholes, it's not really a competition. There are men who have barely moved their exaggerated spread, making it so I have to squeeze myself in super uncomfortably next to them, and there are women who stare dead-eyed through the exhausted throng of people with their shit on the chair next to them. It's them and the people that charge into the subway car once the doors open without letting people leave that need to be rounded up in a car with 2 bums taking a shit on either end and a chorus of whiny bums in the middle crowing for money.

[BooG690]

It only applies to a computer science class since there's a push to get women into that field.

[BooG690]

It's them and the people that charge into the subway car once the doors open without letting people leave that need to be rounded up in a car with 2 bums taking a shit on either end and a chorus of whiny bums in the middle crowing for money.

Heh, I love the people that charge. I'm pretty stocky and have a good shoulder check for those mother fuckers. As for the people crowing for money, the dancers made them step their game up. If bums ain't dancin', I ain't payin'...

...and then they'll dance and I STILL won't give them money. Don't lie to me, you ain't no veteran.

[wufwugy]

yeah but could boog kick steven seagal's ass?

[OngBonga]

That's a cock-eyed view if I ever saw one.

You try taking a selfie from that angle while drinking a cup of tea, whilst trying to ensure the slogan on the bottom is the right way round.

The great thing about this photo is, I rarely take selfies and I felt a right twat trying to take this photo.

[spoonitnow]

yeah but could boog kick steven seagal's ass?

[wufwugy]

i was like wtf i didnt know gene hackman chocked him out too

[spoonitnow]

i was like wtf i didnt know gene hackman chocked him out too

Random: The omoplata facelock (aka Daniel Bryan's submission finisher) was originally named the Lebell Lock after him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You try taking a selfie from that angle while drinking a cup of tea, whilst trying to ensure the slogan on the bottom is the right way round.

The great thing about this photo is, I rarely take selfies and I felt a right twat trying to take this photo.

C'mon. My comment deserved more love for the comedic levels.

The camera angle is from your crotchal region... cock-eyed view

The mug says, "I'm a twat" - just what a cock sees in everything... cock-eyed view

The camera is skewed - yawn... cock-eyed view.

[OngBonga]

Ah I though you said cock-eyed because my eye is wonky.

Have a slow handclap.

*clap clap clap*

[rong]

yeah but could boog kick steven seagal's ass?

<3

[Luco]

yeah but could boog kick steven seagal's ass?

Steve n Seagulls?

[aubreymcfate]

been cracking up at this all day. just... why?!?

[spoonitnow]

Female country music stars are accusing country music consultant Keith Hill of discriminating against women after he advised stations to play fewer songs by female artists. Hill, who calls himself “the world’s leading authority on music scheduling,” made the comments to Country Aircheck Weekly.

“They’re just not the lettuce in our salad,” he said. “The lettuce is Luke Bryan and Blake Shelton, Keith Urban and artists like that. The tomatoes of our salad are the females.”

But he insisted he is not being sexist.

“In a deep irony, it’s the demand of female listeners who aren’t thinking about it. They’re just responding to that flow of song after song, and if that mix has more females in it, they turn off quicker,” explained Hill. He added, “My stations win by taking females out. Sometimes that’s enough to go from the number three station to the number one station in a market.”

One of the first to speak out was country music star Miranda Lambert, using a common expletive that describes bovine fecal matter to explain how she felt about Hill’s statement. She took to Twitter:

I am gonna do everything in my power to support and promote female singer/songwriters in country music. Always.

— Miranda Lambert (@mirandalambert) May 28, 2015

lol

[aubreymcfate]

tomatoes are the juiciest and tastiest though!

also, i'm sure he's right about the stats and all that. however, i literally cannot get through more than 10 seconds of Luke Bryan, Keith Urban, or any of that shit. it's really god awful.

on the other hand, i just checked out Miranda Lambert to see what she sounds like, and it was leagues better. Like, actually really good. Surprisingly so. The night and day difference is immediate.

So I guess what it really comes down to is today's country fans just have terrible taste, and he is just responding to it appropriately.

[spoonitnow]

Miranda Lambert is famous for being a psycho, and she sounds awful.

