The default human experience is continual self-improvement

No one is born good at anything. We all have to learn to walk, talk, run, feed ourselves, etc.
Throughout life humans learn new things, gain new skills, try new experiences.
The idea that self-improvement is anything other than the default of human life is delusional and wrong.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I agree with the sentiment, but genetics do play a big factor. Self-improvement is always good though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Cope. They play a factor, but unless you are totally fricked then you can definitely self improve. Maybe not to that level, but you will be close

      Bruh this is l so grey pulling like I get it but I kinda don't wanna

      Frick off brown

      Deliberate practice predicts 18% of the variance in performance between untrained athletes. Deliberate practice predicts 1% of the variance in performance between elite athletes (https://artscimedia.case.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2016/09/14214856/Macnamara-Moreau-Hambrick-2016.pdf).

      Blank-Slate Liberalism is out of touch with nature. Telling an average guy he could become Chad by working out is the same as telling an average guy he could become Stacy by taking hormones. There is a material essence to being, we are not wills in the void who can manifest as whatever they please.

      I have no issue with people working hard and trying to become the best they can be - but the fact that men are driven to such extremes is a manifestation of the sexual marketplace having become competitive to a degree where a lot of men are left behind. And this is largely due to the standards of women having risen as the social status of women as risen in society. To pretend that the solution to this is the optimisation of the individual potential is simply out of touch with reality. Improve yourself as much as you will, but recognise that it's not going to save you, your children or your nation, since what actually matters is that the entire developed world is facing demographic collapse. And in order to address this issue it is not enough that a handful of Chads get laid and have children. The average man needs to get laid and have children. And the average man is not going to turn himself into an above average man without simply raising the average and being in the same spot as before.

      Frick off gpt

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Pro-tip: GPT is more likely to agree with you than with me, because your ideology is the ideology of the system.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Cope
        Says the butthole with the Best genes

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bruh this is l so grey pulling like I get it but I kinda don't wanna

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Deliberate practice predicts 18% of the variance in performance between untrained athletes. Deliberate practice predicts 1% of the variance in performance between elite athletes (https://artscimedia.case.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2016/09/14214856/Macnamara-Moreau-Hambrick-2016.pdf).

    Blank-Slate Liberalism is out of touch with nature. Telling an average guy he could become Chad by working out is the same as telling an average guy he could become Stacy by taking hormones. There is a material essence to being, we are not wills in the void who can manifest as whatever they please.

    I have no issue with people working hard and trying to become the best they can be - but the fact that men are driven to such extremes is a manifestation of the sexual marketplace having become competitive to a degree where a lot of men are left behind. And this is largely due to the standards of women having risen as the social status of women as risen in society. To pretend that the solution to this is the optimisation of the individual potential is simply out of touch with reality. Improve yourself as much as you will, but recognise that it's not going to save you, your children or your nation, since what actually matters is that the entire developed world is facing demographic collapse. And in order to address this issue it is not enough that a handful of Chads get laid and have children. The average man needs to get laid and have children. And the average man is not going to turn himself into an above average man without simply raising the average and being in the same spot as before.

    • 1 month ago
      Stormy

      hang on. lets stop pretending that men don't have equally high standards as well

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Some Chads might have high standards but the average man does not. And the below average man most certainly does not because he simply can't afford it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          And yet less than 5% of 26 year old men are virgins.
          Golly! It seems that everyone but you is fricking!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Im 24 and im a virgin, whats the problem

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You're not good looking, and your parents aren't rich.
              Not trying to insult; I'm the same way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a virgin but I have been fricking in any meaningful sense. A 26 year old who isn't a virgin because they had a relationship for a few months in his entire life doesn't mean there isn't a problem happening with society.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Men's standards:
        >don't be fat (optional)

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          aka you have to look like a supermodel and also be pure.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Supermodel
            Not rrally
            >Pure
            Would YOU be happy having the town Bisycle as a wife?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A lot of men are being left out? Idk, in my experience people are getting laid as frick

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And yet less than 5% of 26 year old men are virgins.
        Golly! It seems that everyone but you is fricking!

        Is that so?

        >In the Nordic countries, generous welfare frees more women to break out of, or avoid, burdensome bonds (Tragardh, 1997). Similar to the way in which early hominin females could make do without paternal care, modern women can raise children on their own. Buss (2016) wrote that with long maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and other forms of support, Nordic taxpayers effectively provide women with what partners otherwise would. In Norway, social democratic governance on average transfers $1.2 million more to each woman over a lifetime than she pays in tax. The average man pays more in tax than he receives in benefits (Statistics Norway, 2022d; national oil revenue also counted as tax).

        Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Hakonsen and Krekling, 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women's recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Ostby, 2014) which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40 - those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almas et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Maends Sundhed, 2017). American men also face stronger selection pressures. Over the past two decades, past-year sexual inactivity among young men rose from 19% to 31%, a trend that disproportionally affects those with low income (Ueda et al., 2020). Another survey indicated that from 2008 to 2018, virginity among American men under age 30 rose from around 8% to 27% (Ingraham, 2019).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          We really do need artificial wombs
          Realistically that's the only way for most men to experience fatherhood

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > Another survey indicated that from 2008 to 2018, virginity among American men under age 30 rose from around 8% to 27%
          False. It reported those men had not had sex recently.
          Get it right

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            First of all, the source I'm quoting is a peer reviewed paper - not my words. But while you are correct that the data source did not measure 'virginity' - it measured a proxy for virginity. To quote the author, Christopher Ingraham himself:

            >Final datapoint: the share of young men reporting no female sex partners since they turned 18 -- a rough a proxy for virginity -- more than tripled since 2008. I say rough proxy bc 1) some had sex in their teens and 2) some exclusively have male partners.

            https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1111629177575350279

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You are conflating a lot of different things.
          The MARRIAGE RATE of women in Nordic nations is *higher* than in more traditional/Catholic Mexico, Italy, and Spain (as well as several South American nations).
          Likewise Sweden has a higher Total Fertility Rate than *that majority* of nations with WEAKER social safety nets, MORE traditional roles, and so on such as Portugal, Belize, and so on.
          FFS, Sweden has a higher TFR than the USA!
          The First Demographic Transition began well BEFORE the rise of welfare states, you ignoramus

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The MARRIAGE RATE of women in Nordic nations is *higher* than in more traditional/Catholic Mexico, Italy, and Spain (as well as several South American nations).

            Uh huh

            >In 1974, the typical Norwegian woman was 23 years old when she married. In 2020, she was 34 (Statistics Norway, 2015, 2022a) although her first birth was at 30 (Statistics Norway, 2022b). Over this period, her fertility rate fell from 2.13 to 1.48 (Statistics Norway, 2022e). Restricting population growth which during antiquity was achieved through infanticide, and later through the EMP is now achieved too effectively through birth control, confluent love, and the imposition of monogamy on women whose mate preferences disincentive them from pair-bonding with a large proportion of the available men.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Glad you agree, since the statistics are clear.
              Again, just because marriage rates & fertility is down in Scandinavia doesn't mean they aren't EVEN LOWER in nations with weaker social programs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The point is not that social programs are the entire reason why we're in this mess. The point is that in Nordic countries - DESPITE - having all these social programs, women are still foregoing marriage and childbirth. And the reason they're doing that is because their standards are through the roof and they're dismissing a sizeable part of the male population as viable partners.

                This argument is not meant to prove that if you got rid of welfare, things would suddenly be fixed. Education and job opportunities for women in modern liberal societies are much more of a factor. The argument is to disprove this dumb, liberal argument that the reason women aren't marrying and having children is because the economic conditions are so bad and children are expensive.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >women are still foregoing marriage and childbirth
                but marrying MORE and having MORE KIDS than nations with poor social nets.
                Remember?
                > the reason they're doing that is because their standards are through the roof and they're dismissing a sizeable part of the male population as viable partners
                And yet 80% of men in OECD nations still marry.
                And yet less than 2% of men die virgins.
                And the numbers for never-married women and virgin women are similar.
                Golly! It is almost as if the First Demographic Transition that started in the 1890's affects everyone!
                >This argument is not meant to prove that if you got rid of welfare, things would suddenly be fixed
                Of course not, even you aren't THAT moronic.
                >Education and job opportunities for women in modern liberal societies are much more of a factor
                And yet fertility rates have dropped in nations with LESS educational opportunities and LESS job opportunities fow women, too!
                Again - the First Demographic Transition started well before any of the shit you are whining about and is ongoing in nations outside your persona bugbears.
                >The argument is to disprove this dumb, liberal argument that the reason women aren't marrying and having children is because the economic conditions are so bad and children are expensive
                NO ONE FRICKING SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS ITT.
                Here is a protip: the discussions in your head are ONLY in your head.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but marrying MORE and having MORE KIDS than nations with poor social nets.
                They are still way below replacement fertility, they are marrying ever older and having ever fewer children. The decline is all the same. And this comes in tandem with a unique marginalisation of low status men, since the children they are having is through recycling of high status men, i.e. marrying a Chad, who then ends up getting divorced - either because he himself gets tired of his wife and cheats or because the woman thinks she could do better, and that Chad marries again.

