Youtube comments of (@resir9807).

  1. I wanna put in a word for the manipulative friendzone guys. I've often hit it off with a girl, taken my shot and been rejected, then denied her request to remain friends. The key misunderstanding here is that this is not a ploy to gain anything from her. The girls I end up falling for are awesome people who I'd love to be friends with. However, I can't, for my own mental health. I can't see this person and vibe with them and constantly think, I want more from them. This is not a sexual desire (tho it can be too), it's a deeply romantic one. It's not that I pretended to be your friend to get to have sex. The friendship was genuine, feelings arose, and now I need more and can't continue like this. There is no ultrerior motive, this is just the sad facts. Edit: This comment keeps spawning a lot of engagement and interesting conversations, so I thought I'd give an update. So first off, I didn't mention that I HAVE reconnected with some of my former crushes, some of who are in relationships, and we have very nice and meaningful friendships. It just takes a lot of time to process these feelings and get rid of them. Second, with my most recent crush, I actually tried precisely what Dr K recommended. After a few weeks of meeting in a group environment, I noticed feelings arousing. I spoke to her about it and she was very relived and glad to have it in the open, but shot me down and said she hoped we can continue as friends. I said I'm actually cool with that, thinking I'll stick it out, either until she develops feelings or until I get interested in someone else. Whether we end up as friends or partners, I'll be fine with both. Well, that failed miserably. I was keeping up my end of the bargain, treating her like any other friend and still going on dates with other women. However, the friendship was still very weird, because she kept holding me at arm's length, reaching out on her own but shutting me down every time I offered to hang out. I know that's not what she intended, but I felt like a sort of toy that you can play with whenever you want, but it itself doesn't get any say. She liked me enough to spend time with me on her own terms, but still had no trust that I knew to respect her boundaries and wouldn't make an advance if I got the right opportunity. Sorry, that's not a real friendship and I don't need this. The whole experience was ultimately very draining and not worth it, but if anyone thinks I did something wrong here, I'm curious to know.
    3700
  2. 1200
  3. 493
  4. 353
  5. 220
  6. 201
  7. 198
  8. 177
  9. 145
  10. 142
  11. 119
  12. 114
  13. 98
  14. 86
  15. 81
  16. 73
  17. 69
  18. 67
  19. 62
  20. 62
  21. 59
  22. 58
  23. 57
  24. 52
  25. 43
  26. 42
  27. 42
  28. 42
  29. 39
  30. 38
  31. 35
  32. 35
  33. 33
  34. 32
  35. 31
  36. 31
  37. 29
  38. 29
  39. 28
  40. 28
  41. 27
  42. 26
  43. 26
  44. 25
  45. 24
  46. 23
  47. 22
  48. 22
  49. 22
  50. 22
  51. 21
  52. 21
  53. 21
  54. 19
  55. 18
  56. 18
  57. 18
  58. 18
  59. 18
  60. 18
  61. 17
  62. 17
  63. 16
  64. 16
  65. 16
  66. 16
  67. 15
  68. 14
  69. 14
  70. 14
  71. 14
  72. 14
  73. 14
  74. 13
  75. 13
  76. 12
  77. 12
  78. 12
  79. 12
  80. 12
  81. 12
  82. 12
  83. 12
  84. 11
  85. 11
  86. 11
  87. 10
  88. 10
  89. 10
  90. 10
  91. 10
  92. 10
  93. 10
  94. 9
  95. 9
  96. 9
  97. 9
  98. 9
  99. 8
  100. 8
  101. 8
  102. 8
  103. 8
  104. 8
  105. 8
  106. 8
  107. 7
  108. 7
  109. 7
  110. 7
  111. 7
  112. 7
  113. 7
  114. 7
  115. 7
  116. 7
  117. 7
  118. 6
  119. 6
  120. 6
  121. 6
  122. 6
  123. 6
  124. 6
  125. 6
  126. 6
  127. 6
  128. 6
  129. 6
  130. 6
  131. 5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 5
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 5
  149. 5
  150. 5
  151. 5
  152. 5
  153. 5
  154. 5
  155. 5
  156. 5
  157. 5
  158. 5
  159. 5
  160. 5
  161. 5
  162. 5
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259.  @Ehrill942  I associate romantic feelings with a lot of hurt, as many men do. There is a huge imbalance between the genders in the sense that if a girl really wants a man, she has a huge likelihood of getting him. However, most guys know what it's like to fall in love over and over again just to be rejected. The idea that I might fall in love with a girl and she would reciprocate feels like a fairytale to me. So you kinda learn to kill that part of yourself. I spend a lot of effort regulating my emotions and shutting down romantic feelings. At the point I'm at, I don't even pursue girls anymore, I just wait till one likes me and then decide whether I want to reciprocate or not. Romance is also a skill, and not an easy one. Many guys feel it but don't know how to show it. How do you do a romantic gesture? You can't be too straightforwards, it comes off as crass and overly attached. You can't be too vague, it comes off as manipulative. You can't be too touchy, it comes off as creepy. You can't be too little touchy, it comes off as cold and uninterested. Girls experience so much more romantic attention that they learn these skills intuitively. Like, when I was 20 and at a party, there was this girl that was into me that kept shadowing me and constantly talking at me. That was the first time I went, holy shit, this is kind of annoying, that's definitely something I've been doing and UNDERSTANDABLY getting rejected for. But you were probably in your early teens when you first experienced something like this.