Also Luke Bryan sucks.

[rpm]

i thought that keith urban fella was shit until i saw him on one of eric clapton's crossroads guitar festival concerts. that man is a good a musician.

[rpm]

in the spirit of randomness, does anybody here like warren zevon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeb0OI8wXN4

[OngBonga]

I've seen Eric Clapton. God he was fucking awful. Most overrated musician ever.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Most overrated band: Smashing Pumpkins circa 1995.

It's the only concert I literally would have walked out of, were it not for the fact that I got a ride with friends who weren't leaving, despite their agreement that the show was awful.


At least they were at the top of their career at that point. Eric Clapton peaked many decades ago.

[Renton]

I loved all that shit in the 90s but smashing pumpkins eluded me. I thought they were okay but they just didn't rank for me as much as the Seattle groups.

[Renton]

re: clapton its likely that he's just one of those studio only guys. Some musicians are like that. Paul McCartney peaked decades ago but still does a great show because he's just much more of a natural entertainer than Clapton.

[MadMojoMonkey]

who needs ascii when I know how to use autocad?






The green object is a cross section of a tube of inside diameter 1 unit and length 5 units. The cyan arcs represent the propagating EM wave, the dashed grey arcs represent the part of that wave that has been blocked by the tube, and the red radials show the density of the probability. Unless I'm doing it wrong, it appears that the photon only has about a 4% chance of escaping the tube.

This is all a matter of the geometry of the tube and the source location.

This ignores the QM effects of diffraction at the tube's edge. It ignores the QM blackbody radiation that will emit from the tube, even near the end of the tube, in a wide band of frequencies. (This emission would be easy to isolate from the light source by it's nature, though.)

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ugh.... unless the light source is a blackbody emitter... like an incandescent bulb.

In that case, over time, the glow of the tube would approach a shockingly similar glow as the original light source. The only difference would be that the (you said 4) percent of light escaping the tube without being absorbed would be slightly higher in frequency overall.

However, it'd very hard to detect. Two overlapping bell curves (even distorted ones with lop-sided tails like the blackbody distribution) tend to make a curve that is mostly the same. Only when the separation of the means is greater than a certain threshold can the distinction between one source or 2 be made.

[aubreymcfate]

i love warren zevon. i was super into sweet home alabama until i realized it was really just werewolves of london. what a great song.

smashing pumpkins were my favorite band growing up (until around mid-high school, and then in late high school Tool became my religion and nothing has been the same since). i love everything they did pre-2000. everything after is just so... not good. but "ava adore" is a freaking great song. i don't really listen to them anymore like i do the current music that i love, so maybe it is something that appealed more to me when i was in a certain adolescent mindset, but i still think they hold up musically from that era. i didn't see them live though so perhaps it would have been a great disappointment to me if i did.

billy corgan occasionally redeems himself with his weirdness:



i saw eric clapton in 2005. it was good times. i saw rolling stones around that time too though and it was wayyyyy better. damn they were good.

[spoonitnow]

Billy Corgan is currently working as an executive producer for TNA Wrestling, the #2 wrestling brand in North America.

TNA Wrestling is a good example of what happens when you put a woman in charge: They were better than WWE for a while and beat them by a large margin in Europe, and now they are about to go out of business.

[BooG690]

Yawn, your bitterness against women is getting tired, Spoon.

[spoonitnow]

Yawn, your bitterness against women is getting tired, Spoon.

Dixie Carter deserves it.

[OngBonga]

I don't really get spoon's hatred towards women. I mean it's not like you're gay. If you hate women so much, become a bummer.

[spoonitnow]

I don't really get spoon's hatred towards women. I mean it's not like you're gay. If you hate women so much, become a bummer.

I don't hate women in the slightest, and you don't know if I'm gay.

[OngBonga]

I don't hate women in the slightest, and you don't know if I'm gay.

That's me told.

[spoonitnow]

[a500lbgorilla]

We interrupt this week's episode of "How Women Have Always Been Inferior" to bring you this:

http://i.imgur.com/ylOdFeH.gifv

It's called magic and you wish you could.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also, this kid.