                This is expressed in

                [...]
                Is that so?

                >In the Nordic countries, generous welfare frees more women to break out of, or avoid, burdensome bonds (Tragardh, 1997). Similar to the way in which early hominin females could make do without paternal care, modern women can raise children on their own. Buss (2016) wrote that with long maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and other forms of support, Nordic taxpayers effectively provide women with what partners otherwise would. In Norway, social democratic governance on average transfers $1.2 million more to each woman over a lifetime than she pays in tax. The average man pays more in tax than he receives in benefits (Statistics Norway, 2022d; national oil revenue also counted as tax).

                Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Hakonsen and Krekling, 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women's recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Ostby, 2014) which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40 - those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almas et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Maends Sundhed, 2017). American men also face stronger selection pressures. Over the past two decades, past-year sexual inactivity among young men rose from 19% to 31%, a trend that disproportionally affects those with low income (Ueda et al., 2020). Another survey indicated that from 2008 to 2018, virginity among American men under age 30 rose from around 8% to 27% (Ingraham, 2019).

                :

                >Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Hakonsen and Krekling, 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women's recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Ostby, 2014) which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40 - those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almas et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Maends Sundhed, 2017).

                The author of the study argues that the reason why there is fertility at all is 'because' of polygyny and he argues in favour of legalising it in order to save western nations, since he believes women would be more content with becoming second or third wife of a high status man than marrying a low status man.

                What you describe is not a good thing but a manifestation of decline and the sexual marginalisation of low status men.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The decline is all the same
                Not even close to true.
                Regardless of wealth, education, social safety nets, etc., certain subcultures retain high fertility.
                Traditionalist Catholics, Traditionalist Mormons, and Orthodox israelites as well as Amish maintain high, even VERY high, TFRs.
                Indeed, in TradCath/TradMormon society the higher a woman's education and income the HIGHER her fertility.
                Contrariwise in India, Cambodia, and Chile where women are very poor and very uneducated and the social safety net is very scant TFR is *extremely* low.
                >And this comes in tandem with a unique marginalisation of low status men, since the children they are having is through recycling of high status men, i.e. marrying a Chad, who then ends up getting divorce
                No evidence supports this. At all. In OECD nations highly promiscuous men are less likely to reproduce.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Regardless of wealth, education, social safety nets, etc., certain subcultures retain high fertility.
                Because of their sectarian nature and their cultural subordination of women.

                And if you actually consider yourself a traditionalist, rather than a larper who is actually a crypto-feminist, you should have no issue with reducing women to their natural place as the sexus sequior, being home makers and mothers first rather than academics and employees.

                You will find no enemies in low status men to your theocracy. On the contrary:

                >While polygyny appears to have been adaptive and widely practiced among early hominins and many homosexual agriculturalists (Figure 3), this pair-bonding regime was somewhat demonized in the modern West - and not without reason. Nineteenth-century Americans compared polygyny to slavery, terming them "the twin relics of barbarism" (Gordon, 1995). In the pre-modern environment, polygyny had commoditized women, motivated violence, instability, and war, and driven a high-testosterone zero-sum mindset that reduced in-group cooperation and trust (Ember et al., 2007; Witte, 2015; Raffield et al., 2017a,b; Henrich, 2020). Today, sub-Saharan polygyny has negative externalities such as stunted economic growth and unsustainably high fertility (Fenske, 2015). Tertilt (2005) estimated that ending polygyny could increase African per-capita output by 170% and decrease fertility by 40%. The German economist is supported by historical evidence. Church MFPs empowered females, underpinned economic growth, reduced Western fertility, and offered more mating opportunities for low-status men. Ending polygyny was part of what made the modern world emerge (Christakis, 2019; Henrich, 2020).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >subordination of women
                translation - you don't even KNOW any Mormons or Catholics.
                >no issue with reducing women to their natural place
                That isn't a "reduction" you Modernist Materialist mong
                >being home makers and mothers first rather than academics and employees
                As of 2023 per both the GSS and Census 35% of all married women with children 18 or younger at home are Stay At Home Mothers, a rate as high as 1972 when the Brady Bunch was still new.
                This increase from a low of 18% in 1999 is occurring in all income quintiles, meaning it is just as common in the poorest, the richest, and the middle-class.
                And per the last Pew Research study among unmarried men and women aged 18-24 that report being sexless for the last 12+ months 83% of them replied to a poll stating that they felt that 'sex outside of marriage is wrong' as the main reason they are sexless.
                Combine these things with the increase in age of men and women losing virginity as well as the decrease in lifetime sexual partners in the same timeframe I'd say two things:
                1) The age of promiscuity from the Sexual Revolution is dying with the Boomers and that many of the complaints of sexlessness among young men is the result of a decrease in female promiscuity and immorality, and
                2) the combination of the nascent Second Demographic Transition and Demographic Winter will nail these changes down for at least a century and the last 60 yers will be viewed with the horror they deserve.
                Shorter - I *am* a Trad and me and my people won the war back about 1980-1985.
                We are currently transitioning from the Sexual Revolution to the Second Age of Religion.
                I think a lot of young men are suffering because they cannot compete with the last, ebbing wave of the highly promiscuous *and* they are completely outside of the morality culture of the fertile Trads.
                Many of them, like Anti-Improover gay, are screaming about the death of the Sexual Revolution as a bad thing because the are Modernist Materialists

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I see no evidence for what you claim at scale. I quote again from this recent paper (2023):

                >Sex ratio theory suggests why mating practices have become dysfunctional in the West and other regions. Spain, Japan, and over 20 other nations are on course to have their populations halved by 2100, dramatically aging their citizenry. Experts and opinion makers warn that a demographic collapse cannot be absorbed by our current social order; Elon Musk proclaims this to be "the biggest threat to human civilization." Statistics from the Nordic countries - the world's most gender-equal region - indicate that subjective perceptions of the sex ratio in modern environments drive singledom and low reproduction. Scandinavia has the world's highest occurrence of one-person households: 43 - 46%. In the past decade, the Norwegian fertility rate dropped from 2.0 to 1.5. Sex ratio studies suggest that women's perception of there being few acceptable partners activates a polygynous mindset, which in prosperous, monogamous societies drives promiscuity to the detriment of pair-bonding.

                Tiny religious minorities are not representative of mass society. White people are dying across the globe. It doesn't help the Germans, the French, the English, the Swedes, the Italians or Spaniards - or the Japanese and Koreans for that matter - that there will still be Amish people in hundred years, if a bunch of Indian men haven't decided to go on a raid and murder them and enslave their women.

                >translation - you don't even KNOW any Mormons or Catholics.
                Subordination does not necessarily imply "lock in the kitchen". It means that culturally, the man is above the woman by virtue of being a man. They are not equal and they don't compete in the same dominance hierarchy. Also, they practice forced monogamy and are intolerant of promiscuity, pre- and extra-marital sex, i.e. if a man or a woman wants to have sex and be accepted by their group, he has to marry and leave the dating pool. And since their women need to marry a godly man if they wish to be accepted by their community, this means settling for the men that are left - also due to their group imposing the expectation of marriage and motherhood on them, which means that they will find themselves forced to settle and making due with the men that are left.

                In mass society this is not the case. The group can exert pressure on their women through the threat of exclusion, severing the bonds to their loved ones. This is why I don't believe what you describe to be a global trend. It only works for sectarian communities which engulf entire families.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You are correct, I know zero devout people, have negative knowledge about their theology, and have no understanding of how societal norms operate
                FTFY
                You are a Modernist Materialist, you lack the mental framework to comprehend how those subcultures actually work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think I have provided you with a pretty good argument why I think the phenomena you describe wouldn't persist if the sect became mass society and the fact that you find yourself unable to come up with anything to even remotely challenge me besides some kind of esoteric knowledge into these groups you claim to possess - but are unable to articulate - proves my point.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I said 'nuh-uh" and you laughed
                FTFY
                These sub-cultures persisted in their behavior when the entirety of society was actively opposed to their ideals. They even grew and flourished in the face of active, direct attacks from a united academe/media/culture.
                Your reply was the unsupported opinion that somehow when the mores of the subcultures become the cultural norm that women will feel less pressure to confirm than they do now.
                My reply is a hearty guffaw at your stupidity.
                In a world of OnlyFans, porn, etc. these young women persist in modesty, virginity, loyalty, etc. while 99% of the world tells them to leave their tiny community and join broader society.
                When broader society as a whole will AS A WHOLE condemn them, meaning that if they are driven from their family *there is nowhere to go* where they will not also be ostracized these bond will be tighter.
                You somehow think "If everyone hates prostitutes there will be more prostitute Mormons than there are now when everyone loves prostitutes" makes sense.
                This is because you are a fool.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >These sub-cultures persisted in their behavior when the entirety of society was actively opposed to their ideals. They even grew and flourished in the face of active, direct attacks from a united academe/media/culture.
                Yes, but is that unusual? Sects have always existed.

                >Your reply was the unsupported opinion that somehow when the mores of the subcultures become the cultural norm that women will feel less pressure to confirm than they do now.
                See what I said in

                >this homosexual has a theory that open marriages is the future
                No, he thinks we are doomed and he says polygyny (i.e. Chads having multiple wives), might at least buy us some time until artificial wombs become a thing.

