Comments by "VaronPlateando" (@VaronPlateando) on "PsycHacks" channel.

  1. because naturally it isn't 'nice' or beautiful, bluntly put. there isn't common interest but merely correspondance in trade-off outcomes. romantic idealism implies slipping into self-harming aberration. best to occur is probably mutually appreciated | appreciable transactionality, with tactics | tools out of sight (covert game). but the worth of squeezing juice has been disputed for some whiles now.
    52
  2. recalling scent of those days in spring may evoke kinda phantom pain, at times.
    26
  3. and even politeness is a giveaway, actually. but one practices it for one's own sake, in a way.
    26
  4.  @samroche5140  or rather forget them (xx.s) - as they won't learn either. or just maybe try to use and attach differently. for a time being.
    17
  5. @lawsonhannah ... no, I wouldn't think so. she won't become loyal, sincere, rational, honorable or coherent following afore. actually, she'll be more fickle, nagging, obnoxious in other sense, and unreliable on following up on her said past (all fully feminine traits, incl. the emotionalism included, most probably).
    17
  6. but better to not give a phq. anyways.
    16
  7.  @Well-Put they ARE holes, in another sense.
    11
  8. happy continuation to all of you, man !!
    9
  9.  @squarecracker  that approach won't get you anywhere actually worthwhile exploring, I'd guess. respect yourself and stop selling short. there is always the option to avoid | ignore | reject the abundance of incarnates of detriment.
    8
  10.  @DigitalHierophant  well... why ´no judgement' ?! if findings can be made sense of in certain way that one sees fit (as above, agreed) then there's no reason to self-censor that just because an xx were uncovered for what she really is, in view of her acting-like. of course, to dwell on such, self-righteously, were pathetic and waste of attention. but for calling out alike - it's utmostest time, rather.
    8
  11. that's right and also huMAN frequently emphasized upon the issue of gents having, and adhering to, relevant standards in view of xx.s to vet, not unlike those for friendships, too.
    8
  12. well… taking them seriously implies to not take them more closely than at min. arms‘ length at all. and ‚love‘ is delusional void, positively put.
    7
  13. total indifference, as most benevolent take on it (which isn't available at all times). no f.o.m.o. ever, no m.e.a.t. being wasted. I always know: briffault's law, hypergamy, monkeybranching, pervasive malign gyn.fasc metastases in 'mind' - in 98.5% likelyhood. just noisy voids.
    7
  14. well… those are merely becoming hard to take then. or just forget about. they’ll be gone rather sooner than later anyway. alright, no loss being registered incurring.
    6
  15.  @EtherealEmber Committing to, and even being complicit in xx.ism costs xx.s' very lives (at large, individually, and per cohorts). your post reads like indeed you understood this, for the better of you and your family. may you enjoy happy continuation.
    6
  16. well… even the idea of wanting to meet any ‘right one’ gets stale at a point. as realistically there isn’t. just tradeoffs, in ways whatever - ‘no xx’ is a solution, either.
    6
  17.  @erindeerhart5538  well... watching probably houndreds of clips as cited by gents in the sphere, plus reading on evo.psych quite a bit, had me 'healing' from romantically positive anticipation | assumptions | associationes quasi pervasively. I couldn't care any least bit less about their issues | concerns, that is. unfortunately, came rather late in life, but at least thus, anyway...
    5
  18. 'true love ' vs romantic consumption | attachment, so to say. see also thich nhat hanh on that.
    5
  19. as rational male I contemplate on cost vs benefit ratios - which in 98.5%+ of xx.ine cases would eliminate any commitment tendencies, if not all else anyway, too. physical seggs seems utterly overrated in bigger picture - thus xx.s don’t have anything to ‚offer‘ game-wise. ENOUGH already.
    5
  20.  @tspice11 that was dumb. top 5% is always relative to total crowd, i.e. even now there's another (special) top 5% of general top 5%. besides, what would one achieve if striving for afore ?! temporal interest of an opportunistically attaching monkey who'd go for the nxt branch once that comes in sight ?!? or 'win the love of a h.q. wœmæn' maybe ?! right, that's hilariously pathetic.
    5
  21. well... all major points made above do sound as straightforward as having me sincerily wondering whether and how to appreciate intellectually, or take serious otherwise, anyone who didn't get them in the original talk already.
    4
  22.  @adansuaste6232  well, your esteemed opinion is only one of two main ingredients factoring into the dish. if the other one zeroes or is even negative, conservative wishful thinking gets you exactly as far as woke such. and div by zero will get you a mess either. prior to having earned trust, maybe, current wester(ised) xx.s shouldn’t be viewed with any positive preassumption | anticipation at all. for gents, that would always entail over-paying.
    4
  23. great cathalysis effect.
    4
  24. it's more likely to be a quasi-permanent state, latently at least, recognising | understanding evo.psych nature of xx.s...
    4
  25. well… adequate ‘handling’ may imply dungeon routines until cooling off, eventually. if that is what they long for… (but remember ‘50 shades of grey’ reception).
    4
  26. the pathetic thing is: they're fully obedient to the corporate clockworks they're (replacably redundant) sprockets | wheels of, as lomg as. fine. but that costs their lives other (i.e. rel.ship-) wise. if they can't | won't factor in in to such ones collaboratively family-wise, there's no point (for gents) in granting them any. absolutely no point, btw.
    4
  27. those generations won't come to be.
    4
  28. depending on how lucky they (truly) are.
    4
  29.  @jeanr8359 yes, I guess that's correct. and xx.s better forget about 'friendzones'. losing them once was written off once and gotten over with then, them ceasing to exist, consequently.