Drugs are bad etc etc

[wufwugy]

i would like to know what the real genetic psychological differences between men and women are. so far nothing has been discovered.

it's a different story culturally.

here's an example: i would not be surprised it if were possible for a culture to make it so that men are physically sexualized the way women today are, and where women are the superficial chasers the way men are today.

the backbone for why feminism hasnt worked that well is because it operates upon the narrative of protecting the sexuality of women. are women protective of their sexuality naturally, or does it come from the culture? i think it comes from the culture.

[wufwugy]

the backbone for why feminism hasnt worked that well is because it operates upon the narrative of protecting the sexuality of women. are women protective of their sexuality naturally, or does it come from the culture? i think it comes from the culture.

to expound, a common idea is that women naturally protect their sexuality for a variety of reasons, most of which are explained by evolution. the problem with this is twofold: evolutionary determinism is specious and it appears experts tend to not agree with the nature side of it either. it appears the the hyper-protectionism of female sexuality is a product of property rights and things like primogeniture. studies of non-civilization groups and even the biology of sexual organs suggest that women were designed to be just as sexually open as men.

[spoonitnow]

even the biology of sexual organs suggest that women were designed to be just as sexually open as men.

Whether the following disagrees with you or not is up to you, but women maximize the chance that their offspring survives and reproduces by choosing the best single man they can get (and securing his resources). Men maximize the chance that their offspring survives and reproduces by getting as many women as they can. These require drastically different levels of sexual openness. Monogamy is rewarded for women, and polygamy is rewarded for men.

[wufwugy]

Whether the following disagrees with you or not is up to you, but women maximize the chance that their offspring survives and reproduces by choosing the best single man they can get (and securing his resources). Men maximize the chance that their offspring survives and reproduces by getting as many women as they can. These require drastically different levels of sexual openness. Monogamy is rewarded for women, and polygamy is rewarded for men.

This is how it has worked in most iterations of civilization, yet it is contrary to what is often found in groups untouched by civilization. As far as I can tell, the leading speculation for why is because the success of offspring is maximized in tribal groups differently than in civilization. In civilization, there is little threat to the health of the group since it is vast and varied, so reproduction focuses on the individual and nuclear-esque families. However, in tribal societies, reproductive maximization is all about the health of the group as a whole.

As long as we're playing the evolutionary determinism game of maximized survival, there would be no better way for women to maximize the health of their offspring than for open promiscuity with all the viable males in their group, since that would effectively make every male the offspring's father since nobody would know exactly who the real father is. I believe this is likely the kind of society humans evolved in.

Human women are probably not as naturally sexually open as bonobo females, as can be guessed based on differences in sizes of the clitoris, but humans are also not nearly as monogamous as, say, gorillas, which are opposites sexually to humans in many ways (huge bodies, tiny dicks).

There is also a theory that the length of the human dick and the shape of the head is emergent of the evolution of sperm competition inside the vaginal canal. This suggests early human females banged multiple men in short intervals.

[spoonitnow]

As long as we're playing the evolutionary determinism game of maximized survival, there would be no better way for women to maximize the health of their offspring than for open promiscuity with all the viable males in their group, since that would effectively make every male the offspring's father since nobody would know exactly who the real father is. I believe this is likely the kind of society humans evolved in.

Women would still actively select the males for the best genes when ovulating (it's also proven they still do this now).

I have to go in a minute or I'd type a lot more on this, but human females show the fewest signs of ovulating of any primate, and it's thought that this was evolved to keep lesser males fucking her when she wasn't ovulating. This is why women were openly fucking whoever whenever would provide her and her children with resources while still selecting for strong genetics when ovulating (sexual preferences change during this period, etc).

Relevant: http://www.thesuperredneck.com/seven...out-ovulation/

[wufwugy]

to be clear, i dont think sexual openness is the same as being sexually indiscriminate

[spoonitnow]

to be clear, i dont think sexual openness is the same as being sexually indiscriminate

On the topic of how they discriminate:

Women have two parts of their mating strategy: selection for genes and selection for resources. Selection for genes happens during ovulation, and selection for resources happens the rest of the time. These correlate to the attraction and comfort aspects of what women find attractive. The ideal man will provide both, but that's not the case in most relationships (especially in today's overly PC society that actively conspires to turn men into pussies).