                >So you honestly think that when devout religiosity is the OVERHELMING NORM women will ignore it?
                We somehow got from being devoutly religious to where we are now.

                I can only repeat: you overrate a genetic predisposition for fertility and religiousness and you underestimate the cultural factors involved and the genetic residues of a polygynous past. Women are not innately moral. There is no such thing as a traditional woman or a traditional wife. There are only traditional societies. And at the moment the only traditional societies are sectarian communities which engulf entire families and are thus capable of exerting pressure on their women to enforce monogamy on them, which mass society can't. But this idea that mass society is going to die and you'll be only left with Amish people and Mormons is obviously a pipe dream. If anything you're going to see a permeation between the two, and through that, the sect will find itself liberalised, becoming mass society - since this is what women 'want'.

                . Polygynous instincts have not been sufficiently selected against. If the sect is no longer sectarian but becomes mass society, women will long for the the same rights - and because they are apparent to them rather than something completely unheard of, like in a medieval past, the decline will happen much faster.

                >When broader society as a whole will AS A WHOLE condemn them, meaning that if they are driven from their family *there is nowhere to go* where they will not also be ostracized these bond will be tighter.
                Broader society is dying. There will be less of broad society while their societies are flourishing, so there will be more intermixture. And the remnants of mass society will poison the well.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >nuh-uh, only Chad will breed
                Chad is a myth
                The wiener carousel is a myth
                You simply fear women

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Uh huh

                >Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Hakonsen and Krekling, 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women's recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Ostby, 2014) which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40 - those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almas et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Maends Sundhed, 2017). American men also face stronger selection pressures. Over the past two decades, past-year sexual inactivity among young men rose from 19% to 31%, a trend that disproportionally affects those with low income (Ueda et al., 2020). Another survey indicated that from 2008 to 2018, virginity among American men under age 30 rose from around 8% to 27% (Ingraham, 2019).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Me

                >If my subculture survived 70 years of ebing a besieged minority without losing its values then I am confident it will also survive being the majority
                Your moronic ass

                >uuhh guise i am totally trad but we must allow women to go to university and self-actualize and all that modernist stuff that i claim to be totally against

                Yes.

                You're a larping cuckold and crypto-feminist who is clearly out of touch with any school of traditional thought if you don't believe in the natural place of womankind as the second sex.

                >duuuuuuuuuuur dat means you want duuuuuuh wimminz to go to skool, huuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ebing a besieged minority
                You're not a besieged minority. Most people don't care about you. And if you 'were' a besieged minority, it would only raise your in-group cohesion, so that would be in your interest.

                Not being a besieged minority, or even worse: becoming a majority - that is what you should worry about.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Further, you make the core Materialist error of thinking people only act the way they do because of outside social pressure/etc.
                The reason these subcultures thrive is because *they honestly believe the tenets to be true*.
                Catholics do not die for their faith to get chicks, they do it because they honestly, legitimately truly believe

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Further, you make the core Materialist error of thinking people only act the way they do because of outside social pressure/etc.
                >The reason these subcultures thrive is because *they honestly believe the tenets to be true*.
                Men are idealists. Women are materialists by nature.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The brain rot of Modernism and Materialism on display

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're only showing that you're a crypto-feminist who is completely out of touch with traditional ideas of what women are like.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >the actual Trad with an actual wife has no idea what Trads think of women. I, a KHHV incel that never had a date, am much more knowledgeable about Trad concepts of women.
                lol
                lmao, even

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes.

                You're a larping cuckold and crypto-feminist who is clearly out of touch with any school of traditional thought if you don't believe in the natural place of womankind as the second sex.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >uuhh guise i am totally trad but we must allow women to go to university and self-actualize and all that modernist stuff that i claim to be totally against

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In Trad cultures women getting an education has no impact on feetility

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Iran is suffering with low birthrates among their young, female, educated urbanites. I guess they're just not trad enough. And what you ultimately have to confront is the reality that the world we live in today emerged from societies that were just as traditional - if not much more so - than the society you claim to represent. Yet they could not withstand the lures of liberalism.

                Your entire argument is built upon the idea that the genetic predisposition for religiosity and fertility among minority sects is going to somehow save them from succumbing to the same issues. I posited against that even in those groups, there will be polygynous residues, since they were only dormant, culturally suppressed, and haven't been selected against.

                And that is an argument you cannot possibly refute. It is the test of time that will tell who is right.

                Also, a more important argument is: it does not solve the problem of today. It does not solve the problem of European populations dying, it does not solve the problem of East Asian populations dying. And before it gets to a point where these minorities you talk about grow to a point where they rival thing, the dying pains of these mass societies might have already had all kinds of detrimental side effects. In that regard, just like Dutton, you are peddling a tranquillisation agent for boomers, telling them of some eschatological end of history taste where everyone will be godly, so they don't need to worry about the now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I guess they're just not trad enough
                Correct.
                The irreligious urbanite young women are not religious.
                Their own internal analysis proves that a large percentage of Iranian men and women are NOT devout, they are simply in a Theocracy.
                >he reality that the world we live in today emerged from societies that were just as traditional - if not much more so - than the society you claim to represent. Yet they could not withstand the lures of liberalism.
                So?
                As pointed out

                Imagine being this stone ignorant of history and embracing the Liberal Myth of Progress.
                History is full of short periods of irreligious and debased morals followed by long stable periods.
                The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all discussed this. The Old Testament is 70% about this.
                The multiple Great Awakenings.
                Etc.
                Stating
                >sure it is bad now but there will be a longer period of traditional culture coming
                is just history

                this is a repeating historical cycle that has been well-documented for literally thousands of years.
                3-5 generations of stable society lead to 1-3 generations of unstable promiscuity, over and over and over.
                >Your entire argument is built upon the idea that the genetic predisposition for religiosity
                My argument has nothing to do with the fricktarded notion that religion is genetic, you sub-80 IQ ape. Your Liberal Modernist Materialist bullshit about 'polygynous residues' and 'cultural suppression' keep proving you are too stupid and too Liberal to understand an actual ideology when presented with one.
                >And that is an argument you cannot possibly refute
                No one can refute moronation, correct.
                >It is the test of time that will tell who is right.
                Here's your problem-
                *I already won*. Demographic momentum is unstoppable. The year 2100+ for at least a Century will be overwhelmingly religious and traditional.
                I have also won on a personal level. I have 5 children, 4 already adults, that share my values and faith.
                >it does not solve the problem of today. It does not solve the problem of European populations dying, it does not solve the problem of East Asian populations dying
                You haven't been paying attention.
                I directly addressed this a long time ago.

                https://i.imgur.com/Cvb56ee.jpg

                >subordination of women
                translation - you don't even KNOW any Mormons or Catholics.
                >no issue with reducing women to their natural place
                That isn't a "reduction" you Modernist Materialist mong
                >being home makers and mothers first rather than academics and employees
                As of 2023 per both the GSS and Census 35% of all married women with children 18 or younger at home are Stay At Home Mothers, a rate as high as 1972 when the Brady Bunch was still new.
                This increase from a low of 18% in 1999 is occurring in all income quintiles, meaning it is just as common in the poorest, the richest, and the middle-class.
                And per the last Pew Research study among unmarried men and women aged 18-24 that report being sexless for the last 12+ months 83% of them replied to a poll stating that they felt that 'sex outside of marriage is wrong' as the main reason they are sexless.
                Combine these things with the increase in age of men and women losing virginity as well as the decrease in lifetime sexual partners in the same timeframe I'd say two things:
                1) The age of promiscuity from the Sexual Revolution is dying with the Boomers and that many of the complaints of sexlessness among young men is the result of a decrease in female promiscuity and immorality, and
                2) the combination of the nascent Second Demographic Transition and Demographic Winter will nail these changes down for at least a century and the last 60 yers will be viewed with the horror they deserve.
                Shorter - I *am* a Trad and me and my people won the war back about 1980-1985.
                We are currently transitioning from the Sexual Revolution to the Second Age of Religion.
                I think a lot of young men are suffering because they cannot compete with the last, ebbing wave of the highly promiscuous *and* they are completely outside of the morality culture of the fertile Trads.
                Many of them, like Anti-Improover gay, are screaming about the death of the Sexual Revolution as a bad thing because the are Modernist Materialists

                The battle for fertility was lost 45 years ago, fool. Demographic Winter IS HERE NOW and unstoppable. There is no way to avoid the coming mass disruption.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Your Liberal Modernist Materialist bullshit about 'polygynous residues' and 'cultural suppression' keep proving you are too stupid and too Liberal to understand an actual ideology when presented with one.
                So you are denying the influence of material reality, which we measure and literally use to predict outcomes. You're not an idealist, you're a solipsist.

                >The year 2100+ for at least a Century will be overwhelmingly religious and traditional.
                Again: that presupposes that the minority groups would succeed mass society rather than becoming integrated into it. Assuming mass society does not eradicate them as it dies, especially considering that this also affects China, India, Russia, etc.

