hey not to give unsolicited advice but to share my experience - it took me a long time to realize that I'm not anti-social, but just anti-party and anti-work social. I flourish in most other spaces - especially hobby spaces.
yeah the thing is I'm good talking to dudes, like cars this guy shows me his Porsche/I sit in it, has laser jammers built in, crazy. Like yeah when you're both into something you just connect
my problem with women is I only interact with them when I'm physically interested in them otherwise I leave them alone so yeah I'm on edge like "I gotta land her" kind of thing, which I'm not saying is good, as proof of this I haven't been in a relationship with a girl for 12 years, not that I haven't had the opportunity but I'm also picky which, I need to be impressive myself to match it but yeah
Talking to random people about anything, and talking to girls, and talking to girls romantically are all separate skills from talking to someone about an interest. I am going to assume you're a smart, educated guy with niche interests. So even if someone comes up and talks about something you don't know much about, maybe Biology for example (no clue if this is true), you are probably able to fill in the blanks, find a common interest, connect it with something you've re ad before or whatever. The real difficulty is when you then are talking to people without technical interests or such, do you fake talking about sports? Or whatever.
With girls, be up front, direct, don't shy away. Honestly a lot of the old PUA strategies work really well if you look at it like a skill you're building.
haha I'm not into sports so I definitely don't fake that, just tell people, which is not great because if you look at a lot of online dating profiles a lot of women are into the local sports eg. Broncos or whatever. Same with religion but it's alright, the girl thing isn't a huge problem to me, it only hits me sometimes the FOMO when I'm in public settings. Used to club/bar hop a lot problem is I had a drinking problem (wouldn't stop) so yeah, would be that belligerent person not a great look. I quit drinking so now I rarely see women except at work, I do photography though so I do see some women at the park but that's one of those places not sure if you should engage or let them be like a gym, there to workout kind of thing. I have other problems to deal with though like getting out of being poor for personal peace of mind.
Sounds like you understand the problem. My read is that you have a likeable frenetic personality; it won't be for everyone but some people will be really attracted to it, best not to question it and just be yourself.
The other day someone described themselves to me as an 'empath' which was odd, because in the context of the discussion it was invalidating to hear. And ironic considering they hadn't forseen how I would take it.
Some people have ultimate confidence in their social judgements and the true sign of empathy is a kind of meta-empathy that allows you to consider truly alternative understandings of the world i.e. empathy for empathy.
Almost every every person I've met that describes themselves as empath tends to rank rather low on empathy, under my own judgement at least.
One explanation I have for this is that precisely because empathy is a more rare experience for them, it becomes a more remarkable one, perhaps even overwhelming at times. This leads them to believe that they experience it more than or more intensely than others, when on the contrary the rest of the world is simply more habituated to it and integrate it more gracefully in their ordinary experience.
The other interpretation is that it requires certain level of narcissism or egotism to describe oneself in such flattering terms.
Or ultimately, as the Spanish proverb says: dime de que presumes y te diré de que careces.
Probably some degree of all of this is true in most cases.
Yeah, it's just narcissism. Spiritual bypassing. The people who have really figured it out feel no need to tell others, and simply live quiet, decent lives.
Classic. How is it the case that every self-styled "empath" never is? I just don't know. Probably never will. I just don't have enough empathy to puzzle this one out.
That's not empathy, though. The word "empathy" has been co-opted to mean "understanding someone else's point of view," but that's not what empathy is. Empathy is feeling others' feelings. I'm actually empathetic in that I sometimes experience an emotional response (limbic) similar to an intense emotional response I witness others having, especially if they're a person close to me. This is very different than making a conscious attempt (prefrontal cortex) at intellectual understanding of someone's emotions.
I don't think it's been co-opted? Mirroring the emotions of another person you're actively observing doesn't give you insight into why they're feeling that way. It's just mirroring, but its an excellent starting point for learning. To have empathy, for people you're not actively observing, or for future states of people you are observing, you have to be able to model them first, and then mirror the emotions that the model predicts, which can then update the model. This loop is empathy, its both "experiencing other's emotions" and "the ability to understand and predict".