Too much attraction without comfort = the "bad boy" type.
Too much comfort without attraction = a married guy in a sexless marriage whose wife is secretly getting fucked behind a dumpster by the "bad boy" type.

"Red pill" tie-in: Game teaches men to either skillfully have too much attraction without enough comfort (ie: PUA) if they just want to fuck a bunch of sluts or to skillfully balance attraction and comfort to cultivate and maintain a strong relationship with one or more women (ie: relationship game; Athol Kay/MMSL is probably the most noteable on this). Either of these is better than too much comfort without attraction (which also leads to being "friend zoned").

Note: This is also where the "alpha" and "beta" labels for behaviors come from. Alpha correlates to attraction, and beta correlates to comfort. Both are needed to effectively manage a woman, but the optimal ratio changes based on lots of factors (like where she is in her cycle). Note that PUA-style/high-attraction/high-alpha/asshole game is disproportionately ran on women who are ovulating (as a disproportionate number of women who are out are near this part of their cycle) and that's why it's so ridiculously successful -- there's a selection bias for the women involved.

[a500lbgorilla]

i would like to know what the real genetic psychological differences between men and women are. so far nothing has been discovered.

Not nothing. You can't just go around saying things like that.

Hormones affect behavior, body, and brain. Women and men have different hormone profiles. You can argue that brain plasticity and culture can overwrite these inherent differences in development, growth, and maintenance but why would you?

[a500lbgorilla]

Also, with that Tranny in the news, I heard a thing on NPR about transgender experiences with growing up and why the story line of someone whose life is half over finally doing something about the mismatch between the gender of her brain and the gender of his body will become less frequent thanks to Tumblr and the sort.

Also, autism seems to me like an over-masculine brain and it clearly affects more boys than gals.

[a500lbgorilla]

Note: This is also where the "alpha" and "beta" labels for behaviors come from.

Oh yeah? Nature documentaries hadn't been using this terminology to describe social animals til the Red Pill came and sorted it out?

[wufwugy]

Not nothing. You can't just go around saying things like that.

Hormones affect behavior, body, and brain. Women and men have different hormone profiles. You can argue that brain plasticity and culture can overwrite these inherent differences in development, growth, and maintenance but why would you?

Still, we do not know what this does psychologically. Even something as "obvious" as men are more aggressive than women because of more testosterone isn't known. There are large groups of women that are probably more aggressive than large groups of men and the hormonal differences between them and the rest of their sex are insignificant.

I think when we talk about how men and women differ mentally, we're talking about effects that we see. The causes are pretty much unknown.

[spoonitnow]

Oh yeah? Nature documentaries hadn't been using this terminology to describe social animals til the Red Pill came and sorted it out?

It's not used in the same sense as nature documentaries for describing social animals, and this is a major misconception. Also, these terms were around to describe attraction- and comfort-building situations before "the red pill" or The Matrix were a thing.

It's like Federal Express. Just because it uses the word "federal" doesn't mean it's a part of the government.

On a related note, "game" is not a subset of "the Red Pill" as it's used today.

The original meaning of TRP was to simply see that the prevailing narrative about cultivating relationships with women was wrong. Specifically, it was wrong on the side of providing entirely too much comfort and not nearly enough attraction. This led to the "red pill" behaviors as being a proper mix of attraction/comfort (or alpha/beta if you want to use those terms), and the "blue pill" behaviors were the traditional mistake of providing entirely too much comfort without enough attraction. In this way, "taking the red pill" was an analogy for having the "aha moment" of realizing why a guy might have a lack of success with women in spite of doing all of the things that he was told he was supposed to be doing by the prevalent narrative.

[spoonitnow]

Still, we do not know what this does psychologically. Even something as "obvious" as men are more aggressive than women because of more testosterone isn't known. There are large groups of women that are probably more aggressive than large groups of men and the hormonal differences between them and the rest of their sex are insignificant.

I think when we talk about how men and women differ mentally, we're talking about effects that we see. The causes are pretty much unknown.