                >I have also won on a personal level. I have 5 children, 4 already adults, that share my values and faith.
                So you are an old man whose intellectual career led him to debate for hours on an imageboard for incels. Yeah, you definitely seem like the winning type to me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If you don't agree with my goofy opinion based on a homosexual's theory you are denying reality!
                lol
                >The collapse on infertile cultures must destroy fertile cultures, I insist!
                lmao
                >You are OLD! That means I WIN!
                FFS, you are a laugh riot.
                BTW, that isn't what "solipsist" means.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >gathering data and building models which predict human behaviour
                >"bad", "materialism"

                >gathering data and building models which predict demographic growth
                >"good", "idealism"

                >The collapse on infertile cultures must destroy fertile cultures, I insist!
                Pro-tip: your "fertile cultures" are minorities within these infertile cultures.

                >You are OLD! That means I WIN!
                That's not what I'm saying, I'm pointing out the irony of calling yourself a winner.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Your Liberal Modernist Materialist bullshit about 'polygynous residues' and 'cultural suppression' keep proving you are too stupid and too Liberal to understand an actual ideology when presented with one.
                So you are denying the influence of material reality, which we measure and literally use to predict outcomes. You're not an idealist, you're a solipsist.

                >The year 2100+ for at least a Century will be overwhelmingly religious and traditional.
                Again: that presupposes that the minority groups would succeed mass society rather than becoming integrated into it. Assuming mass society does not eradicate them as it dies, especially considering that this also affects China, India, Russia, etc.

                >I have also won on a personal level. I have 5 children, 4 already adults, that share my values and faith.
                So you are an old man whose intellectual career led him to debate for hours on an imageboard for incels. Yeah, you definitely seem like the winning type to me.

                And I should add: the real irony is that your argument:

                >Demographic momentum is unstoppable.

                Rests on the same kinds of statistical methodology which I refer to, yet you exclude one, calling the predictions materialist ideology, but believe in the other.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You

                > And if you actually consider yourself a traditionalist, rather than a larper who is actually a crypto-feminist, you should have no issue with reducing women to their natural place as the sexus sequior, being home makers and mothers first rather than academics and employees
                Also you

                I think I have provided you with a pretty good argument why I think the phenomena you describe wouldn't persist if the sect became mass society and the fact that you find yourself unable to come up with anything to even remotely challenge me besides some kind of esoteric knowledge into these groups you claim to possess - but are unable to articulate - proves my point.

                >if all society wants that women will not do it
                Which is it?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're just not reading attentively.

                My point was as the sect becomes mass society, since mass society is dying while the sect is growing ever larger (too large for its own secluded properties), the two will permeate each others and residual ideas of mass society combined with the nature of women will hasten the process of liberalisation.
                We turned at one point from largely religious societies which condemned promiscuity, pre- and extra-marital sex, etc. into what we are now. And the same happened to societies which are even today still largely religious, e.g. many Muslim societies. But even those are struggling with these problems among their young and urban populations.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >just because the subculture has successfully resisted corruption from the dominant culture for literally centuries is meaningless- it HAS TO BE corrupted as the dominant culture dies off! It MUST!
                >why? Uhhhh, reasons?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because Europe was like that once too. And these sects remained subcultures for a reason: they bleed members into mass society.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine being this stone ignorant of history and embracing the Liberal Myth of Progress.
                History is full of short periods of irreligious and debased morals followed by long stable periods.
                The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all discussed this. The Old Testament is 70% about this.
                The multiple Great Awakenings.
                Etc.
                Stating
                >sure it is bad now but there will be a longer period of traditional culture coming
                is just history

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Imagine being this stone ignorant of history and embracing the Liberal Myth of Progress.
                I don't.

                I do however think that the liberal order corresponds with what women intuitively desire and what is in their own immediate, reproductive interests, which is why they are your ideological enemies.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Men don't need marriage or be a father to get laid. Just learn how to flirt

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See

            [...]
            Is that so?

            >In the Nordic countries, generous welfare frees more women to break out of, or avoid, burdensome bonds (Tragardh, 1997). Similar to the way in which early hominin females could make do without paternal care, modern women can raise children on their own. Buss (2016) wrote that with long maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and other forms of support, Nordic taxpayers effectively provide women with what partners otherwise would. In Norway, social democratic governance on average transfers $1.2 million more to each woman over a lifetime than she pays in tax. The average man pays more in tax than he receives in benefits (Statistics Norway, 2022d; national oil revenue also counted as tax).

            Nordic women being less dependent on male provisioning influences how their mate preferences play out. From 1985 to 2012, the number of Norwegian men who failed to reproduce by age 45 increased from 14% to 23% (Amundsen, 2014). Three times as many men as women suffer involuntary childlessness (Hakonsen and Krekling, 2017). Experts attribute this inequality to women's recycling of high-value mates (Jensen and Ostby, 2014) which can be viewed as a form of temporal polygyny. Norwegian men with high salaries have a 90% chance of being pair-bonded by age 40 - those with low salaries, a 40% chance (Almas et al., 2020). Danes experience a similar marginalization: 45% of low-skilled men live alone (Forum for Maends Sundhed, 2017). American men also face stronger selection pressures. Over the past two decades, past-year sexual inactivity among young men rose from 19% to 31%, a trend that disproportionally affects those with low income (Ueda et al., 2020). Another survey indicated that from 2008 to 2018, virginity among American men under age 30 rose from around 8% to 27% (Ingraham, 2019).

            and the correlation between economic status and singlehood. This idea that all these guys are willingly foregoing relationships and marriage because they'd rather be single is obviously delusional. Fact is that a growing portion of men finds itself sexually marginalised.

            >With today's enforced monogamy, more women are relegated to mate with low-status men, share higher-status men in temporal succession, or be single. Statistics show that women are increasingly unwilling to copulate or pair-bond with less attractive mates. Although women desire relationships, as they have gained equality, their standards have increased. Today's rising economic stratification motivates further discrimination of certain men. With improved gender equality, women sorted away the poorest men. Rising economic inequity makes women exclude those men who are just below average (Brooks et al., 2022). Being a high-value man in the modern environment is about more than financial capital. Women generally want men with high education and status, financial success, greater intelligence, a tall stature, independence, and self-confidence (Buss, 2016; DeSantis, 2021). Those unable to attract such a man may forego pair-bonding and reproduction to prioritize other sources of fulfillment, such as a rewarding career or financial independence (Sng and Ackerman, 2020).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Blank-Slate Liberalism is out of touch with nature
      Good thing no one but you mentioned it, huh?
      >demographic collapse
      In detail, what was your last date with a woman like?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Good thing no one but you mentioned it, huh?
        That is the underlying ideology of OP.

        The teleological form of self-improvement, the merchant mindset of "I put in x amount of effort to get y out of it" is very much liberal at its core and the idea that any goal is achievable to anyone, that the experience of the man in the image is replicable, regardless of the essential self, is very much blank-slate Liberalism. It's very much the basis of transgender ideology and it's also the same mindset which imports Africans to Europe, thinking they could become doctors and engineers if they try really hard, or were provided with the right 'rational' and 'economic' incentives to do so.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          > That is the underlying ideology of OP
          Wrong and stupid.
          Everyone is self-improving != everyone is a top 1% winner.
          And stop using the word teleological - you have no idea what it means

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don't speak in extremes - not only is it not guaranteed that you will become the top 1% of successful people (which nobody in this thread but you mentioned), but there is absolutely no guarantee that self improving for ANY amount of time will bring you any success. Liberalism will always say "oh you improved for 10 years and your situation hasn't improved? you just didn't work hard enough, get back in your box" It is fundamentally a way to keep feeding people lieas and selling them tall tales of "everyone can make it!" when that is DEMONSTRABLY not the case.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              this. practicing or learning english will not teach you english. most people here are just lucky to know how to type words. education has NEVER worked.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >education has NEVER worked.
                Funny you say that when education is one of the biggest cargo cults in the history of mankind.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Now show how much went to teachers, facilities, and equipment compared to "administrative fees"

                >Cato institute
                LoL yeah definitely no vested interest there keeping the plebs dumb. Conservative think tank arrives at conservative conclusion using weasel statistics, absolutely shocking.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Schools who have different results largely cook the books by having only smart kids take the tests or because they are pre-selective. IQ is a real thing. Conscientiousness is a real thing. We can test those traits and they predict future success better than anything.

                Education is a scam. It doesn't make kids smarter. At the very best it teaches them useful skills, but that could be done in a fraction of the time. It's mostly a waste of time and one of those things that both liberals and cuckservatives feel good about so they don't have to face the reality that success in life is not determined by what schools people went to but how naturally gifted they are.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >that huge increase in spending starting from 2000
                Frick bush man, fricking wienersucker. Clinton is supposed to be the Satan worshipper but as far as I'm concerned none of the spending problems started with him

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the problem is that we still let young boys into school. "education" is a meme, men shouldn't be allowed to learn anything since it's all just genetics for them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I see no evidence for what you claim at scale. I quote again from this recent paper (2023):

                >Sex ratio theory suggests why mating practices have become dysfunctional in the West and other regions. Spain, Japan, and over 20 other nations are on course to have their populations halved by 2100, dramatically aging their citizenry. Experts and opinion makers warn that a demographic collapse cannot be absorbed by our current social order; Elon Musk proclaims this to be "the biggest threat to human civilization." Statistics from the Nordic countries - the world's most gender-equal region - indicate that subjective perceptions of the sex ratio in modern environments drive singledom and low reproduction. Scandinavia has the world's highest occurrence of one-person households: 43 - 46%. In the past decade, the Norwegian fertility rate dropped from 2.0 to 1.5. Sex ratio studies suggest that women's perception of there being few acceptable partners activates a polygynous mindset, which in prosperous, monogamous societies drives promiscuity to the detriment of pair-bonding.

