Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill A logical look at relationships

Lame Dude

Lame Dude

Lamest dude that ever lamed.
★★★★
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Posts
1,834
Introduction
I regularly come across people on this forum still talking about "true friend" or "unconditional love". Even if I consider this common sense, it is clear that many people are not aware of what is really going on.

As animals, everything we do carries an incentive to profit. Be it energy, money or satisfaction, we always subconsciously have a profit motive, because survival demands it. If the reward energy of a hunted animal, is bigger than the investment energy of the hunt, that hunt isnt worth it. This investment/reward analysis is something even single cell organisms can do.
  • Even though we dont do it consciously, we apply this style of thinking to everything we do. It gets quite complicated when there are two sides to a story, but here, I will try to explain how this works with examples.
  • Value of what is exchanged differs from person to person. A bottle of water will have different value for a person who lives in a city vs a person who lives in a desert. It is exactly the same for abstracts. A hug carries much higher value for an incel than to a chad.
  • I have added numbers in parenthesis to demostrate how much something is worth to the person.
  • People always try to maximize their positives and minimize negatives in their life. (Incentive to profit)
  • Think of emotional connections as a piggybank. Mutual relationships fill it up, parasitic relationships drain it. But in the end, how much this emotional connection is worth, is up to the individual.
Examples
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Closing statements
There is no such thing as true friend. People stay together as long as their paths align, and they have a mutual relationship. If one of two loser friends, manage to ascend, he might start to see his old friend as an obstacle for his new life. Which will turn the relationship into a parasitic one in his eyes. Even though nothing has changed on the opposite side, emotional connection in the ascended person's view will diminish with time. And a break will happen.
Because of our profit incentive for survival, there is no such thing as "unconditional love". What we call love, is an emotional connection formed after a mutual relationship is established. Love at first sight, is a mutual relationship of wanting to fuck as a result of visual pleasure.
If we are speaking of parental love, even though you get bonuses like genetic ties, they still expect things from you, and those are the things they expect to get from the relationship. If the relationship goes into negatives, they will try to jettison the relationship.
______________________________________________________________________
Footnote
I have tried to keep it simple in my examples. Of course analysis can go much deeper, but I would like to think that this illustrates my point well enough, and no more is necessary.
 
hahah LOSER!!!111 u just can't get a grilfriend

XDDD
 
I am too low iq for this :feelstastyman: :feelstastyman: :feelstastyman:
 
Sigmund Freud Level IQ, Law of Equivalence Theory?
 
Sigmund Freud Level IQ, Law of Equivalence Theory?

I suppose you could say that, but this , lets call it "theory of benefits" is something I have came up with when I was a teen.
Learning about economics in university only strengthened my belief in this.

Although there might already be a theory about this which I am unaware of.
 
Last edited:
I need to take a time to read this
 
no shit.
animals who are strong enough to survive on their own don't live in packs.
the existence of society is based on an utilitaristic principle.
 
1927 Solvay conference IQ.

The work you put into this is appreciated, OP.

All human relationships truly can be broken down as a set of economic exchanges. Almost all of it is not numerically determinable (unquantifiable), but both parties make crude, subjective estimations wherein each side knows who's getting the better end of the deal in the relationship.

Even in professional settings where you can assign concrete numbers (salaries, business negotiations etc.), one side will tend have an objectively better deal. In this regard I don't think a game theoretically optimal relationship, where both parties continuously make optimal decisions, can generally exist. One side is usually going to end up with an advantage.
 
The work you put into this is appreciated, OP.
Even in professional settings where you can assign concrete numbers (salaries, business negotiations etc.), one side will tend have an objectively better deal. In this regard I don't think a game theoretically optimal relationship, where both parties continuously make optimal decisions, can generally exist. One side is usually going to end up with an advantage.

Thanks, means a lot coming from you.
True, Net value gained from a relationship can be different for both parties. As long as it is objectively mutual though, I dont really see a problem. By "objective", I mean, friendzone, drug addiction etc. might appear mutual for the person inside the relationship, even though it is not.
 
Thanks, means a lot coming from you.
True, Net value gained from a relationship can be different for both parties. As long as it is objectively mutual though, I dont really see a problem. By "objective", I mean, friendzone, drug addiction etc. might appear mutual for the person inside the relationship, even though it is not.

Sure, I get it. It's like the salesman who makes a big sale thinking the buyer is a sucker, while the buyer thinks he got a steal on the deal and outsmarted the salesman. Both sides think they came out ahead, but one side actually did.

If both parties are happy, then it's a positive sum outcome. The only real "problem," if you want to accept that there is one, is the math problem of determining who in fact "wins." I don't care about the specific numbers, but I do care about formulating a process whereby we can roughly determine a clear winner and loser in any relationship, or the equivalent of a tie.

Currently, can make correct guesses, based on what we know. Betabuxx relationships, for example, are a clear loser for the man and a landslide winner for the woman (could be debatable, if we factor in the evolutionary variable of getting to pass on your genes, assuming paternity tests). It gets more nuanced and complex when you have a relationship like that of one between a high status chad a high status stacy (like celebrity couples who start dating), or a social relationship between billionaires who aren't in competition with each other (different industries and/or markets).
 
Last edited:
Literal high IQ
 
What's the point of this post incel? You still can't get laid :soy:
 
op is very smart
 

Similar threads

Clownworldcell
Replies
4
Views
278
Kinkcel1
Kinkcel1
Balikesir
Replies
20
Views
203
ezio6
ezio6
late20scel
Replies
4
Views
153
late20scel
late20scel
JustanotherKanga
Replies
36
Views
489
illumizoldyck
illumizoldyck
Hoppipolla
Replies
10
Views
155
light
light

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top