    2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. @babydayday  your analogy is actually perfect (since brains are just better computers with consciousness attached). To complete the analogy, the BIOS is your subconscious, not your consciousness. This was actually the historical "tabula rasa" debate, whether human beings were born with a completely new slate and no inherent language processing or whether we were biologically preprogrammed for language. Modern science has long since answered the question that yes, we are in fact pre-programmed, we are born with our own language OS. But once again, the semantic parsing ISN'T cognitive, it's subconscious. But the question you pose is extremely interesting - how do humans learn their first language, if there is no initial data for semantic parsing? This is already so deep and sophisticated that we don't have a clear answer. You can insert metaphysicality at this point if you want to, but I don't see why you need to. Let me explain why. What is understanding? Huge debate. My personal opinion is that understanding is nothing more than a complex form of knowledge, or data, produced by a memetic entity. Humans are born with innate genetic ability to recognize other humans, and mimick what they do. That's how you learn language the first time - you don't "understand" it, per say, it just starts as a bunch of association. Mommy says "thank you" every time you give her something - giving means thank you. Daddy sees thing flying in the sky and says "plane" - that's plane. That is basically the entire process of LLMs, large language models like ChatGPT. ChatGPT can probably completely annihilate the turing test at this point. It can hold conversations at a higher intellectual capacity than most humans, but of course, it still doesn't have any consciousness. It's just a program semantically parsing a gigantic set of data, speaking language coherently purely by probabilistic heuristic analysis. Brains are, at the end of the day, nothing more than computers. Consciousness is simply a metaphysical space where the most surface level calculations of that computer, cognition, are experienced, and given a metaphysical qualia like "good" or "painful" or "red".
    2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. @babydayday  You're right of course, the emotions are not triggered directly by the outside stimulus, they're triggered by the semantic parsing of the outside stimulus. Obviously, this process is incredibly fascinating and barely understood at all, but it's still not done by "consciousness". Effectively, semantic parsing is like an automated, subconscious heuristic memory analysis. When I ask "What is a chair?", you will be incapable of providing a definition that includes all chairs and excludes all non-chairs. That's because "chair" is not a physical thing, it's a mental abstraction of physical things. So how DO we recognize chairs? We have many heuristics to go by, such as: • can I sit on it? • does it have legs? • does it have back support? etc, and if we check enough of these boxes, then that thing is a chair. But once again, this heuristic analysis, which happens instantaneously on a subconscious level, is not done by "consciousness", it is done by the regions of the brain responsible for language processing. In fact, it doesn't even appear as a mental artifact in your consciousness - because it's literally subconscious. It's not the stage, it's the guy writing the script before it becomes part of the performance you're seeing. And just because there exist higher concepts like "She doesn't find me attractive" doesn't mean they're any less physical than very simple ones like "chair", because as you can see, even something as simple as "chair" is incredibly complex on a neurological level. To your cognitive thinking, the difference in complexity is huge, but it's still just a bunch of neural pathways, it's categorically the same.
    1
  591. 1
  592.  @babydayday  Well this is an excursion into an entirely different topic, which is genetics. I'm not an expert by any means but I know a little, so I'll be much more vague. Your DNA is huge. Only a part of it is actually used for proteinsynthesis, the rest is just kind of dead code. The physical expression of your genes can happen in one of two ways: either different sections of the code are activated (Epigenetics) or part of the active code is changed, for example by mutation caused by radioactive exposure. So yes, our DNA is susceptible to change throughout or lives, though that change ranges from completely unintentional to semi-intentional. So for example, if you spend the rest of your life hiking in the Himalayas, your body will likely rewrite your genetics for you to be able to burn oxygen more efficiently. That's an epigenetic change. You can kind of call that intentional, because your body is doing it to adapt to external circumstances. The development of intelligence is likely a complex mix of epigenetic and evolutionary processes. So the reason we became more intelligent than apes is because the stupidest apes died and the smartest ones survived and then fucked. Additionally, some apes may have done something that improved the genetic aspect of their intelligence. It would make a lot of sense to me if you have kept using the terms "consciousness" and "subconscious" as synonymous. As you (and me too) already suspected, our disagreement was likely only definitional, not substantial😄 I actually suspect that ALL misunderstandings are actually of such nature, but that's another huge topic entirely
    1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1