                Tiny religious minorities are not representative of mass society. White people are dying across the globe. It doesn't help the Germans, the French, the English, the Swedes, the Italians or Spaniards - or the Japanese and Koreans for that matter - that there will still be Amish people in hundred years, if a bunch of Indian men haven't decided to go on a raid and murder them and enslave their women.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                white people are garbage. nobody gives a shit if their numbers are declining. the problem is that people don't understand why only the best genetics survive.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Buddy, I have been researching and writing about Demographic Winter for 30 years.
                Its over. Demographic momentum was set in stone FIFTY YEARS AGO. This is the result of social forces that began in the early 19th Century and can only change over the next 80+ years.
                This

                https://i.imgur.com/Cvb56ee.jpg

                >subordination of women
                translation - you don't even KNOW any Mormons or Catholics.
                >no issue with reducing women to their natural place
                That isn't a "reduction" you Modernist Materialist mong
                >being home makers and mothers first rather than academics and employees
                As of 2023 per both the GSS and Census 35% of all married women with children 18 or younger at home are Stay At Home Mothers, a rate as high as 1972 when the Brady Bunch was still new.
                This increase from a low of 18% in 1999 is occurring in all income quintiles, meaning it is just as common in the poorest, the richest, and the middle-class.
                And per the last Pew Research study among unmarried men and women aged 18-24 that report being sexless for the last 12+ months 83% of them replied to a poll stating that they felt that 'sex outside of marriage is wrong' as the main reason they are sexless.
                Combine these things with the increase in age of men and women losing virginity as well as the decrease in lifetime sexual partners in the same timeframe I'd say two things:
                1) The age of promiscuity from the Sexual Revolution is dying with the Boomers and that many of the complaints of sexlessness among young men is the result of a decrease in female promiscuity and immorality, and
                2) the combination of the nascent Second Demographic Transition and Demographic Winter will nail these changes down for at least a century and the last 60 yers will be viewed with the horror they deserve.
                Shorter - I *am* a Trad and me and my people won the war back about 1980-1985.
                We are currently transitioning from the Sexual Revolution to the Second Age of Religion.
                I think a lot of young men are suffering because they cannot compete with the last, ebbing wave of the highly promiscuous *and* they are completely outside of the morality culture of the fertile Trads.
                Many of them, like Anti-Improover gay, are screaming about the death of the Sexual Revolution as a bad thing because the are Modernist Materialists

                is just how it will be.
                By the year 2100-2150 the total global human population will be about 800 million - 1.1 billion.
                The population will be 85%-97% religious.
                The norm from 2200 -2500 will be no sex before marriage, lifelong matrimony, 6 kids per family, and 99% devout religious belief, etc.
                I could discuss how this is a natural, healthy response to the mass die offs of the Napoleonic/World Wars and the resultant population surge to ensure primary genetics weren't lost combined with the multi-generational cultural psychosis of Modernism, but that's moot - those things are in the past, now.
                If you lack the things the dying cadre of prostitute value AND you are outside of the niche religious subcultures that will survive you're SOL

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Men will finally be trying to get married at the correct age of 18-22 instead of being ruined by porn. Im already teaching my son about the importance of family to prepare him for the new world. We probably only need 500 million to be honest.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm 21, Catholic, a virgin, never watch porn, and i would gladly get married right away to a nice virgin Catholic girl, but women nowadays would rather get fricked by strange men for 10 years until they become near infertile, ragged, and leathery.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The fact that you only surround yourself with leather prostituted instead of virgin girls tells me exactly what kind of fate you deserve

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I told you, the virgin girls aren't interested in getting married, going to church, or being wives. They scoff and laugh at that. Then you see them 10 years later coming through the church gates as used up prostitutes who are now all of a sudden "done with that life" and are "looking for a nice stable provider man". There are next to no young women in church these days.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The fact that you have no understanding of virgin women shows me exactly why people like you deserve to be alone or divorced and cheated on

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >actually, you deserve it
                Femoid detected

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >actually, degenerates deserve to have a degenerate outcome
                Yes. You are worse than prostitutes even.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody in the younger generation even uses dating apps. You are a loser, its not 2010 anymore

                >exactly 1 minute apart
                You're really starting to grasp at straws with your bait now.
                Go to church. Plenty of great guy there. Peace be with you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There was an anon earlier that avoids virgin women and I bet he is alone or unhappy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I told you, the virgin girls aren't interested in getting married, going to church, or being wives. They scoff and laugh at that. Then you see them 10 years later coming through the church gates as used up prostitutes who are now all of a sudden "done with that life" and are "looking for a nice stable provider man". There are next to no young women in church these days.

                the young virgin women I know lament that all the men just watch porn

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Tell them to go to church instead of looking for men in clubs and bars and on demonic dating apps.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody in the younger generation even uses dating apps. You are a loser, its not 2010 anymore

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >By the year 2100-2150 the total global human population will be about 800 million - 1.1 billion.
                >The population will be 85%-97% religious.
                I think you're falling into Ed Dutton trap of exclusively attributing religiosity to genetic factors while ignoring the cultural factors. You're not considering that polygyny - despite lengthy periods of monogamy - has never been strongly selected against, and by the point your religious minority becomes mass society and women are no longer subject to cultural pressure, they will resort to their polygynous instincts.

                I propose you look into the paper: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1062950

                Your 30 years old research is probably outdated by now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Men are cheaters by nature, they will just have sex with prostitutes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >this homosexual has a theory that open marriages is the future
                lol
                lmao, even
                >Your 30 years old research is probably outdated by now.
                Like I stopped researching ever.
                >by the point your religious minority becomes mass society and women are no longer subject to cultural pressure
                So you honestly think that when devout religiosity is the OVERHELMING NORM women will ignore it?
                Sterilize yourself for the good of mankind

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >this homosexual has a theory that open marriages is the future
                No, he thinks we are doomed and he says polygyny (i.e. Chads having multiple wives), might at least buy us some time until artificial wombs become a thing.

                >So you honestly think that when devout religiosity is the OVERHELMING NORM women will ignore it?
                We somehow got from being devoutly religious to where we are now.

                I can only repeat: you overrate a genetic predisposition for fertility and religiousness and you underestimate the cultural factors involved and the genetic residues of a polygynous past. Women are not innately moral. There is no such thing as a traditional woman or a traditional wife. There are only traditional societies. And at the moment the only traditional societies are sectarian communities which engulf entire families and are thus capable of exerting pressure on their women to enforce monogamy on them, which mass society can't. But this idea that mass society is going to die and you'll be only left with Amish people and Mormons is obviously a pipe dream. If anything you're going to see a permeation between the two, and through that, the sect will find itself liberalised, becoming mass society - since this is what women 'want'.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Catholicism is genetic
                The KHHV incel reveals why he should never breed

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Religion is genetic yes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You are totally moronic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Are you literally moronic? I made a point AGAINST overrating the genetic component.

                But there IS a genetic component involved, which is the basis for my disagreement with that guy, since he since seems a follower of Ed Dutton's ideas - who in my opinion overrates the genetic component for religiousness and underrates the genetic component for polygyny, which hasn't been selected against and which is only stifled by cultural factors.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Post papers and books regarding these subjects I can feed to my ebook apps and listen to