    4
  30. I'm not a believer with regard of xx.s having 'hearts' to protect. that's a nothingburger derivate. be they as 'cute' as ever - any granting of ill-founded trust (i.e. before earned) will be an in-wastement.
    4
  31. well... sometimes it did dawn on me in past encounters that I'd possibly come to 'blow' things via certain nxt move - but I gave it a phq. xx.s can't | won't ever again help selves not to come out as chunks of redflag, actually. and the probability of relative mis-fit is at 98.5%+ I guess. beyond, in looking at how rare a man I am (mirroring xx.s delusion calculator-wise...) I'm defo not into selling myself short to ignoramuses (better sad | safe than sorry)... may xx.s be lead by their tingles straight into wolves' fangs. alright.
    4
  32.  @BOSSDONMAN well... xx.s may have all that on their own and alone, basically. with no gents' finger being lifted nor m.e.a.t. being 'in-wasted' to them as mere instances of adversity...
    4
  33.  @TV-oc4ml  well… if your eyes | mind come to hurt in registering a couple of things, that’s because you apparently never really used them before (yeah, it’s a paraphrase). or go on pleasing yourself in trolling around with emptily redundant 6.5-word sentences. EOC
    4
  34. … these attitudes are solipsisticaöly narcissistically deluded, in all inherently xx.ine toxicity, of course, just to point out. no gent does actually need all that in his life. let go of f.o.m.o., gents. refrain from even ideating ‚in-wasting‘ (y)our m.e.a.t. to ‚beauty-foolish‘ walking detriment. life is | will have been too short.
    4
  35. They would want, but in actualities, most arms and hearts, remain empty (not to mention procreational facilities), and they’ll have potentially decades to vegetate through disintegration, perceivedly, whatever (or along with) the frantic fakeups. Alright then. Be they going and gone, or leftover.
    4
  36. method-acting :-D - professionally done.
    3
  37. well… to know does not suffice to care. as for gents knowing abiut | understanding xx.ine nature, it rather suffices for turning impossible to ‘love’ any in formerly known ‘romantic’ ways, for tge cognitive dissonance implicated therein. and the doc here is a source for lots of insights and aha-moments.
    3
  38. the 'zero diet take' is always an option, for everyone. and even regardless of the other sides' musings. no self-respecting gent owes any xx.s rel.shit commitment or even only free attention (aka simping), to just not start with.
    3
  39.  @jordanpenner6970  well... I'd see (esp. deistic) religions as memeplexes, and quasi condensates of conventional assumptions | frameworks, primarily. if such is given precedence, the other aspects (esp. 1st and 3rd too, in some way) will be compromised | impeded, utmost probably.
    3
  40. well… agreeing with threadstarter, I‘d like to note that romantic rel.ships are inherently always ridiculous rather than (to be taken) serious, for anyone else than those who commit (in) them.
    3
  41. to merely turn away thereof in explicit indifference seems an act of utmost benevolence in oursuit of peaceful coexistence. especially for gents in well maintained | exercised shape.
    3
  42. both 'virtual intro' as well as real-live appeoaches (worst: simping, an sort of) need to be let gone of, substituted by unconditional indifference | ignorance. no f.o.m.o. to hold, no gents' m.e.a.t. to be 'in-wasted' to current xx.s, other than transactionally. any xx.s as such need be given 'you2' non-treatment as all aren't reluctant to benefit from current gyn.fasc mess if opportunity arises.
    3
  43. well… something like: don’t count on ‘love’ as a universal concept, in particular not if xx.s were concerned
    3
  44. honesty | openness with xx.s seem counter-effective, esp. with regard to their incoherent emotionalism. no win involved, in terms of above. but xx.s need to be 'handled' | or steered, benevolently preferably, and to maintain a conciousness clean implies a walk on knives' blades all too often.
    3
  45. well… it sounds a good way first. but beyound, if one indeed approaches with rejection, or maybe even without but in diverging again later, there‘s always the poisoning of wells problematic. and one may lose a circle instead of an unsuitable mate only.
    3
  46. 7:45 … ‚the burden of proof [for xx.s] is about demonstrating the [positive] exception.‘ well… that puts it very soundly. severily appreciated, indeed.
    3
  47. I don’t envy you for such kin and the cognitive dissonance to expect, relatedly. Luckily, my nxt relatives besides parents are my younger brother and my son. Anyone else beyond (cousins, aunts, niece) live as latently remote as in practically virtual co-existence.
    3
  48.  @tspice11  well, you may go for the tinder stats for example. and consider that 95% of xx.s chase same 5% of gents. if more gents happen to qualify to what were the target now, then those xx.s chase narcissistically a new selection, just for their scarcity of ‚better deal‘ - not for concrete actual qualities. that‘s what I pointed to with progression of 5% (and with whatever the single digit, or maybe even 10% - it won’t change the principle). what you conceptually failed to get is that xx.ine validation is a moving target that gents shouldn’t waste selves into chasing. the remedy is in starving xx.s of gent‘s m.e.a.t. and not in playing into xx.ine delusions | entitlement.
    3
  49. well... is it really xx.s' pride to be overcome | let gone of ?! because ones could somewhat understandably be prood on selves in having actually achieved something (though that may get overboard in less enjoyable cases), too. just being born xx.s by incident isn't any achievement already, though, and managing lives as adults (once grown into) wouldn't necessarily afford that either... As see it, xx.s are harming selves | each other and else most due to (narcissist) arrogance - and qstn. seems to be, how devastating hits | singularities have to hit to entail catharsis, relatedly. it's primarily stone-cold analytical interest driving my qstn. - not care or empathy, btw.
    3
  50. and… the thing really is as suggested (addressing xx.s): refrain from all disrespect. usually, that doesn’t imply any need to bend over backwards in cognitive dissonance (of pretending, even).
    3