You might find this interesting: http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...rch-finds.aspx

Cliffs: Oxytocin change doesn't affect men and women in the same ways.

[a500lbgorilla]

Still, we do not know what this does psychologically. Even something as "obvious" as men are more aggressive than women because of more testosterone isn't known. There are large groups of women that are probably more aggressive than large groups of men and the hormonal differences between them and the rest of their sex are insignificant.

I think when we talk about how men and women differ mentally, we're talking about effects that we see. The causes are pretty much unknown.

Right. There's a lot that isn't known. But I think you can take a few observations, like young girls preferences for faces or young boy monkeys preferences for mechanical toys, plus the (and I really don't get it) observation of early stage testosterone exposure co-relating with later stage mechanical interests, plus all of the differences you probably have witnessed between men and women throughout your life, plus, as spoon said, the differences in need for procreating (as women and men will necessarily adopt different strategies to succeed), plus the Y chromosome, plus...

When you hold up two options, and there really doesn't seem like a third option, one of them shines through. Are men and women just the same? Nope.

[a500lbgorilla]

Plus when it comes to psychological or behavioral differences and you want to strip away culture as it has a distinct impact of behavior, I'd look no further than the amygdala.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosc...ences#Amygdala

When you're walking down the street and you remember that one time you really embarrassed yourself infront of the whole school for no reason? That's the amygdala. The way yours impacts you versus how it would impact female you would be an incredible thing to experience.

[spoonitnow]

Oh yeah? Nature documentaries hadn't been using this terminology to describe social animals til the Red Pill came and sorted it out?

I feel like explaining since this is a common point of contention. I want to show how the red pill/blue pill analogy started off on the right foot and was eventually turned into a crock of shit (much like feminism tbh). The similarities and divergences between the progression of the PUA/red pill crowd and the different stages of feminism are very interesting because a lot of the same types of things happened. I also want to show where the alpha/beta thing came from and how that evolved.

Okay first in the 1990s there were the original PUAs. These were smart guys who found each other on the Internet who didn't like their lack of success with women. Their approach was to systematically try to figure out how to do better. It was the scientific method and the engineering mind at its fullest. Lots of trial, error and experimentation later, a basic format was figured out that would work a significant percentage of the time with women in very specific social situations.

These guys figured out that they could make a ton of money by offering courses and "camps" with men who were successful in a lot of aspects of life other than their ability to attract women. If you've read or heard of Neil Strauss' book "The Game," then this is the stage his story was set in. Google "the Mystery Method" for an example of what was probably the most popular course at the time.

I also want to be clear that this type of thing worked extremely well in the context of certain types of social situations. They repeated the pattern with other types of social situations, and this led to the development of "day game," for example. Analyzing the differences between what worked in different social situations led to a more generalized understanding of "game," which I'll get to in a minute.

Alright so by the early 2000s, marketing stunts and the need to appear like a bigger, more outrageous asshole to get more people to buy their shit eventually gave the whole PUA situation a really shitty name. It was like rakeback deals between 2003 and 2007 that just got more and more outrageous until it fell apart and no one was really getting paid like before because everyone was made to look ridiculous. This just got more and more out of hand, and last year we had the Julien Blanc debacle as another example.

So what you had here was a major divergence. This led to the creation of two major camps:

Camp 1: The original type of PUA guys who continued their natural progression of understanding the general theory of what they called "game" by studying the similarities and differences between successful strategies in different types of social situations. In short, they were largely using their logical minds and the scientific method to reverse engineer what it meant to be socially adept so that they could turn it into a systematically learned behavior. These guys stopped using the PUA label because it was being dragged through the mud.

Camp 2: The new breed who hijacked the PUA label and kept getting more and more outrageous with it to make money. With tons of followers thanks to increased marketing efforts, guys like Julien Blanc, it turned into a massive shit show. This is that vocal minority that gives the whole deal a bad name, much like what happens in Islam and feminism. Also like in Islam and feminism, the silent majority hasn't really spoken out (except very recently) against the extremists who have been giving them a bad name.