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I remember reading somewhere that the CIA was deeply behind the self-help industry in the beginning. The reason was that it placed one's failures on themselves and not to look at wider corporate or governmental policy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The entire concept of "self-help" is contradictory to human nature. Up until 30-40 years ago such a concept was not only absurd, but unnecessary, since people since time immemorial have relied on their close knit communities of neighbours, friends and family to help them through hard times. It's only, recently that suddenly (hmm i wonder why) that media and the government (and as a result, most of society) stopped going with the notion that people are social animals that rely on their tribes for most things, and started going the route of "you are alone, nobody is entitled to anything from anyone, do not burden anyone else with anything, solve everything yourself by paying money to people who pretend to fulfill roles that 50 years ago your community would, you are alone". It's mic heasier to treat people as consumers when you have destroyed most of their communities, third places, and sense of belonging. "well, i can't talk to my family now becuase they are all STUPID MAGATARDS/LIBTARDS, i guess i'll just go watch Netflix..." Demonic. You are turned into a product. We all are.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Up until 30-40 years ago such a concept was not only absurd, but unnecessary,
                The first popular self-help books were written by Cicero in the First Century BC and self-help books were so popular in the 12th - 15th Centuries they were one of the first genres of literature, called 'Conduir-Amor' and covered everything from manners to dress to how to get a wife.
                The most printed books of the 16th Century other than the bible were a series of Italian self-help books that were eventually translated into 15 other languages.
                Anything else you want to be stupidly wrong about, frickwit?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ah yes, those middle ages, known for their widespread literacy. And obviously there's a difference between a government actively pushing self-help to create mass self-guilt among the masses and a guy writing a self-help book. Turns out you can't just improooove your way out of a factory leaving and making your town destitute.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Ah yes, those middle ages, known for their widespread literacy.
                Yes, actually.
                Literacy in the local language was common enough that adventure novels, romance novels, etc. were quite, quite popular.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Don't speak in extremes
              I made fun of talking in extremes.
              >there is absolutely no guarantee that self improving for ANY amount of time will bring you any success
              Extreme language.
              And stupid.
              If you learn how to cook = you can now cook
              >B-b-b-but you'll never have a Michelin star
              not the point or the claim.
              If you learn to drive a car = you can now drive a car.
              If you go to the gym and work out = you are stronger and healthier.
              And so on.
              You keep making the mistake of SWITCHING FROM
              >if you self-improve you will improve
              to the category error of
              >BuT yOu CaN't GuArAnTeE fAmE aNd FoRtUnE!
              >oh you improved for 10 years and your situation hasn't improved?
              *WHAT* "situation"? If someone practiced the guitar for 10 years and still couldn't play the guitar - yeah, they did something wrong.
              If someone took cooking lessons for 10 years and still couldn't cook a simple meal, yeah THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG.
              >It is fundamentally a way to keep feeding people lieas and selling them tall tales of "everyone can make it!" when that is DEMONSTRABLY not the case.
              No one is talking about 'overall success in life with fame and fortune' but morons like you, who are selling the LDAR lie that 'this chart says you will never have children, so don't go to the gym'.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                See now you shift from the message expressed in your OP picture from "this guy got a girlfriend and is successful because he works out and self improves" to "uhh you should just be happy that you're improving for your own sake!" Some people want to have friends, a wife and family. If you tell them "go learn to play the theremin. no it won't help you with any of the goals you have in mind, but just go do it anyway" why would they? For what reason? This is coming from an avid self improver - i know very well that most of the things i got good at absolutely do not matter, and do not make my life better in any way. If the person finds no joy in drivinf a car and has no use for it, then there is avsolutely no reason for them to learn how to. Fundamental life skills and basic fitness, sure, but beyond that there is no reason to do anything you don't enjoy or doesn't firther your goals.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >See now you shift from the message expressed in your OP picture
                OP's picture is a satire of the spammed-five-times-a-day Anti-Improover gay image that claims if you didn't get laid by the age of 15 self-improvement is bad.
                And you know that.
                >Some people want to have friends, a wife and family
                Most do.
                Again - what was your last date with a woman like?
                Give details.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No woman has ever accepted to go out with me. They either refuse or tell me they have a boyfriend or "are not looking for a relationship right now".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                OK, when was the last time you asked a girl out? Details.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                2 months ago, a girl that goes to choir with me. We would chat a lot before and after practice, had a lot of common interests, watched the same movies, listened to similar music. I didn't hear her mention a boyfriend, so i asked if she wanted to meet at a cafe sometime that week. She said "sorry, i have a boyfriend". She talks to me much less since that happened.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >two months since he asked out a girl
                >"Why am I single?"
                lol
                lamo, even

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, i ask out people i feel an attraction to. Not randoms on the street. Because that's not how you start a healthy relationship. I repeat, i want a GIRLFRIEND, who will one day become my WIFE. I am not looking for HOOKUPS.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Pal, I have never, ever done a "hookup" in my life.
                But I have had several GFs and a wife.
                You sound like someone with zero or close to zero actual friends and a relatively distant ring of people you associate with.
                For example, you state
                >a girl that goes to choir with me. We would chat a lot before and after practice, had a lot of common interests, watched the same movies, listened to similar music. I didn't hear her mention a boyfriend
                That sounds like the idle chit-chat of people that are nowhere close to friends.
                FFS, I know the interests, movies, and music tastes of my mailman and the cashiers at the local grocery.
                When was the last time you got 2-3 male and 2-3 female friends over for dinner/out to an event?
                Never, right?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I have never had any friends because i was too busy during my school life, since i was "self improving" all the time. I was constantly in various competitions, i went to musc school, language classes, martial arts... 8 am to 8pm every day. And often would spend multiple days out of school for trips to competitions. None of that bore fruit when it comes to friends or relationships. In fact, the other kids got jealous that all the professors loved me so they usually bullied and ostracised me. I try to connect with people now at college, but they all have their little friend groups already, aren't interested in letting me into them, and mistly flake on me when i ask them if they wanna hang out outside of the hobbies i met them at. Really hard making friends my age nowadays. Not that i'd know what having a friend is like, on account of, y'know, never having one. At leas i can bench 120 kilo 5 times, yeah?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                "self improving" means social skills, moron. if you are spending less than 5 hours a day connecting with people and hanging out (face to face), you'll never improve your relationships

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >OP's pic is about high school athletes
                >"self improving" means social skills
                You normalgays will say anything

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Im not op, hes probably as dumb as you. Self improvement was never about bullshit hobbies, it was about improving your relationships with other people. You can do that through your hobbies and you can help do that by being more healthy and fit, but the absolute minimum for self improvement is to socialize more. You are a fricking moron to the extreme. You are the type of buffoon who gets hungry and instead of eating food, you try to learn about the history of agriculture

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Speaking of that, i had another major disappointment last week. I met a guy last semester in uni who went to almost all the same classes as me. I approached him (as i always do, nobody has ever approached me) since i saw he had a Led Zep shirt and hit it off with him. We hung out a lot at college, went to the cafeteria together, sat together, but he would always flake on me when i asked him out to a bar or something. Well last week i asked him if he wanted to go see the new Dune movie with me since it's out in theatres, he said "no i already made plans with my friends". I asked if they got a spot for one more and he said "i don't think they'd be comfortable with someone not from our group you know?" Well, i don't know, and that hurt. Fricking butthole. I guess i'm only considered a friend when i have to send him my lecture notes.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I totally isolated myself from other people
                >This makes me bitter that I did stuff
                Post a physique photo, LARPing homosexual

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't post pictures of myself online. And this is LULZ if you didn't realise, you get banned for that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I am actually a landwhale neckbeard with delusions
                FTFY

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ironic (and original)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is the right mindset to have. Self-improvement should be a purpose in-itself. It should not be the means to pacify disenfranchised young men, lying to them that their effort will turn their lives around. For some it will - after all, if you become more attractive, you might surmount the hurdle and find a girlfriend. But this is not a given. Both the people improving themselves and the people preaching improvement should be aware of the limitations and that it's ultimately not a solution which solves the problem at scale, since the hurdle is rising by the minute and more and more men are being left behind.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                not him what's then the end game of self improvement?
                Lets say your goal is to have a gf and family one day. you are born below average and talentless and you decide to self improve. you do it for certain amount of time and you fail to attract a girl. what's the point then?
                your analogy with cooking is dogshit btw.

                things like cooking, guitar, gym, etc. are things that ARE DEPENDENT ON YOU. Genetics play a role for sure but if you lets say go to the gym and eat right you will look better. BUT IT IS ONLY DEPENDENT ON YOU,

                The problem whit human relationships - be it friends or romantic ones is that it DEPENDS NOT ONLY ON YOU. you can't force someone to be attracted to you.

                This is what improooove morons get wrong. You can only improve in things that are dependent on you, and sadly one of the most important aspects of life - social relationships - are not dependent on you. You can't improove on things that rely on others.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >not him what's then the end game of self improvement?
                To learn/try new things, get better at tasks, get more/improved skills.
                >Lets say your goal is to have a gf and family one day.
                One of the most common desires of all humans. Maybe THE most common desire.
                >you are born below average
                Depending on how you define 'below average' that is 15% - 49% of everyone
                >and talentless
                Son, EVERYONE is born talentless.
                >you decide to self improve
                Everyone must do this.
                Everyone learns to walk, talk, wipe their own ass, and so on.
                >you do it for certain amount of time and you fail to attract a girl
                BOOM! You are switching.
                I don't learn to read and write to get a girl. I learn to read and write so I can read and write well.
                I don't learn to cook to get a wife, I learn to cook so I can properly feed myself, maybe entertain friends.
                >things like cooking, guitar, gym, etc. are things that ARE DEPENDENT ON YOU
                Obviously true. Never in contention.
                >you can't force someone to be attracted to you
                I have no idea why anyone would think that. It isn't even implied ITT as far as I can tell.
                >what improooove morons get wrong. You can only improve in things that are dependent on you
                That is all I have ever claimed. Control what you can control, get better at things for yourself.
                >sadly one of the most important aspects of life - social relationships - are not dependent on you
                Who said otherwise?
                Again, you are like this guy

                Don't speak in extremes - not only is it not guaranteed that you will become the top 1% of successful people (which nobody in this thread but you mentioned), but there is absolutely no guarantee that self improving for ANY amount of time will bring you any success. Liberalism will always say "oh you improved for 10 years and your situation hasn't improved? you just didn't work hard enough, get back in your box" It is fundamentally a way to keep feeding people lieas and selling them tall tales of "everyone can make it!" when that is DEMONSTRABLY not the case.