I'm not so sure I agree - well maybe I do, I meant literally feeling in my statement not merely understanding. e.g. I eat meat - but I can literally feel the cringing sadness and disgust of a vegan if I imagine their perspective, even if I disagree.
Ultimately, there are no absolute personality traits. Someone might align to specific attributes, but they are not without fault and can still easily put their foot in their mouth on occasion.
An introspective, empathetic, thoughtful person might still accidentally say something that an external observer might perceive as having been said without thought or consideration to the feelings of others.
The above is not meant to be contradictory to your point, just a consideration to the general faults all humans hold.
Em dash , corny sub headings, numbered lists for no reason. I think some of this may be human written or edited, but it isn't passing my smell test. Sorry if this is mostly or all human written, but you have a very AI style.
If the article is a product of a LLM, I am willing to pay good money to be able to use that exact LLM for development. Because it seems to understand many things that current LLMs and their loudest proponents don't seem to understand.
Subscriptions are not a contract of payment. Your bank pre-authorizes these payments, simply ask them to remove pre-authorization. If they can't do that, then the bank is spending your money without your consent.
You haven't signed any agreement or opened any lines of credit - I would be amazed if there was any jurisdiction in the entire world where this would affect your credit.
Heuristically, that sounds naive. Actuaries do not typically think "oh, that's enough data". If Experian could track whether you iron your shirts, it too would show up in your credit score.
I mean possibly. I interact in the space and there is almost no information in a cancelled subscription. There is more information in how much you spent on takeaway.
Definitely not bullshit. I have a friend who was banned simply for returning a Pixel phone after accidentally ordering 2. Some automated mechanism flagged it as potential fraud and nothing worked to reverse the ban. Going to the bank to block payments, remove authorization, or God forbid, do a chargeback for the money they already took after banning you is playing Russian roulette with your Google account.
It's also the only way to stop Google from stealing your money short of going to a lawyer.
The Youtube account is banned. Google can escalate things and widen the net to ban anything and everything you have in the Google ecosystem, like a Gmail account. You can see here [0] that OP still has access to the Gmail account.
I've always been a bit embarrassed by the extent of my self-conciousness, but recently I'm starting to think of it as more of a virtue than a hindrance.
Virtue is something the virtueless prey upon. However, the takeaway is not to abandon virtue, it's to censure the virtueless. There are far more of us than there are of them.
The most dangerous people throughout history take morality very seriously. They have so much commitment to their moral system that they're willing to kill millions of people to enforce it.
People like Andreessen are not without morality. Their moral system is right-libertarianism.
The people I am least afraid of are those who are without a deep fixation on morality.
The person you're replying to was talking about "virtue", which I'd argue is an entirely different thing than "morality". Virtues are traits that can help people be better humans, while morals are rules separating right and wrong. Things like courage, patience, introspection, kindness, etc, are all virtues, while morals tend to be much more of the Ten Commandments variety.
I don't think anyone has ever killed people or gone to war for a virtue, but they certainly have to enforce their moral code on others. Probably the worst combination is people with strong moral beliefs but few virtues, since their lack of virtue both fails to temper their moral fury and poorly guides the moral determinations they get so fired up about.
> Virtues are traits that can help people be better humans, while morals are rules separating right and wrong.
Insofar as there is a difference at all, (what people see as) virtues are generalizations of (what they hold to be) moral rules or, viewed another way, moral rules are the operationalizations that give concrete meaning to the platitudes of virtues. They are inseparable, even if notionally distinct categories.
I think there's a Goldilocks zone of moral flexibility and openness somewhere in between complete moral rigidness and total amorality, I think.
The zone of moral rigidness contains all those species of fundamentalism that have caused so much conflict and atrocity. It's one one of the very bad zones.
But another very bad zone is the total amorality of psychopaths and narcissists (and they often pretend to be in the other zones), and they are also responsible for so much destruction an atrocity.
reply