It's worth nothing that a third camp fell into place parallel to this whole thing, and they took on the label "Men Going Their Own Way," or MGTOW for short. This is essentially a self-imposed sort of abstaining from women, and there's a wide range of guys who fall into this group. What they all have in common, and what forms the label, is that they try to completely remove women from the equation without necessarily turning gay (using porn as a substitute is common, etc).

So by somewhere between about 1998 and 2003, you had three distinct groups. What started happening was that every time Camp #1 would figure something out or some topic would become hot for a while, Camp #2 would hijack it and turn it into some extreme marketing stunt. In the same way that first and second wave feminism helped women while third and fourth wave feminism has hurt them, Camp #1's ability to help men has been largely destroyed by Camp #2's bullshit.

I want to point out something personal here. I know more than one guy who has been a follower of Camp #2 who has ended up legitimately raping, assaulting or sexually assaulting a woman because they bought into the hyped up marketing bullshit. I also know more than one woman who has been on the receiving end of this kind of shit. They are awful, and while I can respect the hustle to an extent, they should be fought against.

At some point not long after the Matrix came out, Camp #1 started using the red pill/blue pill analogy to describe the moment of clarity that a lot of men were having when their "aha moment" would hit them, and they'd realize they had been approaching things in incorrect ways. The Matrix sequels were still hot at that point, so it was another perfect marketing opportunity for Camp #2. This really just got out of hand, and at some point being "red pill" became synonymous with being a fucking retard.

This is why I'm red pill in the same sense that I'm a feminist. I'm down with the original intent, but I'm totally against what both have become.

The alpha/beta thing is another incredibly useful model that was hijacked by the second camp, and I'll give a brief description of how it started, how it evolved and what it's now used for by reasonable people. The original PUAs needed a descriptor to use to easily differentiate between successful behavior and not-so-successful behavior, and they used alpha and beta to describe these originally. This was very short-lived as they started applying their methods to figuring out what worked in a wider variety of situations. As the body of theory that surrounded "game" expanded and became more generalized, alpha and beta behaviors were given more general (and more useful definitions).

Camp #2 did their marketing job on this, like they did it on a lot of things, and turned it into a bastardized and ultimately not-so-useful set of labels. This is why there's so much hate and snarky remarks about the use of alpha/beta/omega/sigma/etc.

Back to the context of Camp #1, they decided to use this model to say that behavior falls somewhere on a spectrum that is very much subject to context. Alpha behavior has to do with attraction (women selecting for good genes) on one end, and beta behavior has to do with comfort (women selecting for resources) on the other end. However, they also noticed that doing the exact same behavior in a different context can drastically change whether it's considered alpha or beta. The labels alpha and beta started falling away in favor of looking at different aspects of context.

They called this context for behavior "frame" with the general idea that you can have a strong frame or a weak frame. A strong frame is basically just coming from a position of confidence and strength, and a weak from is coming from a position of insecurity or weakness. An understanding of frame is the single most important part of game no matter what the situation is (picking up random hookups, managing a wife, etc). Frame is essentially the be-all, end-all of game, and no significant advances have been made after frame was established as being sort of the unifying solution to success in all social situations (including picking up women).

What's really, really important here is that frame also transcends the "male seeking female" dynamic in attracting other people. It applies to all situations regardless of gender or whether it's a group dynamic or a 1-on-1 interaction. Notice that what attracts men and women are different, so men and women have to use frame in different ways to be successful depending on the gender they are trying to attract.

After the alpha/beta labels basically fell away and frame was all that mattered, some people started noticing that introverted people handled things significantly different than extroverted people. However, people with a strong frame were still seeing success while people with a weak frame were not. This led to the four major labels that are used today that I think I mentioned in a previous post without explaining how they eventually came to be. You can either have a strong frame or a weak frame, or you can be an introvert or an extrovert, and this creates four types that are the basis of what's used for today's labels in 2015 discussions of social dynamics by reasonable people discussing game:

Strong frame + extrovert = alpha (recycled label obviously)
Strong frame + introvert = sigma
Weak frame + extrovert = gamma
Weak frame + introvert = omega

Once you have these generalized labels, you can start to look at things like how the different types interact, what the strengths/weaknesses tend to be of each type, etc.

TL;DR