                Me
                >It is natural and good to improve yourself. More and improved skills; new knowledge; new experiences. These things are good for you and almost everyone just naturally does this.
                You and that guy
                >B-b-b-bu-bu-but what of I don't get laid?!
                This is about you improving you, FFS. That is the SELF in SELF-improvement.
                I am always baffled why anyone that isn't insane would think that fear of not getting a GF means you shouldn't make your own life better.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                but the GOAL of self improvement for some people is go get a gf; its not to learn how to cook or read or be better for urself or whatever

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Then your self improvement means to make your relationships with girls stronger.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the ability to control what's in your control is something that's outside of your control
                hence why so many prisoners had childhood brain damage, why frick ups keep dropping out of rehab because the very faculties that allow them to resist temptation are weakened by addiction, why depressed people know what's best for themselves and what they "should" be doing but don't for years and years

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Do you agree that its never a womans fault for rejecting certain types of men? Or cheating? She doesnt have control, right?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's never anybody's fault for anything

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I completely agree. The sooner people wake up and see how evil all men are, naturally of course, the better for us

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. ALL Women are angels from sky and they can never be bad. All robots deserve everything and queens are the best. End.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Only if those women have brain damage and no not all women have brain damage. Women don't have such convenient excuse for their behaviour

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks all men have severe brain damage
                Bet

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I replied to a post which replied to a post about how most prisoners are prisoners because of their brain damage and how mentally ill people can't just *improooov* their illness away

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every guy on earth believes he is mentally ill so yeah its over.
                Bet

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Normal Guy
              >I always wanted to know how to paint. Maybe I will take an art class"
              Anti-Improover Gag
              >NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Don't you know that 88% of all activities are genetic?! Didn't you read that in Norway women receive large amounts of welfare?! Why don't you know that more men are virgin?!/1 Learning to paint cannot guarantee you a high-paying job, a beautiful wife, and happy children! Nothing can! Millions of men are failures! DON'T YOU GET IT, THE WORLD SUCKS AND ALL MEN ARE DOOOOOOOOMED!
              Anon
              >Bro, I just think it would be neat to know how to paint, calm the frick down
              Anti-Improover gay
              >WHY ARE YOU LYING AND SAYING EVERYONE CAN MAKE IT?E REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not talking about things you like or are passionate about. I'm talking about things delusional perpetual self improvement peddlers talk about. It isn't
                >man just do things you enjoy and get better at them 🙂
                it's
                >BRO YOU NEED TO DO THIS AND THIS AND THAT AND THAT TOOOR ELSE YOU ARE A FRICKING WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT AND YOU DESERVE TO BE MISERABLE!! OH YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT BECOMING A WORLD CLASS PILATES PRACTITIONER AND DON'T ENJOY IT? YOU FRICKING INCEL THIS IS WHY YOU WILL DIE ALONE
                Do yo uhave some saviour complex and are delusional? Do you think people need to be pushed to do things they enjoy? Do you think someone who enjoys painting needs to be aggressively told by some stranger on the internet to "GO PAINT BRO"? Come on, you know what you are doing.
                Perpetual self improvement, i. e. self improvement for its own sake, is fricked up and makes people miserable and the mentality associated with it makes people think "i am inadequate if i don't master thisnenxt thing..."

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Do yo uhave some saviour complex and are delusional?
                Not at all
                >Do you think people need to be pushed to do things they enjoy
                Nope.
                > self improvement for its own sake, is fricked up and makes people miserable
                THAT is the bullshit that I am making this thread against.
                EVERYONE that is mentally healthy is CONSTANTLY self-improving.
                People are always trying new things, learning new things, getting new skills.
                This ENTIRE THREAD is a counter to the FUD LDAR psyop bullshit that self-improvement is bad.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                As a self improver myself, you are so hilariously delusional it's unreal. "everyone normal is constantly self improving"? Really? Come the frick on man. The entire reason i self improve is to makenothers feel like shit when they see how much better i am than them. 90% of people just sit on their ass, watch the tube, scroll on their phones, get old and fat, and then die. What universe are YOU living in? Oh and yes i am a khhv. I get relationship mogged by fat blobs with neckbeards. Relationships have nothing to do with self improving, it's almost completely luck based.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Relationships have nothing to do with self improving
                No one ever claimed that, yet still all the KHHV incels scream that it doesn't.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Really great that you ignored 95% of my post.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Are you gonna fricking cry, incel?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Really?
                Yes.
                Sure, they might just be learning more My Little Pony lore or memorizing more football stats, or maybe fishing at a new river, but still

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Next you'll say that eating McDonalds counts as self improving because it makes you feel good. Lmao. If THAT's what you think self improving is, then yes, i'm on the side of people who say that it's bad.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Everyone is self-improving != everyone is a top 1% winner.
            Exactly.

            People win because they have the underlying prerequisites to win. See the paper in

            Deliberate practice predicts 18% of the variance in performance between untrained athletes. Deliberate practice predicts 1% of the variance in performance between elite athletes (https://artscimedia.case.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/141/2016/09/14214856/Macnamara-Moreau-Hambrick-2016.pdf).

            Blank-Slate Liberalism is out of touch with nature. Telling an average guy he could become Chad by working out is the same as telling an average guy he could become Stacy by taking hormones. There is a material essence to being, we are not wills in the void who can manifest as whatever they please.

            I have no issue with people working hard and trying to become the best they can be - but the fact that men are driven to such extremes is a manifestation of the sexual marketplace having become competitive to a degree where a lot of men are left behind. And this is largely due to the standards of women having risen as the social status of women as risen in society. To pretend that the solution to this is the optimisation of the individual potential is simply out of touch with reality. Improve yourself as much as you will, but recognise that it's not going to save you, your children or your nation, since what actually matters is that the entire developed world is facing demographic collapse. And in order to address this issue it is not enough that a handful of Chads get laid and have children. The average man needs to get laid and have children. And the average man is not going to turn himself into an above average man without simply raising the average and being in the same spot as before.

            . Even among average athletes, the effort they put in their practice explains not even one fifth of the difference in performance.

            This is a measurable truth that ends the arguments of egalitarian, liberal cucks like yourself.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody's reading that shit, bro

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When one guy in 20 doesn't get laid it's his problem, when over half of all young guys don't it's clearly a societal issue.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        just ban porn and it will go back to 2%

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm a Catholic so i am completely with you on banning all online porn, but also hookup siteals, camsites, and dating apps. Young boys should go back to hiding playboy magazines in their treehouses. And girls should not be able to sift through hundreds of men a minute searching for literal 10/10 Chads. Both these things destabilize a healthy society.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >is the same as telling an average guy he could become Stacy by taking hormones
      that's what i see as self improvement

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yeah, but frick being an athlete though. life isn't about advancing in something one-dimensional like that, it's about BROADENING your capabilities and going from zero to baseline competence in as many useful or enjoyable things as possible. also discovering things you might excel at in surprising ways which might be worth investing more into.
      >Deliberate practice predicts 1% of the variance in performance between elite athletes
      yeah, partly because they ALL fricking do it so they don't fall behind, so there's not much difference for performance to vary against. or at least they did it at one point in their careers to get where they are. of course people vary in what they're good at but all skills require development, whether it's something competitive or something enriching or even something so basic that only autists can't do it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        An Actual Grown Man appears!
        Welcome

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, grown men excell at one maybe two things. You can be an ad amateur of Everything but that will never pay the bills

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >There is a material essence to being, we are not wills in the void who can manifest as whatever they please
      Chat GPT or not, this is the actual counter-argument to "just improve and everything will be fine".

      You absolutely should strive to be the best you that you can be, but there's a very evident upper limit to what that is. You didn't fail because you aren't a pro football player, you just couldn't be that. All the practice and dreams can't give you that no matter what you do (every high school football player had to practice hard just to be on the team, I'm not denying that).

      It's weird though, no one ever says, "Just be smarter." There's no version of this thread in which the image is a physicist hugging his lab assistant. No replies that say, "Put in the brain work and develop that cortex." Everyone intrinsically understands IQ is linked to genes but for some reason there's a myth that physique doesn't share that same limitation.

      Yes, doing your homework will make you better at doing homework. Just like tossing footballs for four hours makes you better at tossing footballs. There is still an upper limit to how good you will be at either thing that is completely restricted by biology.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you forgot the part where both of them grew up in a supportive environment and had every advantage handed to them

    they would have never lifted a finger if no one encouraged them to do so

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The MO of modern rhetoric is to treat every individual as a completely self formed atomised unit, instead of someone raised by his surroundings, so they can dehumanise and vilify you at the drop of a hat. Chad is Chad because he worked hard and is a good person and for no other reason. You are poor, ugly, and have never had any friends because you are a terrible lazy person and you deserve it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >so they can dehumanise and vilify you at the drop of a hat

        only if you're white and/or male

        non-whites, homosexuals, and women are allowed to be victims forever

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, but there are somethings you should spend less of your time self-improving on if your not genetically adapt to, otherwise your basically racing against Olympic athletes strapped to a wheelchair. Focus your time on something you know you'll be exceptionally good at, and realize your limits

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't read any of that shit but I bet I can can condense it into
    >be neurotypical

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's all just nonsense, that reply is basically
    >since everything went right in his life, he succeeded

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If your dad ever had sex, then you will easily succeed too. It's just statistics.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No it's not. Historically only like 30% of men reproduced.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This reminds me of Elliot's manifesto. Specifically the parts about him always being shorter and weaker than other kids, how despite playing basketball a lot as a kid he still got instantly mogged by the normal sized kids, how despite skateboarding a lot he could never land a kickflip and his friend who practiced less could, and of course the bullying.
    You can't learn your way around being physically deficient.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Society tell to Incels that they need to do inhuman self-improvement for the rest of their lifes if they want to get company from a random bawd that dont sounds like a good deal to me

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    and the fact that both of them have good genetic bases, look at how tall and big that guy is

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the average person is fat, stupid, lazy and ugly and even they dont wind up a virgin at 25. op is a moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What does 'not being a virgin' have to do with 'most people learn new things their entire life'?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this is LULZ and the meme this meme is based on is about 25 year old virgins

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ITT
    "It is natural to get better over time"
    "BUT STACY IS FRICKING CHAD!"

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nah it's more like entrainment
    This can either be for better or worse but the outcome is always alienation from the self

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sure but for people who are physically deficient and will never attain any level of competency near "normalcy" then what's exactly the point?
    It's like people who are naturally weaker, frail or have chronic issues just outgrow them. They cope and it negatively impacts their quality of life and limits capability.
    It's the same reason not everyone can be Napoleon or Alexander the great. What you're saying isn't the hopeful you think it is. It's like saying to the runt of a litter that they're the problem.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So they can't be competent or above at ANYTHING?
      Really?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There's an evopsych reason people hate weaklings and cripples, save for the exception that proves the rule (Hawkings, and he made it before becoming a cripple), cripples and weak c**ts tend to suck at non-physical tasks too.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I have never met a mathematician or engineer
          FTFY

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I did this and still post on IST. on the upside I can absolutely maul OP. ur a little b***h BTW lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good job!
      There is nothing that says posting of IST is bad.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No amount of self improvement will make me taller, yes I didn't read and no I am not going to.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hell yea frick these defeatists loser scum that ruined LULZ.

    AH FRICK HERE I GO IMPROOOOOVING AGAIN

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can be a self improver and a loser at the same time you know? I have been self improving all my life, am really good at a lot of things, have plenty of hobbies, but i'm still a loser with 0 friends and a khhv incel. Just because you self improve doesn't mean you're not a loser.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you can't achieve something if you didn't even know it was there to achieve in the first place
    that's why self-improovers are mocked so much, because all they have is the sudden urge to "improve" without knowing what to improve in or what it means to improve in something, so they partake in nonsense like nofap and mewing
    it's like when a troony starts dressing in a "feminine" way and the outcome is cringe inducing
    or when an autist decides to "self-improve" into being normal but it's always been an outsider looking in, missing the forest for the trees, so he makes a fool of himself because he doesn't have any idea what it means to do what he's trying to do
    we don't all have the same knowledge, experiences, motivations, and expectations to construct a life out of, it's easy to say
    >just do X Y Z
    as if people don't have one million other things to do on top of that

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >We all have to learn to walk, talk, run, feed ourselves
    nicely listing things babies do alone without considering what parents are supposed to do
    i don't get why /sig/gers post here, though. the threads are infinitely better than what's usually here but seriously what's going through your head
    >these people don't realize they can just gym, i'm sure
    nah, we're all miserable. look at the catalogue. do you seriously, sincerely think that people haven't thought "how do i get out of this?" and tried to? you must skim the catalogue and think "clearly they've tried nothing and they're out of ideas." nah, most here have at least googled the bare min things to do, tried therapy in some sense and all other manner of surface level shit you'd probably suggest if prompted with the sincere intent to improve because they know that the chance they live a meaningful life is at stake
    but anyway
    >you NEED to keep participating robots, if you keep going in this direction you'll be 40 and friendless compared to if you try, which will lead you to being 40, friendless, and with tons of embarrassing stories that make you wish you just met up with hookers and did cocaine

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >learn to walk
    babies have an innate steeping reflex
    >talk
    babies babble on their own based on what they hear, acquiring language is pretty much automatic and a normal 4 year old has a near complete knowledge of his native language's grammar without effort
    >feed ourselves
    rooting reflex, babies are wired to suck on a nipple when it touches their cheeks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Tell me how I know you are childless and a cuck

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the baby acquires many things automatically but without the support of his parents he will be permanently stunted, so it's innate ability and environmental influence. If certain milestones are missed there's no going back.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Bro just listen bro trust me bro!!
          Bad parenting doesnt exist actshually, parents are just wired to punish or neglect their evil kids. Its wires bro

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not self improvement t kids came that's fornication and dating that not christian doctrine anin what are you post ww1 france

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most if not all of the losers who post on /LULZ/ do not even want to hear their problems are soluble. They will complain complain complain and when someone suggests even the possibility of a solution they will suddenly argue in defense of the problems they are complaining about. Nobody comes here for positivity comradery or encouragement, they want to vent and whine and breathe smoke and shitpost for hours on end. If they're really broken it will be their entire identity. There's no meaningful discourse to have on the matter because you are arguing against people who do not want to be better. If you aspire to be a better version of yourself the most immediate and best step you can take is to distance yourself from other mentally ill lonely moronic losers like yourself and get off IST or the very least /LULZ/. Just about everybody here knows what their problems are and that they would be better off doing almost anything else with their time but don't want to suffer the discomfort of leaving their comfort zone and facing themselves. Normal people do not break down when things don't work out for them, just robots.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >knows what their problems are
      i don't enjoy doing things, what do?
      >leave comfort zone
      did and do, the experience is neutral at best and unpleasant at worst
      >leave this site
      i did for months while leaving comfort zone until realizing nothing changed and i would just watch yt and play vidya anyway, 4ch is no different

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >i don't enjoy doing things, what do?
        Most things are unenjoyable at first if you've spent most of your life as a freak at the bottom of the social ladder. If you've actually done something for more than a year and still don't see the value in or it 'feel' like you're making progress you probably have some kind of mental deficiency a professional needs to investigate i.e. anhedonia, depression, low T.
        >did and do, the experience is neutral at best and unpleasant at worst
        See above. Either you're giving your time to the wrong thing, not enough, or you have brain problems. Humans are and have been for hundreds of thousands of years uncomfortable being static, not dynamic.
        >i did for months
        Depends what you did with that time but probably not enough time to undo a lifetime of trauma made worse by hanging around other lonely morons.

        Would I be wrong if I assumed you have absolutely no long term goal besides a vague feeling you ought to try to make a change?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Would I be wrong if I assumed you have absolutely no long term goal besides a vague feeling you ought to try to make a change?
          now absolutely, but previously
          >was first year university student for engineering, intern at big corpo
          >despite the time invested and becoming pretty skilled and well studied the only thing keeping me going was these goals
          >decide to branch out to other activities
          >still indifferent and i'm just forcing myself to do these things
          >eventually stop trying new things
          >realize i also don't care about the path i'm on
          >drop out

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like you have no long term goals. Decide who you want to be in 4 12 and 20 years then start working on things what will make that happen. If you can pass uni and get a job you're clearly not moronic. You just sound bored and directionless. If you set sail without a destination then no wind will ever be favorable and the sea will do nothing but punish you.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              i've had them, searched for more, and i'm searching for more. i don't have the funds to justify trying a ton of random shit to see if i'm interested in continuing anymore. i'm going to continue searching for something i'm interested in having as a long term goal, but your advice is certainly what many here have tried

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but your advice is certainly what many here have tried
                I've had this conversation dozens of times and the responses are always the same. They either flat out admit they gave up, claim it doesn't work having never done it, or weasel around admitting they half assed somehow. I tell everyone to get to the gym for example, and they say it doesn't work they gave up after 6 weeks, or somehow don't know what a PR is or can't name a single exercise. Every time, for anything prescribed.

                But if you feel you know better, then carry on the way you've been carrying on then.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yup.
                Talk to any incel
                >There was this girl I never met except at X. I never talked to her about anything important. I asked her out she said she had a BF. This proves self-improvement is a scam.
                over and over and over and over

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Well yeah, if all the women you ever meet at any variable X spot always reject you, despite your self improvement, it does show that self improvement is not the solution to finding a woman.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Working out works. If you're tall enough. Otherwise you might reconsider.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Yea, das exactly rite. I mighta made a few mistakes in life, but who hasn't? I just had to recognize the error in my ways, and take that hard step of actually doing something. My face had nothing to do with it, the determining factor in me marrying a heiress to $1 Billion and traveling the world as a model was my hard work. God has a plan for you, just... put your blinders on like a race horse and get after it, you know what I'm sayin'?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *